what does Marx have against the Lumpenproltariat? [Archive]

Chambered Word

11th June 2010, 17:14

Recent example: You'd be surprised how many Tea Party'ers are on government benefits.

The lumpenproletariat's tendency to serve reaction is a sad fact, but it has proven true on more than one occasion.

Probably true. Ironically for all the Tea Partiers whining about redistribution of wealth, many of them are actually receiving welfare that has been taxed from working class people. Although this is a broad generalization of Southerners, red states receive a helluva lot of money that has been redistributed from the North.

I guess I'll take a stab at explaining the lumpenproletariat as a class anyway. The lumpenproletariat are not paid wages nor do they own private property, so they will generally need to find ways to survive capitalism outside of the legitimate system. They do not have the collective power of the working class so individuals will not be as inclined to show solidarity with eachother and actually act as one class while at the same time they do not own private property. Thus, they don't have a general class alignment nor do they actually act as a single class, rather fragments of people who happen to be downtrodden by capital. The lumpenproletariat tend to be a real mixed bag in terms of class consciousness and their own aims.

*Let me know if I'm explaining something badly, I'm still trying to develop my own ideas. :blushing:

ComradeOm

11th June 2010, 17:18

whats with this? is so disimilar from the rest of marxs rather accurate writtings, why does he knock the lumpen so? was he mugged by an unemployed person or what?The lumpen are not merely the unemployed (unemployment being a habitual risk for all workers) but those who make their living through crime and begging. According to Marx these have no positive revolutionary role to play because they are effectively outside of the wage-labour system

Proletarian Ultra

11th June 2010, 18:04

Are you serious? How come they are protesting against the goverment giving them money?

I shit you not. What you hear is "I worked hard for my benefits" - which is Crackerese for "I'm not black."

Thing is, someone who subsists on government benefits long-term (who does not hope to enter the labor market again) is in the same position as someone who lives on gilts or treasury bonds. One slip of paper says 'bond' and the other says 'benefit' but it's a stream of non-wage income that comes from the same source, there's no real difference in how their macroeconomic interests line up.

If you own bonds and don't have to work, you want deflation. That makes the buying power of your income go up. Deflation comes from low consumption, so you want high unemployment and slashed government spending (on every program except yours, which they won't touch anyway because it mostly goes to white people). What you don't want, what will cause inflationary pressures and potentially eat up the real value of your income stream, is a big fiscal stimulus package, or a just-barely progressive healthcare reform that increases other people's buying power even a little bit.

(If you really want to lose sleep at night, read about how the bond market works. It's fucking terrifying.)

11th June 2010, 18:17

You know Marx could be wrong.And obviously in this case he was.Any different opinion on this, and agreeing with Marx on this very matter can only described as disgusting and counter-revolutionary.Its a shame listening from people who claim communism have ideas and support ideas like this ones, just because Marx said it.He was nothing more than a simple man ffs, he wasnt a god, but some people use his writings like a god rules, and then they are yelling against gods.Its hypocritical and stupid.
Engels was homophobe, Bakunin was racist, Kropotkin supported an imperialist war etc etc. Stop basic your opinions on others people ones, worse when those opinions were said centurys ago, if you cant have an opinion of your own, then somethings wrong..

Because they are...They are dangerous enemies of the working class.

I really hope you are not serious.Please tell me you werent serious when you wrote that..

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 18:31

I really hope you are not serious.Please tell me you werent serious when you wrote that..

I am very serious...I share a neighbourhood with these scum.

Check this out...

http://www.iwca.info/?p=10134

infraxotl

11th June 2010, 18:44

You know Marx could be wrong.And obviously in this case he was.Any different opinion on this, and agreeing with Marx on this very matter can only described as disgusting and counter-revolutionary.Its a shame listening from people who claim communism have ideas and support ideas like this ones, just because Marx said it.He was nothing more than a simple man ffs, he wasnt a god, but some people use his writings like a god rules, and then they are yelling against gods.Its hypocritical and stupid.
Engels was homophobe, Bakunin was racist, Kropotkin supported an imperialist war etc etc. Stop basic your opinions on others people ones, worse when those opinions were said centurys ago, if you cant have an opinion of your own, then somethings wrong..

