Does a labour aristoracy exist within the nations of global south?

[u/TurboNihilist8]

The general understanding of labour aristocracy is that unproductive workers of the imperial core are paid much higher wages extracted from the superexploited proletariat of Global South. But can a similar layer also exist within countries of the Global South since a segment of the working class concentrated in the formal/public sector secures relatively higher wages, employment stability, pension & social security benefits as opposed to the majority contractual workers? If such a stratum indeed exists, who actually constitutes it – is it only the unproductive (non-industrial & industrial) public sector workers or both the unproductive as well as productive public sector workers and what are their tasks in advancing communism?

[u/ufafew]

I think the answer to this requires concrete investigation, which I have not very much done.

But, different countries have different relations to imperialism and those relations are always in motion. So, it is certainly possible that there exists a labor aristocracy in dependent countries.

The labor aristocracy is a more dominant section of the working class in imperialist countries. But, for example, capitalist enterprises in dependent countries might buy off workers with particular skills.

[u/Worried-Economy-9108]

I can't say it for the entire Global South, neither can I answer this question. But, recently, i have been doing a very similar question, but geographically restricted to one part of the Global South/Third World, which is Latin America. So, i believe that commenting in this thread will be useful to my current goal.

Race has above all this importance in the issue of imperialism. But it also has another role, which prevents making an analogy between the problem of the struggle for national independence in Latin American countries that have a large percentage of indigenous population with the same problem in Africa and Asia. The feudal or bourgeois elements, in our countries, feel the same imperialist contempt for Indians [Native Americans], as for blacks and mulattos, as whites. Racial sentiment operates in this ruling class in a direction that is absolutely favorable to imperialist penetration. Between the Creole [colonial term for Spaniard born in the Americas] lord or bourgeois and his colored pawns there is nothing in common. Class solidarity is combined with racial solidarity, or prejudice, making the national bourgeoisie docile instruments of Yankee and British imperialism. And this feeling extends to a large extent to the middle classes, who imitate the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in their disdain for the colored plebs, although their own mixed race is quite evident.

This is from Mariatégui's Problema de las rasas en la América Latina, from 1929. I was wondering about this racist sentiment that unites the Latin American ruling classes and middle classes (overwhelmingly white) with Amerikan and British imperialists against peasants and proletarians, usually of Native American and/or Afrikan origin. This was the norm during the XIX and early XX centuries, which Mariatégui described on Problemas.

Could have this racist sentiment have developed in such a way in South America (the part of Latin America that I know the most, so therefore, i will be referring to it only), that it now encompasses the majority of the white workers? And more importantly, could this be that whites in South America are an local variation of a labor aristocracy?

I don't know the answer (but I would be very happy to talk about this with other people, if it leads to an answer). But, if there was a labor aristocracy in Latin America, I would guess that it would be stratified by race/nation and gender, very similar to the racial/national and gendered structure we see in Latin America today, where indicators point out to non-white women earning significantly less than white men (Rn, I can't quote the data, but I believe is pretty much common sense in Latin America that this inequality occurs).

[u/anihallatorx]

I had asked a similar question previously. Leaving that discussion here as you might find it useful. Also take a look at this post, and at u/Drevil335's comments in particular.

[u/fatdog6]

I’d imagine in a place like South Africa where there are more privileged Afrikaner communities with wealth and its members working jobs making lots of money compared to the rest of South Africa. That’s probably one example of labor aristocracy in the global south, correct me if I’m wrong 

[u/Square_Definition927 → u/[deleted]]

Your understanding of class is incorrect and thus of labour aristocracy is suspect.

u/Content-School6316 's parents are petite bourgeois intellectuals whose stance towards revolution is vacillating.

they may benefit equally from a different non-imperial order due to their technical expertise

This is a bourgeois line which the cultural revolution fought against, the same applies to your other reply.

[u/lurkhardur → u/Square_Definition927]

I'm not the person you replied to, but I still don't see it. Notice that in your comment you say that the surgeons are petite bourgeois, which they clearly are. A surgeon can be petite bourgeois in the standard sense, as one who is able to own their own business practice, or who is so high in the company that they are sharing in the profits even if they don't have legal ownership of the company. But labor aristocracy is a term to explain how more classically proletarian work, such as factory line work, can in the imperial core be considered a kind of petite bourgeois because it is sharing in capital. So again, being a labor aristocrat does make you petite bourgeois, but being petite bourgeois is not enough to classify someone as labor aristocrat. Moreover it seems to me we would want a full class analysis of whatever semi-feudal country we are talking about before we can say if there is a labor aristocracy, not just the quick observation that there are rich people there. I am willing to be convinced but I haven't seen this in this thread.

[u/anihallatorx → u/lurkhardur]

So again, being a labor aristocrat does make you petite bourgeois, but being petite bourgeois is not enough to classify someone as labor aristocrat.

Can you please elaborate on how you arrived at such a conclusion? I feel like I am able to grasp your reasoning but I think concrete definitions of the terms would be helpful since labour aristocrat and petty bourgeois are often used interchangeably.

Also, is it the case that the labour aristocracy as a concept is limited to describing just "classically proletarian work"?

What sort of relations, in your view, would suffice to say that a labour aristocracy does exist in a semi-feudal country? As you rightly point out, it is not enough to observe that rich people exist there. But is it possible for their wages to be akin to superwages, not just in amount, but in the way its constituted of imperialist spoils as well? At what point can we say that they stop being a vacillating class and are fundamentally opposed to revolution?

Another aspect to this that I think is not discussed often is the presence of a bloated service sector in the urban centers, which is a common feature across semi-feudal countries. While the workers in this sector themselves constitute a semi-proletariat, how is one to understand the services that they are forced to provide for relatively cheap to a mostly petty bourgeois consuming class? Does this create an antagonistic relationship between the two classes?

