So, it appears that despite the most common assumptions, labour "aristocratic"/well paid workers can and have been notable partecipants in the class struggle, everywhere from Italy to Chile and from the UK to South Africa
> The most important counter-example is the Russian working class in the early 20th century. The backbone of Lenin’s Bolsheviks (something he was most definitely aware of) were the best paid industrial workers in the Russian cities – skilled machinists in the largest factories. Lower paid workers, such as the predominantly female textile workers, were generally either unorganized or apolitical (until the beginnings of the revolution) or supported the reformist Mensheviks.
> German Communism became a mass movement when tens of thousands of well-paid metal workers left the Independent Socialists and joined the Communists in 1921. The French and Italian Communists also became mass parties through the recruitment of thousands of machinists who led the mass strikes of the postwar period. These highly paid workers were also overrepresented in the smaller Communist parties of the United States and Britain.
> In Chile between 1970 and 1973, and Argentina between 1971 and 1974, copper miners and metal workers engaged in industrial struggles and took the lead in mass mobilizations against the military and the right. In Brazil, it was the well-paid metal workers in the suburbs of San Paolo who led mass strikes in the 1970s that created the CUT
> it was the highest paid Black workers in South Africa – in mining, auto, steel – whose struggles in the 1970s created the radical and militant FOSATU trade union confederation.https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/129.html>>2774243>despite the most common assumptionsIt's literally one retard spamming.
Stop giving him what he wants by pretending he represents a consensus.
Engels was a factory owner for fuck's sake.
>despite the most common assumptions
This is also something only assumed by people who have never actually read Lenin's writing on the labour aristocracy. He defines it as the managerial elite of the labour movement (trade union officials, socialist party politicians, etc.), not all relatively well-paid workers. It's also worth noting that the pattern you're describing holds true for other revolutionary movements as well. For example most of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution were from the upper crust of the slave class, and included people like house slaves, enslaved overseers, skilled workers, etc.
>>2774243>Lower paid workers, such as the predominantly female textile workers, were generally either unorganized or apolitical (until the beginnings of the revolution) or supported the reformist Mensheviks.Didn't the February revolution start with a womens' march in Petrograd? The police beating and arresting the women, including a lot of working class mothers, then subsequently got the men to come out too?