Max Sawicky wrote: > "Resistance to capitalism" or simply agitating for a bigger piece of the > pie?
The whole idea of the "labor aristocracy" involves an incomplete (partial) vision of the world. It's not that such a grouping can't exist. After all, didn't the oil-workers' union in Venezuela side with the oil owners against Chávez and benefit mightily as result (until Chávez won)? (The USAID has always encouraged such unionization in Latin America and likely elsewhere.) One part that's missing in the usual "labor aristocracy" story is the point of view of the workers themselves, as Max suggests. As a part of individuals' collective efforts to survive and even to prosper (to pay the bills, support the family, to get not just bread but also roses) there are different strategies, varying from the craft-union economism of the AFL to the broader, more inclusive, industrial unionism of the original CIO to the idea of "one big union" of the IWW to the idea of merging unionism with a labor party to... All of these strategies make sense to one degree or another (depending on the historical context, of course). The question is which one(s) are best from a leftist perspective and should be favored (and in what situations). The key is that an economistic (AFL) strategy involves an implicit or even an explicit alliance with the employer or the employers (e.g., the building trades bosses). Like most alliances, there are internal tensions (as building trades contractors complain about union rules and the like). But going down the road of economism often involves an alliance with the boss against "outsiders," e.g., ethnic minorities, women, and/or young people not related to union members. This can benefit the insiders (at least for a few years) at the same time that it divides the working class as a whole, helping to stabilize the system. As such, the effects are very much the same as in the idea of the labor aristocracy. To use old Marxist lingo, one might say that such craft unions (if successful) are "objectively" members of the labor aristocracy. In the long run, such a economistic strategy doesn't pay (except as a survival strategy for a small number of workers) as the employers still control the technology and the money. Broader-minded strategies are less divisive and are more likely to succeed in the long run. (I should mention that the building trades are a lot like the world that Adam Smith looked at in 1776. The division between the "workers" and the "masters" is much more fluid than in (say) manufacturing. An employee in one situation can be a contractor in another. That's one of the reasons why the craft union strategy has persisted. (Also, it's not just craft unions that can be economistic. If I remember correctly, even at the high point of the UAW, Black workers were assigned the worst and worst-paid jobs.) -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
