This is a contentious subject. Please keep the discussion respectful. I think this will get more traction, here, but I’ll cross-post it to !Communism, too.

Workers who sell their labour power for a wage are part of the working class, right? They are wage-workers because they work for a wage. Are they wage-labourers?

“They’re proletariat,” I hear some of you shout.

“Not in the imperial core! Those are labour aristocrats,” others reply.

So what are the workers in the imperial core? Are they irredeemable labour aristocrats, the inseparable managers and professionals of the ruling class? Or are they proletarian, the salt of the earth just trying to get by?

It’s an important distinction, even if the workers in any country are not a homogenous bloc. The answer determines whether workers in the global north are natural allies or enemies of the oppressed in the global south.

The problem is as follows.

There is no doubt that people in the global north are, in general, more privileged than people in the global south. In many cases, the difference in privilege is vast, even among the wage-workers. This is not to discount the suffering of oppressed people in the global north. This is not to brush away the privilege of national bourgeois in the global south.

For some workers in the global north, privilege amounts to basic access to water, energy, food, education, healthcare, and shelter, streetlights, paved highways, etc. As much as austerity has eroded access to these basics, they are still the reality for the majority of people in the north even, to my knowledge, in the US.

Are these privileges enough to move someone from the ranks of the proletariat and into the labour aristocracy or the petit-bourgeois?

I’m going to discuss some sources and leave some quotes in comments, below. This may look a bit spammy, but I’m hoping it will help us to work through the several arguments, that make up the whole. The sources:

  • Settlers by J Sakai
  • Corona, Climate, and Chronic Emergency by Andreas Malm
  • The Wealth of Nations by Zac Cope
  • ‘Decolonization is Not a Metaphor’ by Eve Tuck and K Wayne Yang.

I have my own views on all this, but I have tried to phrase the points and the questions in a ’neutral’ way because I want us to discuss the issues and see if we can work out where and why we conflict and how to move forwards with our thinking (neutral to Marxists, at least). I am not trying to state my position by stating the questions below, so please do not attack me for the assumptions in the questions. By all means attack the assumptions and the questions.

  • @Shaggy0291
    2•1 year ago

    How are the millions of As in the global north supposed to act in solidarity with the billions of Bs in the global south, when the basic prosperity of A relies on exploiting B?

    Because that “prosperity” is a relation that can only be temporary due to TRPF. Eventually all workers must be exploited and immiserated; labour aristocrats can only be maintained so long as there is sufficient surplus profit to go around, a surplus which is constantly shrinking. Therefore, in the final analysis it is still in the interest of the working masses in the north to unite with those in the south against their exploiters.

    • @CountryBreakfast
      2•1 year ago

      Because that “prosperity” is a relation that can only be temporary due to TRPF.

      This is true but remember it is a tendency that the bourgeoisie occasionally can affect to create a new deal just as it did after WW2 and in the 70s. A new deal can accommodate and weaponize privileged workers. So while the tendency can limit the options of privileged workers and push them toward solidarity it is not a done deal and still depends some on the agency and consciousness of the bourgeoisie.

      Now it would take a pretty hefty action to bring back a golden age, but western workers will still be more interested in that more than costly solidarity with the global proletariat. It is the path of least resistance, the path that aligns closer to their interests as privileged workers that rely on their relationships with the bourgeoisie, AND (perhaps the biggest problem) its the path privileged workers have historically taken meaning the theory of being that is crafted by the history of privileged workers will drive them to identify with a new deal as their grandparents did.

      I say this to emphasize the need for a movement that is rooted in history, and specifically not the history of white workers. It’s why, for example, Indigenous histories and ontologies cannot be ignored even as the rate of profit falls.