[Piccolo]

What is more important income or one’s relationship to the means of production? I ask this because many wage laborers have a higher income than some small capitalists. For example, a physician might be employed by a hospital and have a much larger yearly income than, say, a small shopkeeper who employs wage laborers but actually clears only a small income for himself from his business. I am sure we could think of other examples.

Any thoughts?

[Dagoth Ur]

Sure but having a good income does not make you exploitative, being a poor shopkeeper does (after all if the shopkeeper is poor his workers cannot be doing very well at all). Although those who are "smart" and make large incomes buy their way into the bourgeoisie and join in on the fruits of exploitation. So relationship to the MoP is clearly the more important factor.

[Decky]

Your relation to the means of production is more important.

Contary to popular belief reds have no problem with people getting diferent wages depending on the work (how hard it is, how skilled it is etc) as long as you are being paid for actually doing some sort of productive work.

[Dagoth Ur]

I don't know how we get the accusation of being Levelers when Marxists are who argued exactly against that stupid policy.

[Vera Politica]

I don't know how we get the accusation of being Levelers when Marxists are who argued exactly against that stupid policy.

I suspect it is because of the way liberals employ the term 'class' and because left-liberals voice growing concerns about income inequality. Marxists are painted as extreme left-liberals.

[Dagoth Ur]

Yes that makes quite a bit of sense. I've come across that type of thinking quite a few times.

[Piccolo]

Yes that makes quite a bit of sense. I've come across that type of thinking quite a few times.

This type of class definition based on income is, to a certain extent, what prompted my question. I think conservatives also tend to define class by income. I find this very problematic from a political standpoint because many highly-paid workers seem to side with capitalists when it comes to political or labor issues. I try to explain to the ones I speak with that if a capitalist found a way to reduce their income or get rid of them entirely they would. This could include anything from importing cheaper workers with the same skills or replacing them with automation, but they often don't believe it could be possible.

[Dagoth Ur]

Nobody wants to believe they could be easily replaced. Also conservatives are liberals as well so it is not surprising they would qualify class the same way.

Also you should check out concepts like the Labor Aristocracy.

[Leninist]

This was a very interesting discussion and refreshingly free of petty arguement. Hats off guys.

[Decky]

You are right. We should start arguing about Stalin and Trotsky.

[Piccolo]

Nobody wants to believe they could be easily replaced. Also conservatives are liberals as well so it is not surprising they would qualify class the same way.

Also you should check out concepts like the Labor Aristocracy.

Thank you for the informative reply. I have been snooping around a bit and it seems that the labor aristocracy is defined as those proletarians who are paid unusually high wages and who often associate their interests with those of the bourgeoisie.

Some definitions focus on the role of reformist unions in creating a labor aristocracy, while others place more emphasis on the role of imperialism and First World capitalist superprofits as the source of the labor aristocracy.

What do folks here feel is the best definition of the labor aristocracy and its origins?

Thanks.