What to do about the Lumpenproletariat

[AK]

I'll probably get more replies telling me that I'm laying down blueprints for a society that doesn't yet exist but after a socialist revolution, what would we do about the Lumpenproletariat? Would we find proper jobs for them? Or would we just leave them to waste away as they might be considered a lost cause?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Huey Newton said that in the modern Western capitalist society the lumpenproletariat are a revolutionary class, that they were the ones who were well and truly betrayed by capitalism. I tend to agree with him there.

[Kukulofori]

EXTERMINATE THEM.

yeah what huey newton said. the goal is for everyone to be able to be lumpen, remember? even Marx basically mooched off his petit bourgeois friend for like most of his life.

[yuon]

Why would you want to do anything about anyone?

I suggest that you forget about wanting to do anything about anyone.

If people cause problems to a future society, that society will deal with them. In the case of the "lumpen proletariat" (most of whom of which I have no problem with), I would hope that the future society will feed and treat them the same as everyone else. (Anyway, according to Marxist theory, there will be no classes, which means no lumpen proletariat.)

[Revy]

The lumpenproletariat are neither inherently revolutionary or counter-revolutionary.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Lumpenproletarians are like petit-bourgeois; they can easily become either revolutionary or reactionary. However, in a socialist society, former lumpens will be no different from former proletarians or former bourgeois. Classes will no longer exist because there will be no differences in access to and control of the means of production.

[AK]

I didn't mean I personally wanted to 'do something about them'. I mean we should we integrate them into the workforce, to give them a future.

[MarxSchmarx]

I didn't mean I personally wanted to 'do something about them'. I mean we should we integrate them into the workforce, to give them a future.

Is this a question or a statement? If the former "we should integrate them into the workforce to give them a future.", well, yes I agree.

If the latter, "should we integrate them into the workforce to give them a future?" I hardly see why not. What do you think are meritorious arguments against this perspective?

[AK]

I answered my own question.
I hate that.

[rosa_rot]

"lumpenproletariat"? I hate the word (it's probably neutral in English, but in German it sounds like a horrible nazi expression...I don't know).

Anyway, I suppose you are talking about the people who have no chance to be integrated in the job market, who have no proper education and no perspective besides of living all their life on social transfers...right?

First of all: the problem will solve itself soon after the revolution.
It is all about in which environment children grow up, their whole life depends on the education and support they get in the first 16 years of their life.
And if the education is in the hand of the people themselves, it is free for everybody and not dependant of the social and financial background anymore, everyone will find a job they are qualified for.

And even the old ones who don't have a chance anymore to do a job, must be given a chance to live their life in dignity, even though the capitalist society has raped their minds. They must be given enough money, be integrated in politics and society as far as they are able to, and participate in the new freedom and justice.

[Code]

First of all: the problem will solve itself soon after the revolution.
It is all about in which environment children grow up, their whole life depends on the education and support they get in the first 16 years of their life.
And if the education is in the hand of the people themselves, it is free for everybody and not dependant of the social and financial background anymore, everyone will find a job they are qualified for.


I think before the revolution, we need a plan for after the revolution.

[Jethro Tull]

comrade giggles, you're confused about the nature of communist revolution.

the goal of communist revolution is to abolish labor as it exists under capitalism. by labor, i don't mean all exhertion of physical or mental energy (virtually everything worthwhile requires that) but a specific behavior that exists in modern capitalist society.

to say the so-called "lumpen" needs to be "integrated into the workforce" implies the capitalist modes of production prevail, which is a dangerous misconception.

what to do with the lumpen? nothing, because it's not a real class*. marx was wrong about something, i know that's shocking.

*revisionist marxists have tried to substitute pimps, cops, imperialist soldiers, etc. for the classical marxian lumpen, however this is still unscientific. in order to be part of marx's lumpen, you merely have to engage in behavior that marx viewed as unproductive, ie: unethical. these revisionist marxists, who don't view panhandlers, prostitutes, petty criminals, etc. as "lumpen", search desperately for a substitute lumpen. since cops, soldiers, pimps, etc. are workers who behave unethically, they must be the lumpen. this ignores the obvious reality, that class is not an ethical category.

[AK]

Thanks for clearing things up, Jethro and Rosa. I was always confused about the other classes of society.

[The Idler]

I don't know what to do about them, but I do know there is a part of the proletariat who are inherently counter-revolutionary (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114573899603).