I really hope you are not serious.Please tell me you werent serious when you wrote that..

Tell me all about the revolutionary potential of the wannabe Scar Faces of this world.

11th June 2010, 18:49

Tell me all about the revolutionary potential of the wannabe Scar Faces of this world.

Revolutionary potentials?Thats all you people care?They are people for fuck sake.Even if they are not educated or poor, doesnt mean we should treat them the same way the "enemy" treats them, like shit.For fucks sake, you see revolution as a fucking game?As a way to get away from something?As a way to get some power?Because fucking communism is nothing like this.Its all about equality, its all about freedom, and those you people describe as "scums" are those who are the most oppressed by this fucked up system, but then from this i understand how weirdly some of you take revolution and communism.Its not a fucking game.
If you cant show mercy, or feel their pain, understand how shitty they live, how miserable their life can be, and still continue to call them scums, then not only you are not communists, something is sure, you are not even people.

Hit The North

11th June 2010, 19:04

Palingenesis,

The article you link to has appalling politics. here's a taster:

Originally posted by IWCA
Amidst all the concern about knife crime and gang culture, it is often tacitly assumed that the perpetrators are representative of alienated working class youth. Not so: what they are more generally representative of is a new -and growing- social formation that has willingly embraced a non-work ethic. A "non-work ethic"! Is this to imply that working class people should embrace some kind of "work ethic"? Is this the ethic which is designed to keep them in a state of exploitation? Who benefits politically and economically from the mass of the working class observing some kind of "work ethic"?

Then there is this:

Originally posted by IWCA
Though they may share the same estates at the same time the former harbours instincts, values and aspirations at variance with and indeed hostile (like sort of low rent neo-liberals) to traditional working class custom and practice.Harbours instincts? Is the so-called underclass composed of a different species to the rest of us? As for values and aspirations, if membership of the working class depended upon having the right values and aspirations (presumably for the IWCA, these would be the values of solidarity and the aspiration of socialism), then the working class would be a good deal smaller than if it was measured in an alternative way - say, relation to the means of production).

The general tenor of the article, it seems to me, is not to focus of the impact of material deprivation on the most vulnerable sections of the working class but rather to join with the gutter press in the fictional creation of some lawless and uncivilised underclass who are beyond redemption.

Steve_j

11th June 2010, 19:25

I am very serious...I share a neighbourhood with these scum.

What the fuck are you talking about? I share a neighbourhood with these "scum" so whats your point? Yes its not pretty but hey unless your living in a middle class area or out of the cities what do you expect. Like it or not these "scum" do have a history in revolutionary organisations. Black panthers and Abahlali baseMjondolo from the top of my head.

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 19:26

Harbours instincts? Is the so-called underclass composed of a different species to the rest of us? As for values and aspirations, if membership of the working class depended upon having the right values and aspirations (presumably for the IWCA, these would be the values of solidarity and the aspiration of socialism), then the working class would be a good deal smaller than if it was measured in an alternative way - say, relation to the means of production).

The general tenor of the article, it seems to me, is not to focus of the impact of material deprivation on the most vulnerable sections of the working class but rather to join with the gutter press in the fictional creation of some lawless and uncivilised underclass who are beyond redemption.

Some of us have to live next to these scum and I know just what dangerous enemies they are of our class...When we talk about about the Lumpen proletariat we dont necessarily mean the long term unemployed but the caste of prositutes, drugdealers, burgalars, etc...As a class or a caste they collectively share a culture which is very different from ours and does harbour instincts the way that capitalists as a class harbour instincts...Its not saying that they are that way biologically.

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 19:28

What the fuck are you talking about? I share a neighbourhood with these "scum" so whats your point? Yes its not pretty but hey unless your living in a middle class area or out of the cities what do you expect. Like it or not these "scum" do have a history in revolutionary organisations. Black panthers and Abahlali baseMjondolo from the top of my head.

The degeneration and disintergration of the Black Panthers was due in part to their lack of understanding of the lumpen proletariat.

