The danger of this antagonism consists in the fact that it coincides with the class antagonism between the labor aristocracy and the mass of unskilled wage workers. The connection of the national with the social distinctions within the working class is for him the most important reason for the slow development of the American labor movement.
"It appears to me that your great obstacle in America is the privileged position of the native-born worker. Until 1848, a native-born, permanent working class was the exception rather than the rule. The scattered beginnings of the latter in the East and in the cities could still hope to become farmers or members of the bourgeoisie. Such a class has now developed and has organized itself to a large degree in trade unions. But it still assumes an aristocratic position, and leaves (as it may) the ordinary, poorly-paid trades to the immigrants, of whom only a small percentage enter the aristocratic trade unions. These immigrants are, however, divided into nationalities, which do not understand one another, and for the most part do not understand the language of the country. And your bourgeoisie understands even better than the Austrian government, how to play off one nationality against another… so that, I believe, there exist in New York differences in the standard of living of the workers such as are out of the question anywhere else…"
In the same letter to Schlueter, dated March 30, 1892, Engels explains the rhythm of the American labor movement through the coincidence of this national and social line of demarcation within the proletariat:
20
