Talk:Labor aristocracy

Aristocracies

I think the article should mention that the expression "Labor aristocracy" contrasts the other commonly defined aristocracies (of birth, of wealth, of knowledge, of virtue etc.). What do you think? -- Mathieugp 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article accurately reflects Lenin's views. He didn't believe the entire working class in the advanced countries had been bought off, but only its better-paid layers. He called for the creation of a new workers' International - the Third International - to organize the still militant majority of the working class and advocated an alliance between the new International and nationalist parties and movements in colonial semi-colonial countries. He did not think that, in general, revolutions in the colonial countries would be socialist in character or even led by the working class, but nevertheless said that communists in the advanced countries were duty bound to support them and oppose their own governments. He believed the key revolutionary force in the colonial and semi-colonial countries would be the peasantry, especially its poorer and landless sections.

terrible article

this article is almost totally worthless. the term is quite widely utilized in political economy texts and you wouldn't know that from what's written here.jackbrown

As an outline of the Marxist useage, however, its pretty good. Feel free to add to it! --Duncan 06:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is quite United States centered, too, don't you think? 80.221.32.124 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Labour aristocracy does exist, but it would be a mistake for Communists to overestimate its strength. The truth is that with neoliberalism and the overall decline in the market share of US capital, this labour aristocracy finds itslef increasingly under siege. This means that workers in the West will become increasingly revolutionary RaduFlorian 09:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of craft-based business unionism

Can someone rewrite the section Criticism of craft-based business unionism? I have the feeling is this section sounded like an appreciation for the IWW than anything encyclopedic.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not even sure why that section is in this article. First, it doesn't mention labor artistocracy at all. Second, it's not a theoretical critique of craft-based unionism, it's about the AFL and the IWW and their views of the issue. Third, the section is mostly about business unionism rather than craft unionism. Fourth, the section is incredibly time-bound, as the section reflects viewpoints more than 100 years old. For example, most AFL-CIO unions haven't defended craft unionism for more than 50 years, and most AFL-CIO unions are now industrial rather than craft-based. And while the IWW's arguments were important while it was a vibrant, growing union in the 1910s, the organization (one cannot say "union") ceased to exist for the most part after 1917. Whatever the arguments and their validity, this section gives undue weight to the IWW's views today. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While i accept that the article would benefit from judicious editing for balance, some of the above assertions are either red herrings, or simply untrue. For example,

...most AFL-CIO unions haven't defended craft unionism for more than 50 years, and most AFL-CIO unions are now industrial rather than craft-based...

There are some industrial unions in the AFL-CIO. However, most AFL-CIO unions by far are craft unions:

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/unions/

The current writers' strike is a craft union strike, and other craft unions have been obliged to cross the writers' picket lines. Unions such as the United Mine Workers, formed as an industrial union, are the exception. Some unions such as the IBEW (which was my union for 33 years) organize the electrician's craft. They also organized a few factories in the 'seventies, but these were a secondary class of members. Nearly all of those members have been lost as factories have closed. A few mainstream unions such as the CTW's Teamsters have resolved to organize many different trades. That doesn't make them an industrial union. Does the airline pilots union (ALPA) admit non-pilots? Does the police association (IUPA) admit the janitors who clean police stations?

Why haven't the AFL-CIO unions defended craft unionism in the past fifty years? Because for the most part the AFL-CIO hasn't been challenged on their craft unionism in the past fifty years. But notice also, for the past fifty years that the AFL-CIO has been the dominant federation, union membership in the U.S. has dropped from one in three members to approximately one in ten. Perhaps that's one reason such criticism is being raised now.

The claim that the IWW is not a union is specious. The IWW may be small, but it is organizing in far more countries than is the AFL-CIO — including local branches in the British Isles, Australia, Canada, mainland Europe, and the U.S.

http://www.iww.org/en/branches

The expression "labor aristocracy" is historical, and the section in question relates the history of its use. If all history on Wikipedia had to clear the hurdle of current relevance, then we would have to delete tens of thousands of articles. Again, it seems that advocating the elimination of this history (rather than improving it) is an example of anti-IWW bias. Such bias against the IWW exists today, as it did a century ago. It may be simple prejudice from those who conceive of unions as organizations of skilled workers, as against the unskilled workers organized by the IWW. One of the most typical manifestations of such prejudice is falsely declaring that the IWW is not a union.