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 19:28

Steve_j

11th June 2010, 19:29

I know just what dangerous enemies they are of our class...

Yes and the working class is so culturally perfect, like these good fellows, no?

http://leftoutside.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/edl.jpg

Zanthorus

11th June 2010, 19:30

Can someone make an infraction here or something, this whole lot here just is really repulsive and anti-worker.

How was that post "anti-worker"? The lumpenproletariat isn't the unemployed FYI it's criminals.

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 19:30

Can someone make an infraction here or something, this whole lot here just is really repulsive and anti-worker.

Anti-worker?

You consider drug dealers, prositutes and thieves workers?

Please read what I am wite before making comments like that.

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 19:32

Yes and the working class is so culturally perfect, like these good fellows, no?

http://leftoutside.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/edl.jpg

Of course its not...But the point is that unlike both capitalists and lumpens the working class isnt reactionary and parasitic essentially by its class role.

Steve_j

11th June 2010, 19:33

Anti-worker?

You consider drug dealers, prositutes and thieves workers?

What the fuck is your issue with prositutes, that even they wont fuck you? I really want to hear this one.

Edit, by the way another term for prostitute (quite fittingly) is sex worker

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 19:34

What the fuck is your issue with prositutes, that even they wont fuck you? I really want to hear this one.

Uh...Ima woman...Maybe that might explain it?

Steve_j

11th June 2010, 19:36

And prostitues are exclusively women? further more shouldnt you show a little more solidarity with them then? they are amongst the most expolited workers.

vampire squid

11th June 2010, 19:38

what is the difference between a drug dealer and any respectable petit-bourgeois.

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 19:41

Anti-worker?

You consider drug dealers, prositutes and thieves workers?

Please read what I am wite before making comments like that.

MIA:

Roughly translated as slum workers or the mob, this term identifies the class of outcast, degenerated and submerged elements that make up a section of the population of industrial centers. It includes beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements. In times of prolonged crisis (depression), innumerable young people also, who cannot find an opportunity to enter into the social organism as producers, are pushed into this limbo of the outcast. Here demagogues and fascists (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm#fascism) of various stripes find some area of the mass base in time of struggle and social breakdown, when the ranks of the Lumpenproletariat are enormously swelled by ruined and declassed elements from all layers of a society in decay.
The term was coined by Marx in The German Ideology (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm) in the course of a critique of Max Stirner. In passage of The Ego and His Own which Marx is criticising at the time, Stirner frequently uses the term Lumpe and applies it as a prefix, but never actually used the term “lumpenproletariat.” Lumpen originally meant “rags,” but began to be used to mean “a person in rags.” From having the sense of “ragamuffin,” it came to mean “riff-raff” or “knave,” and by the beginning of the eighteenth century it began to be used freely as a prefix to make a range of perjorative terms. By the 1820s, “lumpen” could be tacked on to almost any German word.

Lumpenproletariet are proletariet nonetheless. It is cpitalism that drives them to be criminals, vagabonds, etc.

Steve_j

11th June 2010, 19:43

In regards to the neg rep comment you gave me.

"sex worker"? insane pc crap...and your other comment is sickening...your liberalism is an enemy of the working class women.

The personal attack on you was inappropriate, so granted i will apollogise for that.

But what the hell? Im an enemy of working class women, sorry to burst you bubble but prostitues are working class women, and your attitue that they are scum (and i assume want prostitution legally abolished) is dangerous for them.

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 19:46

But what the hell? Im an enemy of working class women, sorry to burst you bubble but prostitues are working class women, and your attitue that they are scum (and i assume want prostitution legally abolished) is dangerous for them.

Prostitutes working in a neighbourhood attracts sex addicts and the other sickos who use them and makes it much more unsafe for working class women.

Of course after the revolution prositutes will be sent to re-education camps.

Steve_j

11th June 2010, 19:48

Of course after the revolution prositutes will be sent to re-education camps.

Your fucking kidding me? :mad:

Zanthorus

11th June 2010, 19:49

She's a Maoist who thinks that pop music is a class enemy. I don't think she's kidding :lol:

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 19:50

what is the difference between a drug dealer and any respectable petit-bourgeois.

