some thoughts on globalism/imperialism & class

Lenin used the term "labor aristocracy" in reference to the highly skilled workers in the craft areas. (Although who knows EXACTLY what he meant. After all, we read an English translation of his, and others' works, and somehow think that those exact words capture the essence of the original thought.)

 

His point was that imperialism extracted such huge profits from other countries that it gave the bosses flexibility to give in more to some of the workers at home. Lenin's point was that it made it more difficult to win those workers to socialism. That is partly true. Surely, workers in the U.S., especially relatively highly paid workers in certain fields saw their standard of living rise during the 1950's and 1960's because the bosses made so much overseas. The fact that Chrysler, for example, made 27% profit from some of its overseas plants in the 1960's meant that it could "give in a little more" to Chrysler workers in Detroit for a while.

 

The problem is that liberals posing as Marxists have taken this (temporary) fact and wrongly concluded that those U.S. workers were supposedly "benefiting" from that exploitation overseas. In fact the U.S. workers were still being exploited, of course, (less oppressed than the direct victims of imperialism, but nevertheless exploited and oppressed in a million ways)----but the "benefiting" analysis opened the door to a kind of liberal, pro-capitalist analysis that POSES/PRETENDS to be the most revolutionary of all! It hides the reality of CLASS and makes it a struggle between NATIONS. You know: "Oppressed Nations and Oppressor Nations (also called "neo-colonies.") This "ON-ON" position seems to be very strong among many of the "anti-globalization" groups.

 

If you oppose that "ON-ON" analysis, you are accused of: 1)Not supporting the struggle of the overseas oppressed people against the imperialist invaders; 2) making excuses for those cases where workers in the imperialist country might give active support to the oppression of workers in other countries; and therefore, 3) you are just another "chauvinist" or racist supporting the imperialist power against the needs and wishes of its most oppressed victims.

 

(Incidentally, this same debate is almost EXACTLY paralleled in the debates over so-called "white skin privilege" or "white privilege" or "white supremacy", etc.)

 

 

These three accusations are bullshit, of course. It is true that there HAVE BEEN, and are, some liberals, social democrats, even some who call themselves "socialists" who have used a so-called "class" analysis to avoid the struggle against imperialism, even to the point of attacking immigrants, supporting racism, etc. But using a Marxist class analysis does not AUTOMATICALLY lead one into the camp of those who support imperialism, supposedly on behalf of the domestic working class.  Any revolutionary struggle must make its first priority struggle in those places where the world capitalist system is most vulnerable, with the focus being on fighting in solidarity with those who are the most oppressed. That also means struggling with workers and everyone else in the imperialist countries, to be willing to risk what supposed "benefits" they have on behalf of the overall struggle.

 

Any so-called "socialist" who ignores that and focuses on wage, etc. issues in the imperialist country (even at the expense of workers in other countries) is combining the rhetoric of "socialism" with the reality of "nationalism."  This also opens the door towards a slide towards "National Socialism" -- not socialist of course, but fascist.

 

But understanding that there is uneveness and that some workers are "less oppressed" than others (and may be more difficult to win to Marxism than others more oppressed, but not in all cases, by the way)--understanding this is not the same as asserting that those higher paid workers "benefit" from the system of capitalism and imperialism (and racism.)

 

Furthermore, and here's the interesting conclusion: the supposedly "more revolutionary" position that supports the "ON-ON" analysis and calls for the struggle to focus on: 1) giving political support to the leaders of every nationalist movement that is against U.S. nationalist imperialism; and 2) calling on workers in the imperialist country to somehow "give up their privilege" DOES NOT LEAD TO LIBERATION OF THE OPPRESSED. It essentially asserts that somehow, capitalism can be forced to stop being imperialist! In other words, "REFORM CAPITALISM". It is reformism. It can be a very militant type of reformism. It can involved millions and millions of people, dedicated, intelligent, courageous, unselfish, heroic---but it won't stop the exploitation and oppression.  For example, the magnificent struggle of the people of Vietnam that so shook U.S. capitalism and did tie its hands for a while, and now the working class of Vietnam (where 90% of the property is now in private hands) will have to go through ANOTHER militant struggle to be free of capitalist exploitation and oppression.

