First world labour aristocracy

Sorry about the long post (shortest leftist wall of text be like)

When it comes to the "labour aristocracy" in the first world, I feel like many leftists wildly exaggerate both its size and wealth. This is often done to the point of erasing class conflict in the first world, as this article does. I might be totally wrong here, but i feel like these authors are making anti-marxist errors. The following points are emblematic of what I am talking about (emphasis mine):

The class interests of the labour aristocracy are bound up with those of the capitalist class, such that if the latter is unable to accumulate superprofits then the super-wages of the labour aristocracy must be reduced. Today, the working class of the imperialist countries, what we may refer to as metropolitan labour, is entirely labour aristocratic.

This is just completely wrong when one considers just how many poor people live in the first world who obviously don't receive super-wages. US poverty rates alone are always above 10%, and that poverty line is widely known to be inadequate. The US also is significantly more wealthy than Europe, where the calculus is even worse. And that doesn't even account for the wild wealth disparities that exist in the first world.

When ... the relative importance of the national exploitation from which a working class suffers through belonging to the proletariat diminishes continually as compared with that from which it benefits through belonging to a privileged nation, a moment comes when the aim of increasing the national income in absolute terms prevails over that of improving the relative share of one part of the nation over the other

What it is saying is that when the working class share of national income becomes high enough, they start to want to exploit other nations as that becomes beneficial. However, the expansion of imperialism in the neoliberal era is also the reason for the stagnation of living standards in the imperial core. By accessing a larger pool of labor in the south, the position of northern workers is threatened. That's why Northern workers have fought against outsourcing, the very fundamental imperialist measure.

Thereafter a de facto united front of the workers and capitalists of the well-to-do countries, directed against the poor nations, co-exists with an internal trade-union struggle over the sharing of the loot. Under these conditions this trade-union struggle necessarily becomes more and more a sort of settlement of accounts between partners, and it is no accident that in the richest countries, such as the United States---with similar tendencies already apparent in the other big capitalist countries---militant trade-union struggle is degenerating first into trade unionism of the classic British type, then into corporatism, and finally into racketeering

I am not too familiar with the history of the trade union, but wasn't the degeneration of the unions largely a result of state and corporate action against the unions? They engage in union busting, forced out radical leaders, performed assasinations, etc. This seems like an erasure of the class struggle to the point that the unions are depicted as voluntarily degenerating.

I feel like these kinds of narratives, which are popular amongst liberals as well (liberals will often admit that weak nations are exploited. Example - America invades for oil meme) tend to justify imperialism to westerners. I have on more than one occasion seen westerns outright say that they don't want to fight against imperialism because they benefit from it. I think that's how a lot of westerners justify supporting imperialism. This kind of narrative ironically cements the power of imperialism

14 comments

I have on more than one occasion seen westerns outright say that they don’t want to fight against imperialism because they benefit from it. I think that’s how a lot of westerners justify supporting imperialism. This kind of narrative ironically cements the power of imperialism.

This is evidence that the thesis is correct. Revolutionary movements are unlikely because of the relationship with imperialism, whether conscious or not. If admitting this works against us, then there is no project to build. We MUST admit this if we are to eventually succeed where others have failed. If the problem with the thesis is that it makes things harder to articulate with our routine rhetoric, then the problem is denial.

11
- Fair enough. I shouldn't assume that revolution must be possible in the first world, at least for now.
  
  If the thesis is true, then what does success even look like for first world comrades?
  
  1
  
  I think it is fair to say that it has not been properly conceptualized or theorized. However, solidarity with the global south and well articulated anti imperial politics will be vital.
  
  I think of how unionization is having an upturn in the US. For example, Starbucks now has a union. Generally, this is a good thing for Starbucks workers. However, as revolutionaries we have to think globally and ask ourselves what does it all mean for solidarity with coffee farmers. Is there a way to include more workers in our movements? Is there a way to link labor movements with anti-imperialist political movements? There would almost certainly be legal barriers, but still we must answer this.
  
  There also needs to be a reckoning for metropolitan workers, laboring settlers, and white people. We must understand our social relations and we must face up to the fact that we have not always been helpful in building and maintaining solidarity and this is largely because we have played a key role in empire building. Perhaps then we can correct our course.
  
  I also think there is a tendency for anti imperialism to only organize around the low hanging fruit. It is good that we support Palestine in official capacity, or in the streets, or online. However, we never ask how we can support anti imperialism at the bargaining table, with our labor, or by withholding our labor. Further, we are even less willing to take risks for banana farmers, than we are for Palestinians resisting genocide, but both are important.
  
