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
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.
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).
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
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.
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?
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.
Yes. Exactly. Americans get their food variety from the global south by trading cash crops. Americans eat mostly because of imperialism, not production.
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.
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.
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.
So, this notion is correct. The bourgeoisie OWN everything, they consume more per capita than the proles, but they are vanishingly small in number.
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.
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.
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.
Consumers in the US are getting a worse deal due to inflation, corporate greed, and the inability of bourgeoisie governments to make concessions to the masses in the imperial core. The utter insanity of unstoppable unpopular neoliberalism is what drives people away from the status quo. It is the job of Marxists to explain that another world is possible and to their benefit to lead them away from the foolish answers of fascism. Attempts to reform like Roosevelt did were insufficient to make capitalism work for the proletariat of Turtle Island.
As democracy gets eroded by the Republicans and as the Democrats do nothing to stop them. I don't see an electoral way out of this.
Marxists must be seen as the solution to people's very real problems so that the easy answers of blaming trans people, ethnic minorities, women, and foreigners are less appealing. The trade union movement is coming back for the most exploited of the first world. The Indigenous sovereignty movement is also becoming more mainstream.
These are things that I think marxists can do on Turtle island:
Expand the use of permaculture with indigenous knowledge. Get the local tribes on board with this if they are not. Join them if they are currently doing this. Find ways to make this scale enough to feed the current population of your reigion. Obtain as much land to expand these practices and/or encourage current farmers to do this. This combats soil erosion, fossil fuel consumption and acknowledges in a real way that the best managers of this land are not the settlers, but the indigenous peoples.
Expand anti consumptionist practices in communities enough for people to opt out of capitalism. Capitalism encourages consumption and people feel like they have no choice but to consume. Create institutions to help people share items that are often owned but not used often. This is beneficial to the would be consumer because it it would cost less than owning and storing these items. This is better for the environment becuase it requires less production. This is also undermines imperialism because the need for cheaply produced goods from exploited nations can be replaced with durable quality goods, locally produced, perhaps of recycled materials, open source design, and designed in a manner that it is easy to repair for the good of all of us.
None of this shit is controversial, nor asking for someone to accept a worse state of affairs for moral reasons.
This is the inherent contradiction of capitalism.
It alienates them, but it doesn't drive them away, it entraps them further. No one is being driven away from jobs, on the contrary they are clamoring for jobs so they can get health care.
Yes, that's absolutely true. It is our job. No one has figured out how to do it yet.
There never WAS an electoral way out of it.
Yes, but it's not and we're still struggling to figure out how to achieve this.
We'll see. The unions were infiltrated by the CIA a long time ago. It's unclear whether they can be the vehicle for revolutionary change. Even in Russia Lenin exposed the problems of trade unions as the revolutionary vehicle, because their economic incentives were tied to heavily to partnership with the bourgeoisie.
Yes, but even the PSL says "landback doesn't make sense". And the reality is, this is a schylla/charybdis problem. Indigenous sovereignty is the end game, but you can't get the working class onboard with that because they would literally lose their right to decide how the land is ultimately used unless they adopt indigenous ways of knowing and being. This is exactly how reactionary movements generate fascism.
This is literally impossible. Every thing you can possibly do to help people gain power to opt out will be co-opted, destroyed, or obviated. The bourgeoisie are not blind. They have been disrupting this anarchist mutual aid work for decades.
I think lots of it is controversial to the American working class. But worse, I don't think it's actually effective. As far as I can tell, the empire needs to lose a lot more before revolution is possible, and then there will be years of bloody conflict between the forces of reaction and the forces of liberation, and they will be confused for each other constantly as the propaganda war advances to far beyond what it was 80 years ago when fascists first donned the socialist moniker.
And they’re the vanguard? I’m sure a good bit of the rank and file disagrees. Most people I know are either apathetic petty bourgeois, people who are done with electoral politics and know there are great injustices against indigenous people to be rectified in the least, or functionally fascist.
Anarchists don’t centralize things enough or enforce the politicization of their mutual aid. They were scared of the BPP and we repeat their successes while dodging cointelpro.