I don't see the relevance

x371322

11th June 2010, 19:50

What isn't being pointed out in the thread is why these "scum" turn to crime and prostitution in the first place. CAPITALISM people! They see crime and prostitution as a logical choice because of the hand they've been dealt. I certainly can't say I blame them. The vast majority of these people you hate so much aren't doing these things because they happen to be terrible human beings, but because they see it as a way out, often as the only way out! If the only factor you consider when determining whether or not to care about another human being is their "revolutionary potential," then you've got some fucking problems.

Edit: Since I posted this, Armistad did in fact point out capitalism causes some to turn to crime and prostitution.

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 19:50

Your fucking kidding me? :mad:

I dont kid...They will be sent to camps where they can be rehabilitated as useful members of society same as stockbrokers will.

Its what Mao did.

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 19:51

she's a maoist who thinks that pop music is a class enemy. I don't think she's kidding :lol:

to the gulag, lady gaga!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

infraxotl

11th June 2010, 19:52

Its not a fucking game.

Then why are you going on these tangents about peace and understanding above all else including class war? Sure, the lumpen proles are victims. No, they will not be spearheading the revolution.

Steve_j

11th June 2010, 19:52

She's a Maoist who thinks that pop music is a class enemy. I don't think she's kidding :lol:

I fell kinda dirty for it, but i must admit i might agree with her on the pop music thing :laugh:

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 19:52

Its what Mao did.

thats reason enough not to do it

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 19:58

thats reason enough not to do it

Given that ultimately capitalism was restored in China I dont think we should be following Mao blindly...Just because Mao or Marx said something doesnt mean its correct (I hate the way that Trots and even some Revolutionary Communists reference Marx or Lenin the way born agains reference the Bible). The reason I said that was to show that the idea wasnt that insane at all.

Steve_j

11th June 2010, 19:59

In all my time here i have tried very sucessfully to walk away from tendency wars, but oh me, i am struggling right now. *walks away from this thread to get a strong drink*

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 20:06

Given that ultimately capitalism was restored in China I dont think we should be following Mao blindly...Just because Mao or Marx said something doesnt mean its correct (I hate the way that Trots and even some Revolutionary Communists reference Marx or Lenin the way born agains reference the Bible). The reason I said that was to show that the idea wasnt that insane at all.

Referencing people's ideas is one thing. Theres nothing wrong with it. But simply saying "Mao did it, ergo it is correct" is not an argument. Support the argument. If you're going to reference someone eleses ideas or actions (be it Lenin, Mao, Marx, whoever) support their ideas with facts or at least comprehensible arguments. Names are meaningless in and of themselves.

And yes, in my opinion, Mao's actions should be avoided

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 20:09

Referencing people's ideas is one thing. Theres nothing wrong with it. But simply saying "Mao did it, ergo it is correct" is not an argument. Support the argument. If you're going to reference someone eleses ideas or actions (be it Lenin, Mao, Marx, whoever) support their ideas with facts or at least comprehensible arguments. Names are meaningless in and of themselves.

And yes, in my opinion, Mao's actions should be avoided

So what would your solution be?

Just shoot them all? Imprison them but dont bother trying to rehabilitate them?

I really dont see any way around establishing re-education camps.

x371322

11th June 2010, 20:22

So what would your solution be?

Just shoot them all? Imprison them but dont bother trying to rehabilitate them?

I really dont see any way around establishing re-education camps.

Are you serious? You act like prostitutes actually want to do what they're doing, like they've been brainwashed or something. They're not fucking stupid! Given an ultimatum, the vast majority would take a free college education over staying on the streets. I mean, I'm sure those "camps" are just oodles upon oodles of fun, but they're not necessary.

That's my solution. Help them. Give them a better life, a second chance.

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 20:28

So what would your solution be?

Just shoot them all? Imprison them but dont bother trying to rehabilitate them?

I really dont see any way around establishing re-education camps.

I love how your idealist solution to everything is genocide, as is often the case with Maoism. But I am a historical materialist, and so I believe that by moving to abolish class antagonisms and turn 'equal opportunity' from phrase to reality, the lumpenproletariet will wither away.

