It is significant that U.S. profits from investment in the Global South is a "negligible sum" compared to the total wage bill of the American working class because it is evidence contrary to the "Labor Aristocracy" thesis. The author provides an alternate explanation as to why the American working class tended towards reformism and conservatism. The author says
Finally, I will present an alternative explanation of the persistence of working class reformism and conservatism – one rooted in the necessarily episodic character of working-class self-organization and activity, the emergence of an officialdom (bureaucracy) in the unions and pro-working class political parties, and the inability of reformist politics to effectively win or defend working-class gains under capitalism. (18)
I'm starting to think that you may be using a different definition of labor aristocracy than the author. This is the definition the author uses:
Most current versions of the labor aristocracy thesis recognize some of the grave empirical problems (see below) with Lenin’s claims that higher wages for a significant minority of workers in the imperialist countries comes from the super profits earned from the exploitation of lower paid workers in Africa, Asia and Latin America. (10) Instead, they tend to emphasize how the emergence of “monopoly capitalism” allows large corporations that dominate key branches of industry to earn super profits, which they share with their workers in the form of secure employment, higher wages and benefits.
This is why the author goes over the data on investment, wages, and profits–to disprove the claim that "super profits pumped out of workers in the global South underwrite a “bribe” in the form of higher wages for a minority of the working class in the global North.".
Perhaps I worded my previous comments in a way that misrepresented the author because he says
Put simply, this means that imperialist investment in the global South benefits all workers in the global North – both highly paid and poorly paid workers. Higher profits and increased investment mean not only more employment and rising wages for “aristocratic” steel, automobile, machine-making, trucking and construction workers, but also for lowly paid clerical, janitorial, garment and food processing workers. As Ernest Mandel put it, “the real ‘labor aristocracy’ is no longer constituted inside the proletariat of an imperialist country but rather by the proletariat of the imperialist countries as a whole.” (24) That “real ‘labor aristocracy’” includes poorly paid immigrant janitors and garment workers, African-American and Latino poultry workers, as well as the multi-racial workforce in auto and trucking. (25)
Which is in agreement with your statement about how the entire American working class benefits from imperialism (instead of just certain sub-sections like the labor aristocracy claims).
This can explain why the American working class broadly supports imperialist foreign policy, but it doesn't explain why the American working class, domestically, persists in reformism and conservatism, which the author explains in part two.
It is significant that U.S. profits from investment in the Global South is a "negligible sum" compared to the total wage bill of the American working class because it is evidence contrary to the "Labor Aristocracy" thesis. The author provides an alternate explanation as to why the American working class tended towards reformism and conservatism. The author says
And goes over this in part two of the article
deleted by creator
I'm starting to think that you may be using a different definition of labor aristocracy than the author. This is the definition the author uses:
This is why the author goes over the data on investment, wages, and profits–to disprove the claim that "super profits pumped out of workers in the global South underwrite a “bribe” in the form of higher wages for a minority of the working class in the global North.".
Perhaps I worded my previous comments in a way that misrepresented the author because he says
Which is in agreement with your statement about how the entire American working class benefits from imperialism (instead of just certain sub-sections like the labor aristocracy claims).
This can explain why the American working class broadly supports imperialist foreign policy, but it doesn't explain why the American working class, domestically, persists in reformism and conservatism, which the author explains in part two.