* A marxist might use it to mean workers in developed countries who
benefit from superprofits extracted from workers in poor
countries.
* An industrial unionist might use it to refer to craft unions,
since craft unions separate workers and destroy solidarity.
* Apparently, the term was initially coined by the anarchist
Bakunin, who criticized the idea that unionized workers are the
most radical; it refers to unions which organize higher-salary
workers and aren't interested in the lesser-income employees.
Particularly when organizing them would strengthen these unions.
So, Bob Fitch's interview (linked in Doug's blog article) was clearly about the second usage above, and no doubt the third too. (Not that it actually used the term "labor aristocracy".) http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/yates300306.html
Speaking of teachers' unions, I remember in grade school when my class went on strike. There was a particularly humiliating, degrading teacher, and we chanted that we refused to go to her class. Our "unionized" homeroom teacher broke up the strike, and explained that it would be unprofessional to say anything negative about her; that this wasn't the way to deal with our problem; and that we can't strike.
(That first teacher was only removed later, when some parents pulled their children out after she went one step too far.)
So if anyone's wondering why there was so little support for these unions: You don't give solidarity, you don't get solidarity.
All the best,
Tj
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:45 PM, ken hanly wrote:
>
>> You may not like that term but are these people not those chastised by you recently?
>
> Not the workers. The structure of unions and their fathead leaders.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk