You are on page 1of 7

mont hlyreview.

org

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/12/01/lenin-and-the-aristocracy-of-labor

Lenin and the Aristocracy of Labor :: Monthly


Review
Eric Ho bsbawm

mo re o n Histo ry, Labo r, Marxism & So cialism

Eric Hobsbawm, who died last Oct ober 1, aged ninet y-f ive, has been much celebrat ed as one of
t he t went iet h cent urys great est English-language hist orians despit e his st eadf ast advocacy of
socialism and use of t he t ools of Marxian analysis. But , if asked, t he f ounding edit ors of Monthly
Review, Leo Huberman and Paul Sweezy, his lif elong colleagues and comrades, would have
dif f ered a bit . T hey would have said t hat it was precisely because Marxism was int rinsic t o his
t heory, underst anding, and act ion t hat he gained his preeminence.
Bot h Hobsbawm and MR were born in t urbulent t imes, he in t he year of t he Bolshevik Revolut ion,
t his magazine in t he chaot ic af t ermat h of t he Second World War. But bot h came of age wit h t he
grim realit ies of t he Cold War. Hobsbawms f irst book, published in t he Unit ed St at es as Social
Bandits and Primitive Rebels (1960), looked f or lessons f or f undament al change in pre-modern
f orms of resist ance and rebellion, just as Huberman, Sweezy, and Baran were examining emerging
revolut ionary f orms, especially in China and Cuba. Hobsbawm, of course, went on t o chronicle t he
ninet eent h-cent ury revolut ionary awakening of Europe while MR examined and analyzed t he
nascent radical upsurge in t he global Sout h.
Given t he dif f erences in t heir respect ive project s, dist inct ions in emphasis and direct ion were
inevit able. In t he af t ermat h of t he 1956 event s in t he Soviet sphere Hobsbawm championed
Eurocommunism, seemingly a break wit h t he hard line Communism of t he post war European
part ies, but his st ance was always t o st ruggle within t he movement not t o separat e himself f rom
it . And f or t he next half -cent ury he never considered himself anyt hing ot her t han part of t he same
project in which t he edit ors of MR were engaged. So when W. W. Rost ows The Stages of Economic
Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (1960), lat er seen as a just if icat ion f or t he Kennedy-Johnson
t hird world imperial plans in Viet nam and elsewhere, became t he blueprint f or t he count erat t ack
against t he insurgent developing count ries, Paul Baran and Hobsbawm published a powerf ul
rebut t al, t hat among ot her t hings, not ed t he uses t hat Cold War social science was put in aid of
t he U.S. imperial ent erprise (see T he St ages of Economic Growt h, Kyklos, May 1961, pages 234
42). T he impact of t his much-cit ed art icle was such t hat lit t le at t ent ion is paid any longer t o
Rost ows work.
But like many radical academics, Hobsbawms perhaps great est cont ribut ions were as a t eacher
and communicat or; somet hing he shared, especially, wit h MR edit or Leo Huberman, who was most
commit t ed t o what he called spreading t he word. T he t wo of t hem became great f riends when
Hobsbawm came t o New York f or t he f irst t ime at t he end of t he 1950s. In addit ion t o much
polit ical t alk, Hobsbawm t ook Huberman t o T he Five Spot , a dark smoky jazz club on t he Bowery
t o hear music by t he young f ollowers of Charlie Bird Parker. Huberman, of course, had no idea
who t hat was, but lat er said t hat t he music and Hobsbawms running comment ary was an
ext raordinary int roduct ion t o t he quint essent ial musical f orm of t his count ry. Hobsbawm was able
t o communicat e t o Huberman, as he did in his jazz reviews f or t he New Statesman, t he place of
jazz and Parker in t he narrat ive of t he st ruggle against Jim Crow on t he eve of t he civil right s