Lenina Rosenweg

11th June 2010, 20:31

A socialist society, would be based on caring, altruism, and community, radically different premises to what we have today. There are large numbers of people, who have power and influence in our society, who would have difficulties and would pose difficulties for other people. People such as many policeman, police informers, torturers, military commanders. These people can be dangerous. I don't believe in killing them unless absolutley necesscary. Most of these people can hopefully, be re-socialied to be humans.There could also be problems w/the former financial/business elite. The most humane solution would be a system of re-education camps. These wouldn't be penal servitude gulags but rather places where the former class enemy can be taught skills useful to society and to "play well with others".

What I understand of Mao's "rehabilitation" of opium addicts is that it was extremely brutal, despite propaganda to the contrary.

vampire squid

11th June 2010, 20:33

prostitution is much, much older than capitalism and will probably outlast capitalism.

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 20:39

infraxotl

11th June 2010, 20:44

Are you serious? You act like prostitutes actually want to do what they're doing, like they've been brainwashed or something. They're not fucking stupid! Given an ultimatum, the vast majority would take a free college education over staying on the streets. I mean, I'm sure those "camps" are just oodles upon oodles of fun, but they're not necessary.

That's my solution. Help them. Give them a better life, a second chance.

What's the contingency plan for when they take a pass on the second chance?

vampire squid

11th June 2010, 20:48

it seems a little lazy to just say the cause of every social problem is capitalism and the solution to the problem is the elimination of the cause (i.e. capitalism).. imo

Lenina Rosenweg

11th June 2010, 20:48

In a way I can understand Pallinegenisis' revulsion against lumpens. In the town I used to live I've had problems with people like this myself. There was a subculture of people who would gather either for day labor jobs, free food, drugs, or other reasons. From personal experiences and observation I can say most of these people were visciously sexist, racist, and homophobic. I've been harassed by these people myself, as have friends of mine, and three times within a year I had to call the police for my own protection, on my way too or from work. (As a socialist calling the cops is not something I like to do)

The trait uniting these people seems to be chronic alcoholism. A friend of mine has a theory that alcoholism, impelling a victim to focus on their own gratification, has a connection w/right wing politics, although I have known chronic alcoholics who were nice people.

I don't hate these people, they victims of the destructiveness of capitalism as much or more than anyone, but under socialism some intervention would be needed.

The work ethic is highly over rated. Most CEOs and corporate managers don't actually do very much but they want us to feel guilty not "working".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/index.htm

http://libcom.org/library/ballad-against-work-kamunist-kranti

Work I think can be best defined as one's sensoius creative relationship w/the material world, however that's defined, rather than a 9 to 5 drudge job for the Man.

Lenina Rosenweg

11th June 2010, 20:59

In the Soviet Union, prostitution officially didn't exist. It was held to be the result of contradictions within capitalism.Kruschechev made a smart ass joke that, "in the Soviet Union there are no professional prostitutes. Instead what we have are very talented amateurs".

Prostitution should certainly be legalied.. My guess is that the "second oldest profession" has existed in every class society that's ever existed. I believe the Netherlands has a sex worker's union, which has fought for se worker's rights and this is a good model.

Prostitution ultimately is a product of the contradictions capitalism, although its a far more complex issue than the Soviets thought.They certainly didn't solve any of these contradictions.

x371322

11th June 2010, 21:47

What's the contingency plan for when they take a pass on the second chance?

Then it would be their choice. That's my whole point in railing against the idea of mandatory camps. In a post revolutionary, communist world, if there still exists individuals who wanted to trade sex for goods (and I imagine there would be), then it would be their choice. I don't believe the state should be allowed to govern what anyone does with their reproductive organs.

infraxotl

11th June 2010, 22:01

What about the effect prostitution has on society/communities?

x371322

11th June 2010, 22:12

What about the effect prostitution has on society/communities?

What about it? The effects it has in our society today (capitalist) won't apply in a post revolutionary communist society. It's not the prostitution itself that causes the social problems you're speaking of. It's capitalism. We could abolish prostitution today in its entirety, but if capitalism still exists then nothing would be different. Don't treat the symptom, treat the disease.

