I think this is an example of taking everything as absolutes, that acknowledging that labor aristocracy is a problem can’t just be a call for taking that into consideration and actively working to address it. No, it must mean they’re arguing there’s an intractable gulf between the working class in the “developed” world and in the “undeveloped” world and thus no international solidarity.
It’s a problem that can go both ways. You’ve got types like this where they don’t want to hear about the shortcomings of social democracy in the West and where the wealth comes from so they yell about solidarity. But there are some types on the other end that use this as an excuse to check out; “Western leftists are too tainted with labor aristocracy, the revolution will come from the periphery, so I don’t need to get involved in activism here in the West.”
I think this is an example of taking everything as absolutes, that acknowledging that labor aristocracy is a problem can’t just be a call for taking that into consideration and actively working to address it. No, it must mean they’re arguing there’s an intractable gulf between the working class in the “developed” world and in the “undeveloped” world and thus no international solidarity.
Probably, but people who do that also tend to not be arguing in good faith, in my opinion.
It’s a problem that can go both ways. You’ve got types like this where they don’t want to hear about the shortcomings of social democracy in the West and where the wealth comes from so they yell about solidarity. But there are some types on the other end that use this as an excuse to check out; “Western leftists are too tainted with labor aristocracy, the revolution will come from the periphery, so I don’t need to get involved in activism here in the West.”
Oh yeah, definitely seen both.