movement . T he reviews were collect ed in The Jazz Scene, which Hobsbawm published wit h t he
pseudonym Francis Newt on, brought out by Mont hly Review Press in t he Unit ed St at es in 1960.
Hobsbawms int erest s were wide-ranging, but his scholarship was singular and his commit ment t o
socialism was st eely. What made his work especially int erest ing was his abilit y not only t o capt ure
t he hist orical specif icit y of a given age, but also his t endency t o look at what was on t he out skirt s
of t he dominant view and see change as it emerged f rom t he margins. Relat ed t o t his was his
proclivit y t o t ake on some of t he hardest issues, including t hose f acing t he lef t . T he f ollowing
art icle, Lenin and T he Arist ocracy of Labor, f rom t he August 1970 issue of Monthly Review is an
inst ance of t he lat t er.
T he Edit ors
T he f ollowing brief essay is a cont ribut ion t o t he discussion of Lenins t hought , on t he occasion of
t he hundredt h anniversary of his birt h. T he subject is one which can be appropriat ely t reat ed by a
Brit ish Marxist , since t he concept of an arist ocracy of labor is one which Lenin clearly derived
f rom t he hist ory of Brit ish ninet eent h-cent ury capit alism. His concret e ref erences t o t he
arist ocracy of labor as a st rat um of t he working class appear t o be exclusively drawn f rom
Brit ain (t hough in his st udy not es on imperialism he also remarks upon similar phenomena in t he
whit e part s of t he Brit ish Empire). T he t erm it self is almost cert ainly derived f rom a passage by
Engels writ t en in 1885 and reprint ed in t he int roduct ion t o t he 1892 edit ion of The Condition of the
Working Class in England in 1844 which speaks of t he great English t rade unions as f orming an
arist ocracy among t he working class.
T he act ual phrase may be at t ribut able t o Engels, but t he concept was f amiliar in English polit icosocial debat e, part icularly in t he 1880s. It was generally accept ed t hat t he working class in Brit ain
at t his period cont ained a f avored st rat uma minorit y but a numerically large onewhich was
most usually ident if ied wit h t he art isans (i.e., t he skilled employed craf t smen and workers) and
more especially wit h t hose organized in t rade unions or ot her working-class organizat ions. T his is
t he sense in which f oreign observers also used t he t erm, e.g., Schulze-Gaevernit z, whom Lenin
quot es wit h approval on t his point in t he celebrat ed eight h chapt er of Imperialism. T his
convent ional ident if icat ion was not ent irely valid, but , like t he general use of t he concept of an
upper working-class st rat um, ref lect ed an evident social realit y. Neit her Marx nor Engels nor Lenin
invent ed a labor arist ocracy. It exist ed only t oo visibly in Brit ain of t he second half of t he
ninet eent h cent ury. Moreover, if it exist ed anywhere else, it was clearly much less visible or
signif icant . Lenin assumed t hat , unt il t he period of imperialism, it exist ed nowhere else.
T he novelt y of Engelss argument lay elsewhere. He held t hat t his arist ocracy of labor was made
possible by t he indust rial world monopoly of Brit ain, and would t heref ore disappear or be pushed
closer t o t he rest of t he prolet ariat wit h t he ending of t his monopoly. Lenin f ollowed Engels on t his
point , and indeed in t he years immediat ely preceding 1914, when t he Brit ish labor movement was
becoming radicalized, t ended t o st ress t he second half of Engelss argument , e.g., in his art icles
English Debat es on a Liberal Workers Policy (1912), T he Brit ish Labor Movement (1912), and In
England, t he Pit if ul Result s of Opport unism (1913). While not doubt ing f or a moment t hat t he labor
arist ocracy was t he basis of t he opport unism and Liberal-Laborism of t he Brit ish movement ,
Lenin did not appear as yet t o emphasize t he int ernat ional implicat ions of t he argument . For
inst ance, he apparent ly did not use it in his analysis of t he social root s of revisionism (see
Marxism and Revisionism, 1908, and Dif f erences in t he European Labor Movement , 1910). Here