28350

11th June 2010, 22:15

Some of us have to live next to these scum and I know just what dangerous enemies they are of our class...When we talk about about the Lumpen proletariat we dont necessarily mean the long term unemployed but the caste of prositutes, drugdealers, burgalars, etc...As a class or a caste they collectively share a culture which is very different from ours and does harbour instincts the way that capitalists as a class harbour instincts...Its not saying that they are that way biologically.

Prostitutes are working class. In fact, I can think of no better example (probably because the illegality of it doesn't require any sort of cover) of the labor theory of value than the manner in which they are exploited.

And anyone put into the position of a capitalist would act as they do.

The degeneration and disintergration of the Black Panthers was due in part to their lack of understanding of the lumpen proletariat.

I think it had more to do with them being shot in the fucking face by the FBI.

Lyev

11th June 2010, 22:24

What about the effect prostitution has on society/communities?On the contrary - why is it that society and communities have turned people to something so desperate as prostitution? Why do you think people become prostitutes? Because they're "sluts"? Because they enjoy objectifying their bodies? Because they like the risk of being raped and killed, or the risk of getting HIV or an STI? Perhaps they enjoy meeting strangers they know nothing about? I am quite sure that, for 99.9% of prostitutes their job is desolate and degrading.

Think, for just one fucking second, why people are driven into prostitution. They're forced to by a drug habit or in some cases many are also immigrants who have been trafficked into the country and forced into debt slavery. Prostitutes are some of the most vulnerable members of society. Standing up for people like this is precisely why I became a communist - they have been eaten up and vomited out by the capitalist system. Society ignores them, brushes them under the carpet, or discounts them altogether for being criminal or lazy.

In the UK, nearly half of the women involved in street prostitution report a history of childhood sexual abuse. Up to 70% enter prostitution before the age of 18, and globally the average age for entering prostitution is 13-14. Here is a quote about the whole issue: “I would numb my feelings. I wouldn’t even feel like I was in my body. I would actually leave my body and go somewhere else with my thoughts and with my feelings until he got off me and it was over with. I don’t know how else to explain it except it felt like rape. It was rape to me.” (Prostitution,Trafficking and Traumatic Stress, Melissa Farley, 2003. Pg.206)

Those on the board claiming that the lumpenproletariat are "scum" need to seriously assess their ideas or get the fuck out of the leftist movement.

Hit The North

11th June 2010, 22:30

I really dont see any way around establishing re-education camps.

Spoken like a true secret policeman.

You can stick your mind-control gulag paradise up your arse, comrade.

black magick hustla

11th June 2010, 22:37

Prostitutes working in a neighbourhood attracts sex addicts and the other sickos who use them .

have you ever met people that have sex with prostitutes? they are generally quite normal actually. especially in the third world. my friend lost his virginity when he was 15 to a raffled prostitute, and my other friend got driven to the brothel by his dad to become a "man". a lot of people who pay for prostitution are also people who cannot, for whatever reason, attract other people to have sex. i dont think the use of prostitution is as taboo and crazy as you seem to think it is.

infraxotl

11th June 2010, 22:39

What about it? The effects it has in our society today (capitalist) won't apply in a post revolutionary communist society.

How will prostitution under communism be different from prostitution under capitalism?

On the contrary - why is it that society and communities have turned people to something so desperate as prostitution? Why do you think people become prostitutes? ... Those on the board claiming that the lumpenproletariat are "scum" need to seriously assess their ideas or get the fuck out of the leftist movement.

If we could fix everyone's problems before the revolution, why even have one? Career criminals are pretty scummy, I don't see why we should tippy toe around this truism. It's like not saying a fat person is fat. A fat person can become a skinny person, but alas they are currently fatty fat fat fat.

Crusade

11th June 2010, 22:51

This thread is actually really disturbing. Many people are turning to crime as they lose their jobs and the poorest communities are filled with these "lumpens". Don't any of you snap at me with condescending BS, because I honestly don't see any difference in how some of you look at them than the capitalists. Which really sucks because I originally got into leftism because I saw it as a cure for the PROBLEMS these "social scum" face on a daily basis. You wanna leave them out of your "revolution" hm? You wanna fill in all the holes of capitalism, but don't wanna lend a hand to the people who fall through the cracks. I hope none of you are put in that position.

