Imperialism and the "labor aristocracy"...

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Would the comrades agree that imperialist exploitation of developing nations creates a labor aristocracy in the developed world (sometimes known as the First World)?

What, according to the comrades, is the nature of this labor aristocracy? Is it merely a slightly privileged section of the working-class, or is it a reactionary class which shares in the exploitation of surplus value from developing nations?

[BobKKKindle$]

It changes the elements of Capitalist society that will best allow for the development of Class Consciousness. For the most part (excluding the lumpen-proletariat) the material conditions of the proletatiat in the developed world are such that they will not try and overthrow Capitalism in order to improve their living standards - sustained economic growth, the exploitation of the developing world, and the intervention of the state in the economy mean that proletarians have access to a wide range of goods and services and a degree of security. I do not want to diminish the importance of declines in the avaliaiblity of public services and Union non-political action, but this is a reality we have to accept. The key element of Capitalist society that still allows for Revolution is the structure of work and worker's control over their lives - Alienation - which presents workers with continual frustration and non-engagement. We have to alter our tactics as Socialists accordingly to further accelerate the breakdown of Capitalist society. So, in a sense, I would say that the development of a labour aristocracy represents the growth of reactionary ideology and disinterest in revolution in workers if class consciousness is dependent on material conditions.

[Hit The North]

or is it a reactionary class which shares in the exploitation of surplus value from developing nations?

I've yet to see any compelling evidence that the "1st World" working class benefit from any surplus value extracted through the exploitation of developing nations.