>>1832651The "labor aristocracy" isn't something you have to worry about unless the proletariat supports imperialism. In fact, that's basically the entire thrust behind this theory. Certain sections of the proletariat get paid more because they take on some degree of the loot taken from exploited nations, thus tying their material interests to the maintenance of imperialism.
I don't know about Australia, but in the United States it was essentially a way to explain why the AFL-CIO was so chauvinistic in the 60s and 70s and today, after the AFL-CIO has essentially crumbled to dust, is used by Gonzaloids and other assorted Maoids to justify counter-cultural contrarianism to claim that anyone they don't like who possesses any comfort or luxury whatsoever is one of these, despite the fact that imperialist wars are controversial at best among the American public and the American proletariat no longer sees any real material gain from imperialist adventures.