Please understand, i'm not voicing dissatisfaction with the expression of these points of view, i'm just acknowledging the reality. The dismissal of the IWW as a union confirms one of the main points that i'm making.

But the IWW is not alone in its view about "labor aristocracy". In fact, the usage of the term "labor aristocracy" to describe current mainstream union leadership (specifically, "the likes of people such as Andy Stern") is evident from members of mainstream unions; for example, from an article by this rank and file member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters:

http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1186

While that article isn't specifically endorsed by the IWW, it does appear on the IWW website, suggesting some convergence of views:

http://www.iww.org/cs/node/1293

The section of the labor aristocracy article in question demonstrates that the IWW has long held a (well-documented) point of view about what they viewed as the "labor aristocracy" of the AFL. And contrary to Tim's assertion above, the term was used in the article. I've now added a second, sourced reference (creating the need for an additional edit now, to remove redundancy) to confirm the record.

Deletion of the section is totally unwarranted. I ask that we not banish the account of such rivalries from the historical record. With retention, we acknowledge the historical rift between IWW advocates and AFL(-CIO) advocates that obviously still exists.

The Wikipedia process suggests that we work together to improve the article. It needs improvement. But as much as i respect the great work that Tim has accomplished on Wikipedia, this is not the first time he's advocated deletion of articles or information that i consider to have merit. In every case that i recall, the information has been retained. Richard Myers (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have retitled this section to 'Criticism of craft-based business unionism' since we may now dealing with simple issues of balance rather than POV. I don't understand Richard's point about Tim's suggestions for past deletions. Each edit needs to be judged on its own basis, and not o the basis of previous edits, if we are to assume good faith. With footnote 6, the section is clearly established as relevant. However, the balance is quite lost now, and that section overwhelms the article. Can we edit it down? --Duncan (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to make a persuasive argument against deletion, and perhaps focused on an issue that wasn't really relevant. I have agreed that the section can be improved, and i would welcome judicious editing. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Labor aristocracy refers to the upper eschelons of the petty-bourgeois employees. It's not specific to trade or craft unionism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.133 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

origins of the term

According to a recently published article by the Monthly Review (Lenin and the “Aristocracy of Labor” byEric Hobsbawm)

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/12/01/lenin-and-the-aristocracy-of-labor

"The term itself is almost certainly derived from a passage by Engels written in 1885 and reprinted in the introduction to the 1892 edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 which speaks of the great English trade unions as forming “an aristocracy among the working class.”

The actual phrase may be attributable to Engels, but the concept was familiar in English politico-social debate, particularly in the 1880s. It was generally accepted that the working class in Britain at this period contained a favored stratum—a minority but a numerically large one—which was most usually identified with the “artisans” (i.e., the skilled employed crafts—men and workers) and more especially with those organized in trade unions or other working-class organizations. This is the sense in which foreign observers also used the term, e.g., Schulze-Gaevernitz, whom Lenin quotes with approval on this point in the celebrated eighth chapter of Imperialism. This conventional identification was not entirely valid, but, like the general use of the concept of an upper working-class stratum, reflected an evident social reality. Neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin “invented” a labor aristocracy. It existed only too visibly in Britain of the second half of the nineteenth century. Moreover, if it existed anywhere else, it was clearly much less visible or significant. Lenin assumed that, until the period of imperialism, it existed nowhere else." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The lede section states that the term labor aristocracy "has at least four meanings". Since they all refer to some type of well-off worker, I think it would make sense to convert this into a broad-concept article as well as create some number of more specific articles on each of the term's meanings. I believe this also makes sense given the amount that is already written about 2 (3?) of the meanings and could be written about the rest of the meanings in the future. If others agree with this or a similar proposal, I plan to make a post at Wikipedia:Proposed article splits. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I generally don't see that there's enough sourcing to warrant four different articles. I'm somewhat dubious about all the categorisations; that the IWW and Leninists used the term (somewhat) differently doesn't per se mean that different articles are necessary. FWIW, I would focus on improving the article as it currently stands and really see if the sourcing actually necessitates further articles. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I might dedicate time as some point to working on it and then follow-up. Thanks for the response and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)