Michael and Jim Heartfield note rightly that Lenin used "aristocracy of labor" to refer only to a *section* of the working class in the imperialist countries. Some later writers, conversely, have argued that the whole of the working class in these countries constitutes an aristocracy of labor.
I think the present discussion is replicating this distinction. Mat Forstater writes "Where you say some white workers benefit from discrimination absolutely in US, but they don't 'as a whole,' I say they do, generally, on average, benefit as a group, but that doesn't mean every individual white worker does."
He continues: "You say that white workers in the external labor market are hurt by discrimination, but what I understand you to be saying is that some white workers end up in a secondary sector?"
No, not really. I interpreted your earlier point about "white workers organizing on the basis of ethnic solidarity [, which] increases their bargaining power" to be a reference to racially exclusive craft unions in hiring hall situations. (Again, I was guessing.) In that case, it is clear to me *how* the white workers can benefit absolutely from discrimination -- they shield themselves off from competition. As Jim put it, "The labour aristocrats derived their special privileges from the control over access to their trade, and so could command a price for their skills way above ordinary wages. Often they hired workers to do menial parts of the job." (The same thing is true in the building trades in the U.S.)
But the vast majority of jobs, even those in the so-called primary sector, are not like that. For instance, workers in unionized auto used to have the classic "lower-tier primary" jobs. They didn't generally have special skills, they didn't bring the skills to the job, they didn't control the technology, and they didn't control hiring (especially in the sense of being able to restrict labor supply). So it is unclear to me *how* white workers in the more general cases are supposed to benefit absolutely from discrimination.
I'm also still wondering about evidence, which is really two issues. First, what kind of evidence is relevant? You seemed to suggest that macro-level evidence wasn't relevant, but micro-level evidence is. But if it is true that "white workers benefit from discrimination absolutely in US ... generally, on average, ... as a group," then don't we need to consider macro-level evidence? Moreover, it isn't clear to me how micro-level evidence can distinguish between relative and absolute benefits from discrimination, e.g., when Blacks are last hired and first fired.
Second, if macro-level evidence *is* relevant, it would seem to me that the thesis that white workers benefit absolutely at the expense of Blacks would imply that movements in their wages, incomes, employment rates, etc. would be negatively correlated. Instead, as I noted, the correlations are positive, and very strong. Of course, correlations do not leave "other variables" constant, but it isn't clear to me what the other variables would be.
Mat also writes: "Your conclusion I didn't think followed from the absolute/relative point so much as from a combination of the A-B-C argument you made, and the one about the pie not being fixed in size, and the perceived vs. actual interests distinction (each argument which really deserves more discussion). So I thought I could disagree on the absolute/relative and agree with the conclusion."
Right, but the "variable pie" argument is a crucial link, and I think that the distinction between absolute and relative gains is dependent upon it. Take employment. If there are a fixed number of jobs to go around, then any time a white worker gets a job instead of a Black, that's an absolute gain for whites. But if the number of jobs is variable, then a "divide and conquer" case can be made here. I.e., it could actually be more beneficial for white and Black workers to fight together to end discrimination AND for more jobs, a shorter week, etc. The same is true for wages, and so forth.
Mat: I'll sum up and shut up.
Please don't. We may be getting somewhere.
Mat: "these modes of oppression and domination [racism, patriarchy] should not be expected to simply disappear on their own. ... we have to study, e.g., racism and sexism in the labor movement, racism, classism, and eurocentrism in the Women's movement, sexism in Nationalist movements, etc. Racism and patriarchy are not reducible to class, ... So when you promote the AFL-CIO as the vehicle for their liberation be prepared to answer a few questions. ... And are we going to dismiss as "divisive" Black female student activists ... when they raise issues of race privilege and racism in a discussion of the gender studies curriculum on campus? There's a problem with insisting on one kind of oppression being the most fundamental or the most important. People who are victims of one type of exploitation or oppression may benefit from another kind. We have to be against all kinds."
I realize this wasn't directed at me personally but, due to the crucial nature of the issues, I want to make clear that I agree 100% with what Mat writes here. I have ZERO tolerance for subordinating Black liberation, women's liberation, or anything else to some abstract "class" struggle. I have ZERO tolerance for attempts to negate their specificity by reducing them to -- even by "making then part of" -- "the" class struggle. And the labor bureaucracy is certainly no vehicle for anyone's liberation.
Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Home: Dept. of Social Sciences 60 W. 76th St., #4E Pace University New York, NY 10023 Pleasantville, NY 10570 (914) 773-3951 Andrew_Kliman at msn.com
"... the *practice* of philosophy is itself *theoretical.* It is the *critique* that measures the individual existence by the essence, the particular reality by the Idea." -- K.M.