 

What is the appeal of the "ON-ON" analysis? 

 

For nationalists in the subordinate neo-colonies it builds a movement that will allow them to become the new bosses of their countries after the outside imperialist has been driven out. Of course, at "best" they become new local capitalists, and often, they ally with ANOTHER outside imperialists at the expense of the workers.

 

For activists in the imperialist countries, it can be a kind of "missionary-liberal guilt" thing, where they get to soothe their feelings of sadness and rage by declaring solidarity with the MOST VISIBLE (the leaders) of the struggle against the particular imperialism. But sending letters of support to Ho Chi Minh or the Sandinistas or Zapatistas does less good for the victims of imperialism than ORGANIZING REAL, MATERIAL STRUGGLES TO WEAKEN IMPERIALISM, including especially the political struggle to win the "hearts and minds" of the public to oppose imperialism, with the ultimate goal of defeating capitalism, the system that IS imperialism.  Again, the parallels with the "white privilege" argument are very telling. Instead of holding workshops on campuses berating white students because they have some racist ideas, it would be far more useful to organize active struggles against real forms of racist oppression and then, of course, make the political confrontation with white students over the question of whether they will support those struggles, rather than over whether they should feel bad about whether their parents were less oppressed than the parents of most black students and workers. (Probably true, but it leads to "guilt money" strategies, rather than liberation!) By the way, some of the campuses that are "leading the campaigns" against "racist harrassment speech" (and I agree that racist speech is a bad thing) are using those campaigns to divert attention away from the other crushing racist policies on campus, such as racist flunk-out policies or history courses that can neglect the achievements of black people because "black history" now has a "course of its own.")

 

There are many types of "reformism" that divert people away from building a revolutionary movement. And there are people who prattle about "revolution" of course, who refuse to immerse themselves in the day to day struggles of oppressed people. But joining in those struggles should open the door to being critical of the reformist aspects, rather than making uncritical support for the reform (and particularly the leaders) the whole purpose of the struggle.

 

The most difficult kind of reformism to criticize is the one where the actual lives of day to day people are at risk. It opens the door to someone saying: "How insensitive you are! All you care about is your theory. You have no care for the suffering of real people." That is false, of course, but it has a lot of appeal, especially to those who are driven by guilt, rather than actual, egalitarian solidarity.  How is that logic, ultimately, different from the logic of someone who wants to break a strike because their own family is suffering? Can't they say: "I support the cause, but that can come later. People are suffering now."  But if we don't start struggling for the "later" right now, we will never get to the "later" and in the end, THERE WILL BE MORE SUFFERING.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but this should be debated within the framework of how to end the suffering, rather than debated in a cheap, dishonest way that attempts to paint the revolutionaries as supposedly being "more concerned about their theory than about the well-being of real people."

 

The main way to win people beyond the reformism is for revolutionaries to immerse themselves in the struggles, reform struggles, and fight on behalf of the interests of the working class. It is in these struggles that the lessons will be learned. Failure to get actively involved in those struggles will give support to the argument that the revolutionaries ARE "insensitive" to "real people."

 

The "labor aristocracy" analysis can be helpful in an analogy sort of way to understand that there are sections that are more difficult to win over. Just as some of the people who make the "white privilege" argument do offer important insights into the ways that capitalism tries to buy off white working class people. But as general theories, they can devolve into reformism.

 

Capitalist ideology is strong, and there are plenty of low income workers also who abandon their class to become cops, and plenty of people born into low income families who abandon their class to become petty criminals who prey on the working class, and even plenty of stable, low income working class people who will support capitalism/imperialism/racism, though of course the higher income groups, on average, will be more conservative.  The danger of the "labor aristocracy" argument is the way that it leads into analyses that minimize the importance of class analysis. Class analysis is crucial NOT BECAUSE WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT HIGHER WAGES FOR WORKERS! Class analysis is cricual because only a change that changes the CLASS RELATIONSHIPS in society will end all the exploitation and oppression that crushes and drains the lives of so many millions of people month after month after year after year.

 

Alan Spector

 

=======================================================================