They certainly have revolutionary potential. It seems like this anti poor attitude isn't a left or right issue after all. It's all about your relation to production, and if you have NO relation to production (legal production at least), then you don't exist.

Zanthorus

11th June 2010, 22:55

They certainly have revolutionary potential.

Maybe if your idea of revolution is just blowing shit up.

For those of us who seek to bring an end to capital's dominance, the working class is the only revolutionary class.

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 22:58

Maybe if your idea of revolution is just blowing shit up.

For those of us who seek to bring an end to capital's dominance, the working class is the only revolutionary class.

Im not against blowing up shit at all but Im against blowing up shit for the sake of blowing up shit. I dont want chaos.

Zanthorus

11th June 2010, 22:59

Im not against blowing up shit at all but Im against blowing up shit for the sake of blowing up shit. I dont want chaos.

Hence why I said just blowing shit up ;)

Lyev

11th June 2010, 23:01

Maybe if your idea of revolution is just blowing shit up.

For those of us who seek to bring an end to capital's dominance, the working class is the only revolutionary class.I think in the context of homeless, drug-addicted, alcohol-dependent criminals and prostitutes it's wrong to reject them for lack of "revolutionary potential" in this case. Their poverty and destitution needs to be looked at from a sympathetic angle. In fact it needs to be looked at from a materialist, Marxist perspective. And anyway, no-one was suggesting them as a replacement for the proletariat.

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 23:03

Hence why I said just blowing shit up ;)

Yeah okay fair enough...But a lot of Left Communists, Anarchists and Trots are against anything "urban guerrilla"-ish just as a lot of Anarchists and Brehenevite revisionists are into violence for its own sake.

infraxotl

11th June 2010, 23:11

I think in the context of homeless, drug-addicted, alcohol-dependent criminals and prostitutes it's wrong to reject them for lack of "revolutionary potential" in this case. Their poverty and destitution needs to be looked at from a sympathetic angle. In fact it needs to be looked at from a materialist, Marxist perspective. And anyway, no-one was suggesting them as a replacement for the proletariat.

There won't be lumpen proles in the vanguard party, but that doesn't mean they won't benefit from communism.

Palingenisis

11th June 2010, 23:15

There won't be lumpen proles in the vanguard party, but that doesn't mean they won't benefit from communism.

Everyone will ultimately benefit from Communism however the fact is that in a very real way the lumpens are actual enemies of the working class in a very real sense...And often the reality is that they have a lot more money than the working class people they live amongst.

the last donut of the night

11th June 2010, 23:17

I love how your idealist solution to everything is genocide, as is often the case with Maoism.

If you actually meant this, pardon my French, but you're actually retarded.

vampire squid

11th June 2010, 23:44

who isn't an enemy of The Working Class™?

Lyev

11th June 2010, 23:45

This thread is shit. I don't why people waste their time typing up such utter shit.

Steve_j

12th June 2010, 01:28

Untill we get our shit together, stop marginalising other workers, trying to excert authority over each other, spilting spliting and spliting again, shit talking on revleft and a million and one other things that we as workers need to take responsibilty for, i would say the lumpens are the least of our worries.

The biggest enemy of the working class right now, is not the capitalists, petty bourgeois or lumpens, it is us. It is the working class and our failure to adress these issues that are before us.

The lumpens have potential as a revoltionaries, maybe not as a sub class of the workers, but hey as individuals everyone has revolutionary potential, im with the op, marx got mugged (probably by a sex worker) and was bitter about it, silly old git :thumbup1:

Rant over.

28350

12th June 2010, 01:47

Can the lumpen gain the status of the proletariat?

vampire squid

12th June 2010, 01:49

sure, if they'd just get a freaking job.

Crusade

12th June 2010, 02:03

Maybe if your idea of revolution is just blowing shit up.

