Talk:Labor aristocracy

message: 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)
thread_title: Aristocracies

message: 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
:As an outline of the Marxist useage, however, its pretty good. Feel free to add to it! --Duncan 06:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is quite United States centered, too, don't you think? 80.221.32.124 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: terrible article

message: 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)
thread_title:  origins of the term 

message: 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)
replies: text: I generally don't see that there's enough sourcing to warrant four different articles.  I'm somewhat dubious about all the categorisations; that the IWW and Leninists used the term (somewhat) differently doesn't per se mean that different articles are necessary. FWIW, I would focus on improving the article as it currently stands and really see if the sourcing actually necessitates further articles. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, I might dedicate time as some point to working on it and then follow-up. Thanks for the response and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal