I went through debates with other people about what makes someone a labor aristocrat. They define it as the sector of the working class who benefit from the colonized fruits. The guy viewed every worker in the united states as automatic aristocrats. "What the people who still struggle on those developed countries?" I said. They replied that they are still under the fruits of the imperial pie. A labor aristocrat gains satisfaction with their pay, growing its dependency for the existing system. The 9-5 cashier does not. Sure, the 3rd world and 1st world proletariat will view each other differently, but that barrier does not reject the fact that they are the byproducts of class struggle.
Labour aristocrat should be simply someone whose socio-economical position would worsen under a more egalitarian system. Tying it to "imperialism" is pure nonsense, because a.) more often than not there is no direct benefit, and b.) they have no say on the issue.
Both Western and non-Western leftists fail to appeal to the working class in their respective countries and they keep inventing countless excuses instead of realizing they come across as unlikeable dorks
>>2731216That’s a problem inherent to politics, scientists don’t have charisma and the charismatic aren’t scientific
>>2731117Development of the productive forces naturally generates a highly-productive, highly-profitable strata of industrial workers who are well compensated relative to the morass of low-skill service wageslaves.
>>2731117IMO labor aristocrat is basically the same thing as a bureaucrat-capitalist. Kind of politician, labor leader, professional activist or so on who sells political favors for cash.
>>2731117labor aristocrats for me are just well paid proles (usually because of expensive education/specialization)
engineers is the typical example