Re: Labour aristocracy

From: dashyaf@EASYNET.CO.UK
Date: Wed Jan 07 2004 - 07:04:37 EST

Simon and Gerry,

Thanks for your points - most I believe others have dealt with and there is
no point in repeating them. Concrete empirical evidence is important,
although interpretation of the results clearly reflects the theoretical
standpoint of those reporting the results. I have not examined the US in
any great detail but find Simon's argument re the relative size of
productive and unproductive labour very difficult to believe. Korton's
argument, I believe, applied to the US economy.

The point is that I have done my work on Britain and I am using British
developments to develop an adequate theory of the labour aristocracy. I do
explain the material basis of opportunism in that context - one that
diverse political leaders such as Churchill and Bevin had no difficulty in
understanding and acting on. In the British context state welfare was a
crucial factor in sustaining opportunism and giving status and privileges
to sections of the working class. Immigration was also important in this
context - it was used to keep the costs of state welfare as low as possible.

I am developing my work on the transmission mechanisms of status and
privilege - these are numerous and will differ for imperialist countries.

The work on the US still needs to  be done. I cannot do it.

To Rakesh - the Blake point is not new, it was made by Hobson and others in
relation to British imperialism and seems to support my viewpoint. Lenin
developed it into a significant theory. Galbraith seems to be saying
something similar re immigration in The Culture of Contentment.

David Yaffe

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 00:00:00 EST