Inside the United States, the understanding of class has been distorted beyond what any early communists could have predicted. When the American multinational working class is looked at as a whole, the wealth, status, and privilege far exceeds the petty bourgeoisie in most of the world. While labor groups, liberal pundits, and even those who describe themselves as communists decry the crumbling social basis of the so-called middle class, in an international perspective the multinational working class of the US is in the top 10% of the world when you look at material and financial indicators.
Imperialism, settlerism, and colonialism has created a bloated labor aristocracy safety net for the bourgeoisie in the US. Is it in the best interest of this labor aristocracy to radically reorganize society so resources are distributed based on need? Is it in the best interest to dismantle the overdeveloped parts of the world to create a just society? In the short-term, material sense, absolutely not. A radical redistribution of goods in society would be analogous to the Soviet Union moving machinery from Germany to the homeland except on a global scale. This would be seen by the American multinational working class as an invasion by a foreign conquering force, not as liberation from the social structures of greed.
So what is to be done? Clearly organizing along multinational working class lines isn’t a correct organizing strategy because the US multinational working class as a concept is complete invalid as a material and social base for socialism. There is no better spokesperson for the consciousness of this group than Bernie Sanders, who supports some, but not all, imperialist wars, who supports a more sustainable neoliberal foreign policy, who supports more distribution of the ill-gotten gains extracted from the world’s true working class. When it comes down to making tough decisions, he falls in line with the US ruling class. This is the history of the US labor aristocracy. This is the history of its leaders.
The correct line is resistance in the core, revolution in the periphery. The goal of organizing in the core has to be creating division inside the US, to expose the fault lines where they exist. Organizing based on the principle of explicitly rejecting any sort of common US working class interest that can fight for socialism is the first step to successful organizing. To date, the most successful organizations in the fight against imperialism and capitalism within the US have organized not on multinational lines, but national lines. A new chapter begins with a rejection of the concept of a unified American working class and organizing on the basis that this concept is our enemy.
my god, they've killed him!
bystander: who?
*puts on shades*
The American Working Class
-bernie sanders
marimite posted:What imperialist wars doesn't Bernie support? I mean he voted against Iraq once and then voted for it every time after that. And then he superficially opposes intervention in Syria, but then can't tell the truth about the intervention that's already happening. Can't really think of anything else, maybe someone can help me.
Iraq is huge, of course. He also spoke against the Libyan intervention despite calling for Gaddafi to "step down." As you mentioned, he's superficially against intervention in Syria, and one of his biggest surrogates (Gabbard) was very against it and went out speaking against it on Bernie's behalf. On foreign policy, he's obviously well to the left of Hillary and somewhat to the left of Obama, despite being imperfect.
one thing i think is that the US' general population has had it harder than the general populations of the (relative) welfare states of Western Europe and Scandinavia. why not try to put that discontent to good use by somehow directing it against imperialism in addition to the domestic oligarchy? don't know if this is possible.
HenryKrinkle posted:as to the OP, i would like to know your take on the underclasses within the US. such as those who are in prison, undocumented workers and/or those who live below the poverty line.
one thing i think is that the US' general population has had it harder than the general populations of the (relative) welfare states of Western Europe and Scandinavia. why not try to put that discontent to good use by somehow directing it against imperialism in addition to the domestic oligarchy? don't know if this is possible.
Urbandale posted:ill read yet another third worldist (okok, labor aristocracy) thread if it has some actual advice for organizing besides 'focus on self-determination' cuz thats already covered
In terms of actual organizing, I don't think it is really all that different from what the various anti-imperialist groups in the US are doing (FRSO, PSL, Uhuru, WWP etc) which is organizing as much of a mass base as possible to opposing imperialist wars, union busting, supporting higher wages, etc to help build as much resistance to ruling class power as possible. The differences are small, but with a labor aristocracy perspective, you wouldn't bother pulling a RCPUSA and sending all your cadre to Virginia to try to make unionized coal miners into communists.
Understanding labor aristocracy helps focus attention where it will be most useful, we don't abandon the Fight for 15 or turn our backs on higher-paid union workers because of "labor aristokkkrats" or whatever but if you have a certain amount of resources to throw at any project it should be devoted to what will be effective in the long-term. Groups like the ISO that throw so much time and money into campus activism see their membership turn over every 4 years after they get their degrees and move on.
drwhat posted:side note this is pointlessly america-centric, the entire core's working class is in the same conditions
The combination of settlerism, colonialism, and imperialism makes it especially visible in the US, but you are correct it is a feature of the entire core.
pogfan1996 posted:Understanding labor aristocracy helps focus attention where it will be most useful, we don't abandon the Fight for 15 or turn our backs on higher-paid union workers because of "labor aristokkkrats" or whatever but if you have a certain amount of resources to throw at any project it should be devoted to what will be effective in the long-term. Groups like the ISO that throw so much time and money into campus activism see their membership turn over every 4 years after they get their degrees and move on.
not really a problem though if the ISO's goal is simply to maintain visibility and dominate that impressionable sector with their particular brand of trot nastiness.
the idea that effort & resources "should be devoted to what will be effective in the long-term", that's kind of fuzzy and veers dangerously into utilitarian territory imo. just saiyan
ilmdge posted:America has underclasses that are given poisoned water, don't have access to health care, and live in housing owned and managed by slumlords. It also has more under and unemployed young people than ever living at home forever and becoming failsons and daughters.
Yep, I 100% agree and organizing along those struggles will be the most productive. There is a popular notion that 90% of the US is proletarian with revolutionary potential (which is the rcpusa line) and that doesnt seem to really take into account the role of imperialist profits and international exploitation