• bleepbloopbop [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      sorry to necro reply but still thinking about this…

      I think where we get into trouble here is defining the labor aristocracy. I had been working off of @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml’s definition from elsewhere in the thread:

      The labour aristocracy is that section of the international working class whose privileged position in the lucrative job markets opened up by imperialism guarantees its receipt of wages approaching or exceeding the per capita value created by the working class as a whole.

      Which seems to be taken from Zak Cope. I don’t know who that is so maybe he’s great, maybe not, but on further reflection I don’t know if we need to take it as pure mathematical gospel. Other writers don’t seem to have defined it so specifically.

      Under that definition, at least something like the upper 80% of the US population by income would be labor aristocracy (those over $18,000/yr in income), or more depending on how you define it (the other user was arguing for using average global PPP adjusted wages, I was arguing for something that encompassed more value not just wages, like global GDP per capita).

      But honestly I don’t know if any/many other theorists conceive of such a broad definition of labor aristocracy, it doesn’t seem like it. It seems like the original use of the term was more observational than statistical. I’m coming around to the view that the extremely vague undefined way its used on this site is basically useless.