In case of reductionist to useless class analysis of Steel you are also right, however in the way you present the way I would disagree.
Capitalism will always lead to shitty situations in the US, the problem is not the disparity in wealth in the US, the problem is capitalism, which naturally has become global.
Steel's position amounts to: Nothing in the US is good, since nothing in a core can be good, so no group that does anything there can be good and any group that is there is labour aristocracy which means that they can't be good and do no good. Which is kind of a silly position, but it is fair to be a Third World Revolutionist. There is no law anymore against that.
In my opinion it is a bad take partially cause the US will have productive forces and wealth and power and all that including well established military that might side with the Counterrevolution and Reaction aka the Fascists when push comes to shove.
Bringing up the wealth disparities was more to point out that you have to ignore both class differentiation in the US and conditions as they actually exist to arrive at the conclusion that the entirety of the US working class are labor aristocrats, receiving some special privilege for cooperation with the bourgeoisie.
I get what you say, Steel's term of "labor aristocracy" is separated from those facts, as he uses them in a reduced Leninist sense, so that there doesn't have to be specific benefit as being part of the core is enough.
In terms of materialist analysis your point is in my opinion strong as it holds up that it can't be enough for us to have a term from one interpretation of theoretical framework that categorial contains the group we talk about, but doesn't allow us to differentiate farhter (if at all that is your goal).
In case of reductionist to useless class analysis of Steel you are also right, however in the way you present the way I would disagree.
Capitalism will always lead to shitty situations in the US, the problem is not the disparity in wealth in the US, the problem is capitalism, which naturally has become global.
Steel's position amounts to: Nothing in the US is good, since nothing in a core can be good, so no group that does anything there can be good and any group that is there is labour aristocracy which means that they can't be good and do no good. Which is kind of a silly position, but it is fair to be a Third World Revolutionist. There is no law anymore against that.
In my opinion it is a bad take partially cause the US will have productive forces and wealth and power and all that including well established military that might side with the Counterrevolution and Reaction aka the Fascists when push comes to shove.
Bringing up the wealth disparities was more to point out that you have to ignore both class differentiation in the US and conditions as they actually exist to arrive at the conclusion that the entirety of the US working class are labor aristocrats, receiving some special privilege for cooperation with the bourgeoisie.
I get what you say, Steel's term of "labor aristocracy" is separated from those facts, as he uses them in a reduced Leninist sense, so that there doesn't have to be specific benefit as being part of the core is enough.
In terms of materialist analysis your point is in my opinion strong as it holds up that it can't be enough for us to have a term from one interpretation of theoretical framework that categorial contains the group we talk about, but doesn't allow us to differentiate farhter (if at all that is your goal).