From: Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> Subject: M-I: Re: SV: M-TH: Little red flags... // Now Lenin & Imperialism Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 10:49:38 -0500 (CDT) The posts copied below are, on the whole, pretty inane, but they bring up a number of issues worth exploring, and I am forwarding them along with my responses to m-i because as I shift the exact topic I would also like to shift the domain for explorting the topic. M-Is 3-post limit gives some protection against the discussion taking off into the wild blue yonder ........................................................... Charles Brown, responding to Nancy and Boddhi: <<If I might butt in , I've been thinking about this point you are discussing: what do you do with Lenin's idea in Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, that now captial is exported to the neo-colonies, and the labor lieutenants of capiital are partially bought off with "booty" from super- exploitation of neo-colonies ? Is this the idea being criticized?>> Cox: First, a few preliminary observations: (1) Lenin's *Imperialism* was and remains the *starting* point for the study of imperialism and of labor politics in the 20th century (and probably the 21st). (2) The *starting point*, not the encyclopedic and last word of gospel truth on any topic. (3) Whether it is a matter of interpreting Lenin on the "Aristocracy of Labor" *or* the realities (now and then) that concept tries to summarize, no 3 line cyberbit is going to encompass the matter. (4) The phrase "what do you do with Lenin's idea" seems to invite more of a classroom discussion than a viewing of the world. Now, it is very possible that Lenin's principles on the "labor aristocracy" remain pretty valid while his particular contingent identification of the membership of that aristocracy is (a) not too relevant in 1998 and (b) not necessarily empirically accurate in 1916. "Labor lieutenants of capitalism" is a useful, even profound phrase, but it is better applied not to merely high-paid workers but to the bureaucracy in the labor movement and among the "political friends of labor" (e.g., those AFL-CIO bureaucrats in Illinois who supported in the Democratic primary a horse's ass who--if such a thing is possible--is to the "right" of Clinton even: for example, he opposes abortion rights). There is a debate in the current *Labor Notes* on whether prohibiting unions to spend dues money for political purposes is good or bad for labor. Considering the reactionary nature of *most* of the candidates AFL-CIO money supports, there is an argument to be made. CP cadre in the auto plants in WW2 played a role (at least objectively) as "labor lieutenants of capital" when they turned against the men and women in the plants to support "no strike" policies. And they paid for that themselves when red-baiting and the Taft Hartley "loyalty" pledge proved successful in driving reds from the Unions after the war. And it was the UAW bureaucracy, not auto-plant foremen, who were the "labor lieuteants of capital" in refusing (late 40s, early 50s?) to support the foremen's efforst to establish a union of foremen. And as far as political *potential* goes, perhaps the most promising strike of the 50s was the wildcat strike of GM skilled workers in the summer of 1955. (That strike postponed by about 8 days the summer job I had at Willow Run that summer.) They were striking (both nominally and really) against the failure of the UAW to get a decent contract for skilled workers that year. They were also (unofficially) striking against long hours. At the Willow Run plant the machine repairman had *one* day off between Jan. 1 and July 4 that year, Easter Sunday, and their regular work schedule was to vary week to week between 7 10-hour days and 7 7.5-hour days. They were *tired*, and needed the strike break to rest up and have some fun.) So neither skilled industrial workers nor even foremen necessarily belong to the "aristocracy of labor," but that aristocracy does exist, and James's response to Russ below is beside the point. Russ Pearson responding to Charles Brown: <<I asked James this question- ie on the labour aristoctats etc, here is his reply: <<<He [Lenin] never made that much of it. There was an arisotcracy of labour England at the end of the last century, who, by the monopoly over access to their trade could command special rates of wages, thereby participating in the super-profits of imperialism.>>> "[N]ever made much use of it" completely ignores the very reasons" Lenin had for writing the book. It is like saying that Marx and Engels in the *Manifesto* "never made much use" of the concept of surplus value. Lenin's response to WW2 was, at the most general level, eerily parallel to Henry James's response: "This, *this*, is what we were preparing for all those years." James (quoted by Russ) continues: <<<In this century they lost out to the emerging labour bureaucracy, who used their insitutional authority to win themselves power in the state, as the state sought to legitimise trade unions.>>> Russ>> James has utterly confused the issue, and even gotten his empirical facts wrong (for the U.S. certainly, probably for France and England). Samuel Gompers did not wait for the 20th century to put the AFL at the service of capital, and the Labor Bureaucracy that cooperated with Woodrow Wilson was well in place by the end of the 19th century. [An aside: Lew of course has endlessly told us that all this is *so* unimportant: all we have to do is label the unions anti-revolution and go sit in the corner memorizing the Transition Programme.] Leaving aside the particular motives of Russ an James, keeping the highways free for BMWs and Lincolns and the Oil flowing from the third world, we cannot throw out a useful term which names an extremely important political reality, with a few words on the pay scales of some British workers in the 1890s. I think the topic remains of great importance for further study. Carrol --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005