Of course tradesmen in unions are working class, in fact isn't having a union the ideal? Its just that all other working people are in the working class too. Dividing people with the same class interests into groups like "labor aristocracy" is just stupid.
It just feels needlessly divisive in this context. I'd understand applying it more to managers and such whose class interests are closer to the bourgeoisie, but tradesmen are working class in every sense
Just leave the term out of the conversation. It's not useful for labor organizing until you already have a powerful labor org. It's an imperialism thing, it never ever needs to be a term used at a union meeting unless your union actually has leverage or could gain leverage over part of the global supply chain. If you're in that position you already have a super radical union. Until workers in the imperial core can actually have a say in their participation in the global supply chain via worker emancipation can we actually do anything about it.
It is, but I just want to point out that using it in the company of anyone who is not already radicalized is dogshit tactics.
To the average western worker, being told by a leftist that "you are part of the labor aristocrasy and your wage is paid off of the backs of poor people in the global south" doesn't really sound any different than a chud saying "poor people today have smartphones, flatscreen tv's and AC, so they're actually better off than royalty 500 years ago".
Even though the former statement is objectively correct and the latter statement is utter nonsense, they are both going to be interpreted as "fuck you, you have no right to complain".
So it's definitely not something we should just randomly bring up while having lunch at work. Save it for the reading circle.
You’re right but if I’m being contentious here I’ll say wages are not even being paid off by the global south but by the lowest class and income people in the country. There’s people far below the wrung of skilled union laborers.
using it in the company of anyone who is not already radicalized is dogshit tactics.
We're on a tiny explicitly communist forum that is the legacy of a moderate sized socialist subreddit which started as a fanclub for a radlib white boy podcast.
Nope this sucks
Of course tradesmen in unions are working class, in fact isn't having a union the ideal? Its just that all other working people are in the working class too. Dividing people with the same class interests into groups like "labor aristocracy" is just stupid.
labor aristocracy is a seasoned term used by Marxists for a long time
It just feels needlessly divisive in this context. I'd understand applying it more to managers and such whose class interests are closer to the bourgeoisie, but tradesmen are working class in every sense
Just leave the term out of the conversation. It's not useful for labor organizing until you already have a powerful labor org. It's an imperialism thing, it never ever needs to be a term used at a union meeting unless your union actually has leverage or could gain leverage over part of the global supply chain. If you're in that position you already have a super radical union. Until workers in the imperial core can actually have a say in their participation in the global supply chain via worker emancipation can we actually do anything about it.
It is, but I just want to point out that using it in the company of anyone who is not already radicalized is dogshit tactics.
To the average western worker, being told by a leftist that "you are part of the labor aristocrasy and your wage is paid off of the backs of poor people in the global south" doesn't really sound any different than a chud saying "poor people today have smartphones, flatscreen tv's and AC, so they're actually better off than royalty 500 years ago".
Even though the former statement is objectively correct and the latter statement is utter nonsense, they are both going to be interpreted as "fuck you, you have no right to complain".
So it's definitely not something we should just randomly bring up while having lunch at work. Save it for the reading circle.
You’re right but if I’m being contentious here I’ll say wages are not even being paid off by the global south but by the lowest class and income people in the country. There’s people far below the wrung of skilled union laborers.
Agreed 100%, but I wasn't specifically thinking about skilled union laborers, just western workers in general.
We're on a tiny explicitly communist forum that is the legacy of a moderate sized socialist subreddit which started as a fanclub for a radlib white boy podcast.
Who the hell here is "not already radicalized"
That's exactly my point though. Did you not read the last line?
Unions can be reactionary