This, then, poses an interesting question to explore: can there be a labor aristocracy within a nation itself, one portion of a nation’s population subsisting off of another?Ĭertainly, there are instances where the answer is a definitive yes. Despite the variety in which these debates have expressed themselves, one essence of the debate remains largely uniform: the debate concerns nation-states, and the hegemony (or lack thereof) of one nation-state over another. Others, like Minqi Li, Samir Amin, and the rest of the World-Systems School, argue that neo-colonialism and unbalanced trade make the workers of certain nations inherently more exploited than others, thus arguably giving these colonized workers a greater importance in the global revolution.

Some, like Bill Warren, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri, view our globalized era as one where imperial power dynamics have, for the most part, disappeared, thus putting the working class of all nations on roughly equal grounds. Just the mention of the idea, that one working class can act as parasitic overlords over another, is seen as obvious truth to some, and blasphemous revisionism to others. Of all the words in the English language, there are two that, when put together, can cause an instant fit of infighting and discord amongst the left: labor aristocracy.

Jay sakai settlers