he argued rat her t hat revisionism, like anarcho-syndica1ism, was due t o t he const ant creat ion on
t he margins of developing capit alism of cert ain middle st rat asmall workshops, domest ic
workers, et c.which are in t urn const ant ly cast int o t he ranks of t he prolet ariat , so t hat pet t ybourgeois t endencies inevit ably inf ilt rat e int o prolet arian part ies.
T he line of t hought which he derived f rom his recognit ion of t he labor arist ocracy was at t his st age
somewhat dif f erent ; and it is t o be not ed t hat he maint ained it , in part at least , t o t he end of his
polit ical lif e. Here it is perhaps relevant t o observe t hat Lenin drew his knowledge of t he
phenomenon not only f rom t he writ ings of Marx and Engels, who comment ed f requent ly on t he
Brit ish labor movement , and f rom his personal acquaint ance wit h Marxist s in England (which he
visit ed six t imes bet ween 1902 and 1911), but also f rom t he f ullest and best -inf ormed work on t he
arist ocrat ic t rade unions of t he ninet eent h cent ury, Sidney and Beat rice Webbs Industrial
Democracy. T his import ant book he knew int imat ely, having t ranslat ed it in his Siberian exile. It
provided him, incident ally, wit h an immediat e underst anding of t he links bet ween t he Brit ish
Fabians and Bernst ein: T he original source of a number of Bernst eins cont ent ions and ideas, he
wrot e in Sept ember 1899 t o a correspondent , is in t he lat est books writ t en by t he Webbs. Lenin
cont inued t o quot e inf ormat ion drawn f rom t he Webbs many years lat er, and specif ically ref ers t o
Industrial Democracy in t he course of his argument in What Is To Be Done?
T wo proposit ions may be derived in part , or mainly, f rom t he experience of t he Brit ish labor
arist ocracy. T he f irst was t hat t he subservience t o t he spont aneit y of t he labor movement ,
belit t ling of t he role of t he conscious element , of t he role of Social Democracy, means, whether
one likes it or not, the growth of influence of bourgeois ideology among the workers. T he second was
t hat a purely t rade unionist st ruggle is necessarily a st ruggle according t o t rade, because
condit ions of labor dif f er very much in dif f erent t rades, and consequent ly t he f ight t o improve
t hese condit ions can only be conduct ed in respect t o each t rade. (What Is To Be Done? T he
second argument is support ed by direct ref erence t o t he Webbs.)
T he f irst of t hese proposit ions appears t o be based on t he view t hat , under capit alism, bourgeois
ideology is hegemonic, unless deliberat ely count eract ed by t he conscious element . T his
import ant observat ion leads us f ar beyond t he mere quest ion of t he labor arist ocracy, and we
need not pursue it f urt her here. T he second proposit ion is more closely linked t o t he arist ocracy of
labor. It argues t hat , given t he law of uneven development wit hin capit alismi.e., t he diversit y of
condit ions in dif f erent indust ries, regions, et c., of t he same economya purely economist labor
movement must t end t o f ragment t he working class int o self ish (pet t y bourgeois) segment s
each pursuing it s int erest , if necessary in alliance wit h it s own employers, at t he expense of t he
rest . (Lenin several t imes quot ed t he case of t he Birmingham Alliances of t he 1890s, at t empt s at
a joint union-management bloc t o maint ain prices in various met al t rades. He derived t his
inf ormat ion almost cert ainly also f rom t he Webbs.) Consequent ly such a purely economist
movement must t end t o disrupt t he unit y and polit ical consciousness of t he prolet ariat and t o
weaken or count eract it s revolut ionary role.
T his argument is also very general. We can regard t he arist ocracy of labor as a special case of
t his general model. It arises when t he economic circumst ances of capit alism make it possible t o
grant signif icant concessions t o t he prolet ariat , wit hin which cert ain st rat a manage, by means of
t heir special scarcit y, skill, st rat egic posit ion, organizat ional st rengt h, et c., t o est ablish not ably
bet t er condit ions f or t hemselves t han t he rest . Hence t here may be hist oric sit uat ions, as in lat e
ninet eent h-cent ury England, when t he arist ocracy of labor can almost be ident if ied wit h t he

