![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
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
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
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
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)
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 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)
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)
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)