The idea that workers in wealthy countries like the United States are part of a “labor aristocracy” bought off with the fruits of imperialism is nonsense. The best way to build a movement against US imperialism is to build the labor movement domestically.
  • CheGueBeara [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    In her article “The Global Class War” in Catalyst, Ramaa Vasudevan has shown that the era of the greatest expansion of American investment abroad (the period from 1980 onward), which should have been the period in which the American working class gorged on the fruits of imperialism, was in fact the longest period of wage stagnation. Now you could say that’s because the spoils of imperialism were kept away from the working class. But if you say that, then you’ve given up the argument, because what it shows is that there is no necessity that internationally acquired profits should lead to higher wages for workers in imperialist countries.

    When you don't know what neoliberalism nor the fruits of imperialism are, lol

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I'm not on board with a lot of this article, but this is a decent point. There's a lot of tension between:

      1. The last half century of soaring imperial core profits combined with the simultaneous hollowing out of the imperial core's middle class, and
      2. The claim that the imperial core's middle class is being bought off with imperial spoils.

      I also see a much simpler critique of the labor aristocracy theory: most people just don't care about stuff that happens too far from home. They're generally indifferent about wars that don't directly effect them (through a draft, or a tax, or a noticeable change in the price of daily purchases, etc.). Hell, they're often indifferent about stuff that happens the next town over, or even on the other side of their own town. Why would imperial powers need to buy the consent of people who mostly don't care in the first place?

      • CheGueBeara [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        There isn't really tension between 1 and 2 because the primary impacts of imperialism for the imperial core working class have been conversion to service sector jobs (capital for manufacturing was exported) and then cheap goods via an imbalanced exchange. The suppression of wages overseas combined with dollar hegemony means Wal-Mart prices on your goods. Combine that with the free ride of financialized homeownership (for those that could buy homes, which was the vast majority back then) and you've got the consumerized "middle class" labor aristocracy getting way more for what they do than the rest of the proletariat.

        Re: not caring about what happens overseas, I would say that is generally true, though that's also a luxury of being part of the labor aristocracy and doesn't change the calculus of exploitation. When you are the beneficiary, the media would very much like you to not really process the sweatshop conditions of children making your status symbol shoes. Laugh at it in some comedy, but don't think too hard about it or ask why. When you live in the country with the sweatshops, you know where the products go and the price you pay for that arrangement. Of course, all of this is under conditions of intense propaganda, so I'm describing a powerful material force, but not the only one.