ef f ect ive t rade union movement , as Lenin somet imes came close t o suggest ing.
But if t he argument is in principle more general, t here can be no doubt t hat what was in Lenins
mind when he used it was t he arist ocracy of labor. T ime and again we f ind him using phrases such
as t he f ollowing: t he pet t y bourgeois craf t spirit which prevails among t his arist ocracy of labor
(T he Session of t he Int ernat ional Socialist Bureau, 1908); t he English t rade unions, insular,
arist ocrat ic, philist inely self ish; t he English pride t hemselves on t heir pract icalness and t heir
dislike of general principles; t his is an expression of t he craf t spirit in t he labor movement (English
Debat es on a Liberal Workers Policy, 1912); and t his arist ocracy of laborisolat ed it self f rom
t he mass of t he prolet ariat in close, self ish, craf t unions (Harry Quelch, 1913). Moreover, much
lat er, and in a caref ully considered programmat ic st at ement in f act , in his Preliminary Draf t
T heses on t he Agrarian Quest ion f or t he Second Congress of t he Communist Int ernat ional (1920)
t he connect ion is made wit h t he great est clarit y:
T he indust rial workers cannot f ulf ill t heir world-hist orical mission of emancipat ing mankind f rom t he
yoke of capit al and f rom wars if t hese workers concern t hemselves exclusively wit h t heir narrow
craf t , narrow t rade int erest s, and smugly conf ine t hemselves t o care and concern f or improving
t heir own, somet imes t olerable, pet t y bourgeois condit ions. T his is exact ly what happens in many
advanced count ries t o t he labor arist ocracy which serves as t he base of t he alleged Socialist
part ies of t he Second Int ernat ional.
T his quot at ion, combining t he earlier and t he lat er ideas of Lenin about t he arist ocracy of labor,
leads us nat urally f rom t he one t o t he ot her. T hese lat er writ ings are f amiliar t o all Marxist s. T hey
dat e in t he main f rom t he period 19141917, and f orm part of Lenins at t empt t o provide a
coherent Marxist explanat ion f or t he out break of t he war and especially t he simult aneous and
t raumat ic collapse of t he Second Int ernat ional and most of it s const it uent part ies. T hey are
st at ed most f ully in t he eight h chapt er of Imperialism, and t he art icle Imperialism and t he Split in
t he Socialist Movement , writ t en a lit t le lat er (aut umn 1916) and complement ing it .
T he argument of Imperialism is well-known, t hough t he glosses of Imperialism and t he Split are
not so widely known. Broadly speaking, it runs as f ollows. T hanks t o t he peculiar posit ion of Brit ish
capit alismvast colonial possessions and a monopolist posit ion in t he world market st he
Brit ish working class t ended already in t he mid-ninet eent h cent ury t o be divided int o a f avored
minorit y of labor arist ocrat s and a much larger lower st rat um. T he upper st rat um becomes
bourgeois, while at t he same t ime a sect ion of t he prolet ariat allows it self t o be led by people
who are bought by t he bourgeoisie, or at least are in t heir pay. In t he epoch of imperialism what
was once a purely Brit ish phenomenon is now f ound in all t he imperialist powers. Hence
opport unism, degenerat ing int o social chauvinism, charact erized all t he leading part ies of t he
Second Int ernat ional. However, opport unism cannot now t riumph in t he working-class movement
of any count ry f or decades as it did in England, because world monopoly has now t o be shared
bet ween a number of compet ing count ries. T hus imperialism, while generalizing t he phenomenon
of t he arist ocracy of labor, also provides t he condit ions f or it s disappearance.
T he relat ively cursory passages of Imperialism are expanded int o a rat her f uller argument in
Imperialism and t he Split . T he exist ence of a labor arist ocracy is explained by t he super-prof it s
of monopoly, which allows t he capit alist s t o devot e a part (and not a small one at t hat ) t o bribe
their own workers, t o creat e somet hing like an alliancebet ween t he workers of a given nat ion and
t heir capit alist s against t he ot her count ries. T his bribery operat es t hrough t rust s, t he f inancial

