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
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?
I don’t feel like retyping it, so I’ll link a recent comment here. Generally we need to weaken imperialism, build dual power, and get the confidence to be able to direct spontaneous movements. This means doing Black Panthers type mutual aid, building power among the colonized. An example that currently exists in Chunka Luta. Also, just remembered this podcast.
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.