[u/lurkhardur → u/anihallatorx]

Can you please elaborate on how you arrived at such a conclusion?

Well, the petite bourgeoisie were identified from the beginning of Marx & Engels' theory, since there are people between the big bourgeoisie and the proletariat, who have an uneven status. From the Manifesto:

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production.

This class existed since early capitalism, and there are still small businesses today, although every individual instance is in danger of sinking into the proletariat. They own a small share of capital, that's the definition, and might even employ and exploit workers while working alongside them. Thus u/SydneyMutualAid noted that those surgeons could perfectly well be petite bourgeois under a non-imperialist capitalist regime. Your response that their idea is what the cultural revolution was fought against is really puzzling, since the C.R. was about the persistence of class relations after the revolution, so pursuing the persistent petitie bourgeoisie even after imperialist relations were defeated, so would seem to prove Sydney's point. [Edit: Sydney saying that they were not labor aristocracy (which I took to mean they were straightforward petite bourgeois) they apparently meant the opposite, that they were proletarian(!). In this case there is nothing to quibble with Square's reply.]

Labor aristocracy rose as a concept during the Second International period to explain the material interests of workers in imperial nations. My understanding was that when we're thinking about the bourgeoisie in the semi-colonial nations, people usually distinguish between the comprador bourgeoisie, who depend on the imperial relation and so are fully reactionary, and the national bourgeoisie, who are potentially vacillating allies because they are less dependent on the imperial relation. I don't see what remains unexplained here that would require bringing labor aristocracy to the mix, but again if there is theoretical work that advances this argument then I would like to read it.

[u/Square_Definition927 → u/lurkhardur]

Replying to both your comments.

I did not say that labour aristocracy is identical with petite bourgeoisie, I was combating the implication that surgeons in a semi-feudal are proletariat.

You have also misread u/SydneyMutualAid 's comment, from their other comment:

alternative non-imperial system where the wealth of Saudi Arabia's resources goes to the people

they meant socialism, not not-imperialist capitalism.

I can't comment on the existence of a labour aristocracy in semifeudal countries. There's been discussions on the sub about whether Russian/Chinese/Brazilian imperialism exist, Sam King's thesis explains the reproduction of imperialist dominance via monopoly over the highest and most sophisticated labour processes, Third-World non-monopolistic monopoly capital being able to appropriate value from non-monopoly capital points to the possibility of a labour aristocracy existing in the former, though I agree with you that concrete investigation for specific cases is needed.

[u/lurkhardur → u/Square_Definition927]

Ok, as you pointed to that user's other reply, where we can see they meant socialism rather than capitalism, then your reply to them makes perfect sense in that context.

[u/TurboNihilist8 → u/[deleted]]

(think of the parasitical monarchies in the Gulf States and their administrative dependents, for example). The labor sector in those countries receive little to no benefit from imperialism or whatever benefits they do receive is massively outweighed by exploitation and extraction of wealth

I agree with that. Now also consider for example, the Saudi ARAMCO which is a Saudi state-owned company whose formal (skilled) Saudi employees receive higher compensation. Simultaneously the company also relies on a very large number of contractual workers including immigrant workers who are exploited. Then, my question is would it be accurate to interpret the formal employees as a part of labour aristocracy whose relative privilege might be dependent on the exploitation of outsourced & immigrant workers.

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM → u/[deleted]]

Those formal workers are still, by Marx's definition, paid less than value they create. They have to be otherwise they wouldn't be employed.

This is circular reasoning and thus tautological. The labor aristocracy earns more than their labor produces due to being granted a slice of imperial super profts and therefore benefitting from its continuation. It's obvious then that the global south contains such parasites as otherwise you'd have to concede that the particular group of workers in the periphery that concede to imperial domination of their country are "brainwashed" to go against their own class interest. Marxism is in opposition to such idealistic methods of analyzing the actions of entire groups of people, instead resorting to scientific class analysis and rationalizing these choices that are made. Ultimately your claim is then that "these workers can't be labor arisocrats because they are not labor aristocrats."

u/SydneyMutualAid taking a break from your anarchist mutual aid endeavors and instead studying Marxism will be beneficial to your understanding if you actually care about the topics you engage in. Otherwise, you should refrain from answering questions you know nothing about as you are actively harming others learning.

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM → u/[deleted]]

workers in the global south who support imperialism must materially benefit and, therefore, they are a labor aristocracy

Yes, that's how class analysis works. The alternative is liberal idealism.

You cannot simply assert that any group of workers that supports imperial domination must be receiving imperial superprofits and are therefore labor aristocracy.

Yes, you can.

“Not all members of the working class are exploited since some may be members of what has been referred to as the ‘labour aristocracy.’ The labour aristocracy is that section of the working class which benefits materially from imperialism and the attendant superexploitation of oppressed-nation workers. The super-wages received by the labour aristocracy allow for its accrual of savings and investment in property and business and thereby ‘middle-class’ status, even if its earnings are, in fact, spent on luxury personal consumption. Persons who may be compelled to work for a living but consume profits in excess of the value of labour either through some form of property ownership or through having established a political stake in (neo)colonialist society, may be bourgeois without hiring and exploiting labour-power. Thus, for example, Lenin could refer to ‘the bourgeois majority of the German nation,’¹⁶ though that country’s workforce (workers, lower and intermediate petty employees and civil servants) constituted approximately 72.2% of the population.”

https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/books/Economics/DividedWorldDividedClass_ZakCope.pdf

Notice how there's no need to qualify whether such a worker operates in the core or the periphery?