oligarchy, high prices, et c. (i.e., somet hing like joint monopolies bet ween a given capit alism and it s
workers). T he amount of t he pot ent ial bribe is subst ant ialLenin est imat ed it as perhaps one
hundred million f rancs out of a billionand so, under cert ain circumst ances, is t he st rat um which
benef it s f rom it . However, t he quest ion as t o how t his lit t le sop is dist ribut ed among labor
minist ers, labor represent at iveslabor members of war indust rial commit t ees, labor of f icials,
workers organized in narrow craf t unions, of f ice employees, et c., et c., is a secondary quest ion.
T he remainder of t he argument , wit h except ions t o be not ed below, amplif ies but does not
subst ant ially alt er t he argument of Imperialism.
It is essent ial t o recall t hat Lenins analysis was at t empt ing t o explain a specif ic hist oric sit uat ion
t he collapse of t he Second Int ernat ionaland t o but t ress specif ic polit ical conclusions which he
drew f rom it . He argued, f irst , t hat since opport unism and social chauvinism represent ed only a
minorit y of t he prolet ariat , revolut ionaries must go down lower and deeper, t o t he real masses;
and second, t hat t he bourgeois labor part ies were now irrevocably sold t o t he bourgeoisie, and
would neit her disappear bef ore t he revolut ion nor in some way ret urn t o t he revolut ionary
prolet ariat , t hough t hey might swear by t he name of Marx wherever Marxism was popular among
t he workers. Hence revolut ionaries must reject a f act it ious unit y bet ween t he revolut ionary
prolet arian and t he opport unist philist ine t rend wit hin t he labor movement . In brief , t he int ernat ional
movement had t o be split , so t hat a Communist labor movement could replace a Social
Democrat ic one.
T hese conclusions applied t o a specif ic hist orical sit uat ion, but t he analysis support ing t hem was
more general. Since it was part of a specif ic polit ical polemic as well as a broader analysis, some
of t he ambiguit ies of Lenins argument about imperialism and t he labor arist ocracy are not t o be
scrut inized t oo closely. As we have seen, he himself pushed cert ain aspect s of it aside as
secondary. Nevert heless, t he argument is in cert ain respect s unclear or ambiguous. Most of it s
dif f icult ies arise out of Lenins insist ence t hat t he corrupt ed sect or of t he working class is and can
only be a minorit y, or even, as he somet imes suggest s polemically, a t iny minorit y, as against t he
masses who are not inf ect ed wit h bourgeois respect abilit y and t o whom t he Marxist s must
appeal, f or t his is t he essence of Marxian t act ics.
In t he f irst place, it is evident t hat t he corrupt ed minorit y could be, even on Lenins assumpt ions, a
numerically large sect or of t he working class and an even larger one of t he organized labor
movement . Even if it only amount ed t o 20 percent of t he prolet ariat , like t he labor organizat ions in
lat e ninet eent h-cent ury England or in 1914 Germany (t he illust rat ion is Lenins), it could not be
simply writ t en of f polit ically, and Lenin was t oo realist ic t o do so. Hence a cert ain hesit at ion in his
f ormulat ions. It was not t he labor arist ocracy as such, but only a st rat um of it which had desert ed
economically t o t he bourgeoisie (Imperialism and t he Split ). It is not clear which st rat um. T he only
t ypes of workers specif ically ment ioned are t he f unct ionaries, polit icians, et c., of t he ref ormist
labor movement s. T hese are indeed minorit iest iny minorit iescorrupt ed and somet imes f rankly
sold t o t he bourgeoisie, but t he quest ion why t hey command t he support of t heir f ollowers is not
discussed.
In t he second place, t he posit ion of t he mass of t he workers is lef t in some ambiguit y. It is clear
t hat t he mechanism of exploit ing a monopoly of market s, which Lenin regards as t he basis of
opport unism, f unct ions in ways which cannot conf ine it s benef it s t o one st rat um only of t he
working class. T here is good reason t o suppose t hat somet hing like an alliance bet ween t he
workers of t he given nat ion and t heir capit alist s against t he ot her count ries (and which Lenin