  We have to be willing to potentially ignore our own needs and take risks that show real solidarity. If we stand against land grabs, unequal exchange, dependency, and imperial aggression, we have to recognize that we are likely disqualifing ourselves from healthcare reforms in the near future. Maybe it won't necessarily actually mean such dire risks in reality, but we must be prepared for them. Instead, I'm afraid much of the left has gone that way because they believe it should be a simple matter of correcting wealth distribution. If we can problematize our reliance on imperial spoils (which the relevant thesis effectively does) we may be able to shift our collective consciousness toward something better, for our own sake and for others. Reliance on slavery is no real form of dignified sovereignty if you ask me. Maybe others can agree.
  
  Finally, since there is rarely a willingness to take a risk or go further than leftist profile building, I feel that we are exploiting the Palestinian cause to build and solidify coalitions at home which will only help ourselves at the end of the day. I think this is a faux anti-imperialism, a fake solidarity, that must be addressed as well.
  
  4
Speaking from personal experience; labour aristocracy only need to be reminded of their material conditions to go hardcore nazi. And pro-social stances they had will slowly erode away as the contradictions pile and get resolved to the right.

11
Don't include the lumpen in the labor aristocracy, first off. There's a reason for the distinction and it has to do with revolutionary potential. The Black Panthers' analysis was that in the USA the lumpen are the revolutionary class because their incentives are not as tightly coupled to the bourgeoisie as the proletariat (labor aristocracy).

The reason the interests are so aligned has nothing to do with super profits and everything to do with reproduction. The labor aristocracy can reproduce their labor, not because of what they themselves as a class produce (Americans produce very very little) but because of what the periphery produces and they purchase cheaply. If the periphery were to strike, they would harm not only their domestic bourgeoisie but also the labor aristocracy of the imperial core. Where does your food variety and price come from? Where do your clothes come from? Your fuel? Your electronics? Your vehicles? The USA imports more than 100x the number of shoes than it produces domestically.

The labor aristocracy benefits immensely from imperialism due to abundance, variety, and cost of goods. They benefit immensely from at risk immigrants providing them services at cut rates with no safety or protection. Hell, even the lumpen benefit from the meager wages of the global majority because goods are so cheap they can actually afford them. Don't forget the carbon footprint of an unhoused person in the USA is still above the maximum sustainable on the BP carbon footprint map. That's not because of the fuel they burn but because the only way they eat and dress is because of imperialism.

This emerges in unions because unions for a long time now have been al.ost exclusively about wages and workplace safety. The wages are only good enough if they keep pace with the inflation in prices. If the cost of coffee goes up because of the end of coffee plantation slavery, then the cost of a cup goes up for every union member. Multiply this by every single item a union member needs to live, and suddenly the wage suppression of imperialism is perfectly aligned with the wage protection of the unions.

10
- Don’t include the lumpen in the labor aristocracy, first off.
  
  I didn't include the lumpen at all. The vast majority of the American poor are working and poor. Same goes for the lower-middle class who are also not a part of the labour aristocracy (low level government officials, nurses, teachers etc).
  
  Where does your food variety and price come from? Where do your clothes come from? Your fuel? Your electronics? Your vehicles? The USA imports more than 100x the number of shoes than it produces domestically.
  
  This kind of demonstrates what I am complaining about. You've assumed that America produces nothing, yet in like half of the examples you have listed, America is a top producer. Food, oil, solar energy, electronics are major American industries. A lot of the variety in food in America definitely comes from imports, but in terms of quantity, well, America has vast plains and a network of rivers. It's been a major producer since pretty much day 1.
  
  It is also true that America outsources a lot of clothing production, however, by exaggerating the extent to which the American proletariat is reliant upon imperialism, you have come to the view that the American proletariat is just straight up devoid of revolutionary potential. Even if that were true about the white proletariat, saying that about the black proletariat (not lumpen) is just wrong
  
  even the lumpen benefit from the meager wages of the global majority because goods are so cheap they can actually afford them.
  
  The low wages of third world workers are also what destroyed the power of the unions in the first world. American real wages have stagnated for the past 40 years in part because of outsourcing. The intensification of imperialism has gone hand in hand with a falling share of national income for labor at home.
  
  This whole notion implies that a significant part of the surplus value extracted from third world workers is being transfered to first world workers instead of the first world bourgeoise. But the whole reason the bourgeoise turned to outsourcing in the first place was a crisis of profitability in the first world. Bribing workers with a larger share of the pie would be counterproductive for them.
  
  Don’t forget the carbon footprint of an unhoused person in the USA is still above the maximum sustainable on the BP carbon footprint map.
  
  The only study (the MIT one, is that what you are referring to?) that everyone seems to be citing divides the carbon footprint of the government and infrastructure equally among the population. How are those a homeless person's fault?
  
