this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
170 points (100.0% liked)

memes

22690 readers
450 users here now

dank memes

Rules:

  1. All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.

  2. No unedited webcomics.

  3. Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net, it's a great comm.

  4. Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.

  5. Follow the code of conduct.

  6. Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.

  7. Recent reposts might be removed.

  8. Tagging OC with the hexbear watermark is praxis.

  9. No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
170
hexbear.net (hexbear.net)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Leon_Frotsky@hexbear.net to c/memes@hexbear.net
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EelBolshevikism@hexbear.net 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

its also reasonable to assume that people who currently are making more money than justified by their fair share of global production might be resistant to equalizing the distribution

This doesn’t seem accurate though, like 80% of value (/ wealth) is concentrated in the bourgoisie class, if it was all fully equalized most of the labor aristocracy would still have a higher quality lifestyle than they do now

[–] bleepbloopbop@hexbear.net 3 points 5 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.