illust rat es by t he Webbss Birmingham Alliances) implies some benef it s f or all workers, t hough
obviously much larger ones f or t he well organized and st rat egically st rong labor arist ocrat s among
t hem. It is indeed t rue t hat t he world monopoly of ninet eent h-cent ury Brit ish capit alism may have
provided t he lower prolet arian st rat a wit h no signif icant benef it s, while it provided t he labor
arist ocracy wit h subst ant ial ones. But t his was because t here was, under t he condit ions of
compet it ive, liberal, laissez-f aire capit alism and inf lat ion, no mechanism ot her t han t he market
(including t he collect ive bargaining of t he f ew prolet arian groups capable of applying it ), f or
dist ribut ing t he benef it s of world monopoly t o t he Brit ish workers.
But under t he condit ions of imperialism and monopoly capit alism t his was no longer so. T rust s,
price maint enance, alliances, et c., did provide a means of dist ribut ing concessions more
generally t o t he workers af f ect ed. Moreover, t he role of t he st at e was changing, as Lenin was
aware. Lloyd Georgeism (which he discussed most percept ively in Imperialism and t he Split )
aimed at securing f airly subst ant ial sops f or t he obedient workers, in t he shape of social ref orms
(insurance, et c.). It is evident t hat such ref orms were likely t o benef it t he non-arist ocrat ic
workers relat ively more t han t he already comf ort ably sit uat ed arist ocrat s.
Finally, Lenins t heory of imperialism argues t hat t he handf ul of t he richest , privileged nat ions
t urned int o parasit es on t he body of t he rest of mankind, i.e., int o collect ive exploit ers, and
suggest s a division of t he world int o exploit ing and prolet arian nat ions. Could t he benef it s of
such a collect ive exploit at ion be conf ined ent irely t o a privileged layer of t he met ropolit an
prolet ariat ? Lenin was keenly aware t hat t he original Roman prolet ariat was a collect ively parasit ic
class. Writ ing about t he St ut t gart Congress of t he Int ernat ional in 1907, he observed:
T he class of t hose who own not hing but do not labor eit her is incapable of overt hrowing t he
exploit ers. Only t he prolet arian class, which maint ains t he whole of societ y, has t he power t o bring
about a successf ul social revolut ion. And now we see t hat , as t he result of a f ar-reaching colonial
policy t he European prolet ariat has partly reached a sit uat ion where it is not it s work t hat maint ains
t he whole of societ y but t hat of t he people of t he colonies who are pract ically enslaved. . . . In
cert ain count ries t hese circumst ances creat e t he mat erial and economic basis f or inf ect ing t he
prolet ariat of one count ry or anot her wit h colonial chauvinism. Of course t his may perhaps be only
a t emporary phenomenon, but one must nevert heless clearly recognize t he evil and underst and it s
causes.
Marx f requent ly ref erred t o a very signif icant saying of Sismondis t o t he ef f ect t hat t he
prolet arians of t he ancient world lived at t he expense of societ y whereas modem societ y lives at
t he expense of t he prolet arian (1907). Nine years lat er, in t he cont ext of a lat er discussion,
Imperialism and t he Split st ill recalls t hat t he Roman prolet ariat lived at t he expense of societ y.
Lenins analysis of t he social root s of ref ormism is of t en present ed as if it dealt only wit h t he
f ormat ion of a labor arist ocracy. It is of course undeniable t hat Lenin st ressed t his aspect of his
analysis f ar more t han any ot her and, f or purposes of polit ical argument , almost t o t he exclusion
of any ot her. It is also clear t hat he hesit at ed t o f ollow up ot her part s of his analysis, which
seemed t o have no bearing on t he polit ical point he was at t hat t ime overwhelmingly concerned t o
make. However, a close reading of his writ ings shows t hat he did consider ot her aspect s of t he
problem, and t hat he was aware of some of t he dif f icult ies of an excessively one-sided labor
arist ocrat ic approach. T oday, when it is possible t o separat e what is of permanent relevance in
Lenins argument f rom what ref lect s t he limit s of his inf ormat ion or t he requirement s of a specif ic

polit ical sit uat ion, we are in a posit ion t o see his writ ings in hist orical perspect ive.
If we t ry t o judge his work on t he arist ocracy of labor in such a perspect ive, we may well conclude
t hat his writ ings of 19141916 are somewhat less sat isf act ory t han t he prof ound line of t hought
which he pursued consist ent ly f rom What Is To Be Done? t o t he Preliminary Draft Theses on the
Agrarian Question of 1920. In f act , t hough much of t he analysis of a labor arist ocracy is applicable
t o t he period of imperialism, t he classic ninet eent h-cent ury (Brit ish) model of it , which f ormed t he
basis of Lenins t hinking on t he subject , was ceasing t o provide an adequat e guide t o t he
ref ormism of , at least , t he Brit ish labor movement by 1914, t hough as a st rat um of t he working
class it was probably at it s peak in t he lat e ninet eent h and early t went iet h cent ury.
On t he ot her hand t he more general argument about t he dangers of spont aneit y and self ish
economism in t he t rade-union movement , t hough illust rat ed by t he hist oric example of t he lat e
ninet eent h-cent ury Brit ish labor arist ocracy, ret ains all it s f orce. It is indeed one of t he most
f undament al and permanent ly illuminat ing cont ribut ions of Lenin t o Marxism.

You might also like