  If the cost of coffee goes up because of the end of coffee plantation slavery
  
  This is a pre-marxist error. Increases in the price of labor-power don't substantially increase the price of a commodity. The end of plantation slavery will reduce the profit rate of coffee plantations, and that eats up most of the extra cost. Add in the incenvisation it causes for automation and on the long run, the price of coffee might actually fall.
  
  5
  
  America has vast plains and a network of rivers. It’s been a major producer since pretty much day 1.
  
  A lot of the variety in food in America definitely comes from imports, but in terms of quantity, well
  
  Yes. Exactly. Americans get their food variety from the global south by trading cash crops. Americans eat mostly because of imperialism, not production.
  
  You’ve assumed that America produces nothing
  
  For 300M Americans, the country only produced 25M shoes, and most of those are way too expensive for the working class to buy. Americans have shoes because of imperialism, not production.
  
  oil
  
  Yes, the US produces oil, but most of it is saved for strategic reserves. The US consumer gets oil at discount rates because of imperialism, not production.
  
  You're confusing GDP with actual use value. The USA produces so much for exchange value and then uses it's position as the imperial hegemon to extract super profits in unequal exchange. Those super profits keep costs of goods low enough for the American consumer to purchase while still making sufficient margin for the owner.
  
  The low wages of third world workers are also what destroyed the power of the unions in the first world. American real wages have stagnated for the past 40 years in part because of outsourcing. The intensification of imperialism has gone hand in hand with a falling share of national income for labor at home.
  
  But people still live in large homes, have two cars, have wardrobes larger than they can use, have cheap access to coffee, chocolate, bananas, cane sugar, avocados, wheat, fish, etc. Cellphones, computers, hard drives, etc. Yes, the USA makes solar panels, but the US produces less than 2% of the world's lithium. 70% of the world's cobalt is from Congo. Zero industrial diamond stone is produced in the USA. The only way anything works at all in this country is through unequal exchange.
  
  The low wages of the third world did not destroy the power of unions. The domestic bourgeoisie used imperialism to destroy the power of unions by removing from them as many means of production as possible and removing their bargaining power, thus, making them entirely dependent on the bourgeoisie. Attacking the bourgeoisie now means attacking your salary.
  
  This whole notion implies that a significant part of the surplus value extracted from third world workers is being transfered to first world workers instead of the first world bourgeoise.
  
  The average individual daily consumption of water is 159 gallons, while more than half the world's population lives on 25 gallons.
  
  Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy
  
  “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford
  
  the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.
  
  between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17
  
  “With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,” he reports.
  
  “Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.”
  
  So, this notion is correct. The bourgeoisie OWN everything, they consume more per capita than the proles, but they are vanishingly small in number.
  
  But the whole reason the bourgeoise turned to outsourcing in the first place was a crisis of profitability in the first world. Bribing workers with a larger share of the pie would be counterproductive for them.
  
  Yes, capitalism is all about contradictions. The solution here, of course, is the Fourth Reich. Instead of allowing the proles to revolt and establish global solidarity, they will once again stoke the flames of nationalism, xenophobia, religious fanaticism, and bloodlust, concentrate the power into the hands of the ideologically pure fascists, and fight a world war to maintain capitalism.
  
  The only study (the MIT one, is that what you are referring to?) that everyone seems to be citing divides the carbon footprint of the government and infrastructure equally among the population. How are those a homeless person’s fault?
  
  Whoever said anything about blame? The point is that the homeless person in the USA draws more benefit from imperialism than the homeless person in the periphery. They didn't ask for it, but if you start to reduce availability of goods, services, and infrastructure, you're going to harm people and that means reaction, hence, the lack of revolutionary potential. Just imagine if the USA had to pay the same for automobile fuel as the rest of the world. The whole place would shut down almost instantly because most people live in places that require not only long haul trucking for their daily existence but they would need to spend nearly $100/day just to get to work.
  
  This is a pre-marxist error. Increases in the price of labor-power don’t substantially increase the price of a commodity. The end of plantation slavery will reduce the profit rate of coffee plantations, and that eats up most of the extra cost. Add in the incenvisation it causes for automation and on the long run, the price of coffee might actually fall.
  
  It raises the floor price of the commodity, as Marx clearly demonstrates in Capital. Once the rate of profit of coffee plantations falls, there won't be enough margin to cover the costs of shipping, storage, and waste.
  
  5
As a disclaimer, I am not saying that the western bourgeoisie don't benefit from imperialism or that western proles don't have it better than peripheral proletariat. Also, I won't be able to respond for a few hours because timezones

8

You've viewed 14 comments.