Labor aristocracy

[Nehru]

Could someone tell me about this, and whether this is why working class revolutions never take off in the west? Is this inextricably tied to white privilege?

[Tjis]

Labor aristocracy is the idea that workers in the 'first world' (meaning western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) receive a wage that is higher in value than their labor-power. Since they receive more value than the value they contributed, the rest of their wage is taken from the surplus-value of workers in the 'third world' (meaning Africa, South America and much of Asia). In this world view, third world workers are exploited both by capitalists and first world workers. Also, in this world view first world workers are a reactionary class since they have a lot to lose in a revolution.
It is not really tied to white privilege. In the view of MSH/LLCO, every worker in the USA is a labor aristocrat, regardless of skin color. MIM had a more nuanced stance towards this but still considered many of the workers in the US to be labor aristocrats. So whether a worker is part of the labor aristocracy or not depends in the first place on where they live.

There are some problems with this world view of course.
First, the theory of labor aristocracy claims that first world workers receive more value than they produce. If that is the case, then it should be possible to find a third world worker who'll be able to do the same work for a lower wage. But if that is the case, why doesn't the capitalist hire this person instead of the more expensive first world worker?
For a lot of jobs this is exactly what is happening. Much manufacturing work is outsourced to the cheapest country possible. So why are there still jobs in the first world? It is because not every job can be outsourced, and even in cases where outsourcing is possible other costs (such as transportation or communication) can make it prohibitively expensive.
Examples of jobs that can't be outsourced are construction work, mining and transportation. You simply have to be inside the country where the construction site/mine/roads are in order to be able to do such work.

Second, the labor aristocracy theory claims that first world workers are reactionary because objectively their material conditions are better than those of third world workers. According to such reasoning the only people to ever revolt would be the very most oppressed and exploited. But recent events show otherwise. Libya probably had one of the best welfare systems in Africa and still a rebellion happened there. Riots in the French banlieues and in English working class neighborhoods also show that workers are far from happy with their situation. A better material situation simply doesn't solve problems with capitalism such as alienation, unemployment and social injustice.

Third, the labor aristocracy theory claims that material conditions for first world workers would degrade after a revolution. This completely ignores that socialism is a new mode of production with a potential to be far more efficient at producing what people need. It is not a redistribution of value as we know it under capitalism. Workers all over the world have a lot to gain.

A future revolution will depend on international solidarity. Labor aristocracy divides the working class into a revolutionary and supposedly reactionary part and is therefore harmful. Not only does it pit third world workers against potential allies, it also pacifies potential revolutionaries in the first world, since this theory leaves no room for a first world revolution. Luckily its influence seems limited to the internet, with little real life presence.

[Rooster]

As far as I'm aware, it was originally tied with the Second International and was in reference to the leaders of the labour movement (the trade union bosses and party members) who were living off the work of the others, got themselves cushy positions and halted revolutionary work to secure their own positions.