Ugh. Come on, I've seen your posts you're a smart guy you can't possibly believe this bullshit. All lumpens do is blow shit up? You mean like the Panthers? Everyone here talks so much shit about how capitalism is a flawed system and leaves people out of work, how crime is caused by class warfare, poverty, etc but for everyone who serves as evidence of these assertions, they're social scum. All they know how to do is blow shit up. My neighborhood is almost entirely lumpen, a lot of people listen to me and agree with what I have to say. If they read this thread they wouldn't want shit to do with any of you and with good reason.

redmist

12th June 2010, 02:19

Everyone will ultimately benefit from Communism however the fact is that in a very real way the lumpens are actual enemies of the working class in a very real sense...And often the reality is that they have a lot more money than the working class people they live amongst.

I remember the Daily Mail once stated that beggars can earn thousands in London... :rolleyes:

To say the lumpens are enemies is wrong and the examples you used at the start of this thread are suspect and presumptuous (prostitutes, drug dealers and burglars). Prostitution as an example is weak, as various people above me have shown. Small time drug dealers are often just people trying to make a living, they may have turned to it due to being let down by the state, being pressured into it or maybe they have just becoming greedy thanks to the shit messages capitalism sticks down their throats, some even grow it for their friends free of charge! Hippie dealers aside though and you may well find the rest are certainly reachable and need help, not alienation! The big time drug dealers are usually wrapped up in paranoia and all sorts of other shit and it is usually a waste of time talking to them. I have had no experiences with burglars and as such, I am not going to make assumptions about them.

If you can come up with some consistent examples of lumpens being enemies of "us" by virtue of them being lumpens (which is what you seem to have done by branding all lumpens as "actual enemies in a very real sense" (bollocks, might I add!)), or examples of them being better off than the other proles around them then feel free to spew that shit all over the place, because from what I have seen, many of them are far from enemies of the working class.

x371322

12th June 2010, 02:22

How will prostitution under communism be different from prostitution under capitalism?

It's simple:

Under capitalism, women are driven to prostitution out of necessity, out of desperation. That desperation would not exist under communism. Anyone who wanted an education, who wanted a good job, would have all those things provided for free. The only people trading sex in a communist society would be those who actually want to. That's the difference. Choice.

28350

12th June 2010, 02:27

Come to think of it, while the Panthers did support the lumpenproletariat as a revolutionary force, they were mostly not lumpen themselves, and didn't support many things like drugs and prostitution.

One of the reasons Malcolm was so popular and angry was that he was once a lumpen - he knew what life on the bottom was like.

28350

12th June 2010, 02:28

The only people trading sex in a communist society would be those who actually want to.

This raises the question:
Credits or free access? :lol:

Crusade

12th June 2010, 02:41

This raises the question:
Credits or free access? :lol:

Bartering perhaps? :blushing:

MarxSchmarx

12th June 2010, 08:00

The problem with the phrase "lumpen" is that it is really not a materialist phrase and rather describes a vague impression Marx (and apparently not a few posters here) got in dealing with certain segments of the non-bourgeoisie. There is little that ties the lumpenproletariat to anything in the economic order the way there is for the bourgeosie or the proletariat. The legality of the economic activity is a red herring - for example, is a low level bank manager embezzling funds any more or less a member of the lumpen than a nigerian internet scammer operating out of a cyber-cafe in the slum? Nor should lumpen refer to workers outside what is sometimes called "the formal economy". What about the 70% of people in say, Dakar who sell small candies, trinkets and whatnot at busy intersections? And does it really make sense to call one taxi driver a proleteriat and another a lumpen simply because the latter drives a gray cab and the former is licensed?

perhaps what Marx had in mind were workers for whom class consciousness was a lost cause. However I rather doubt this. For this therefore can be just as true for a reactionary factory worker as a reactionary tramp. There might be certain systemic factors preventing a tramp from meaningfully participating in political agitation, but this a matter of degree. Whether or not a worker awakens to class consciousness is also partially a matter of individual decision, at which point a broad classification like "The lumpen" ceases to be of any real value.

Frankly I think the discourse surrounding a so called "lumpen" class has largely outlived whatever usefulness it once had.

Die Neue Zeit

12th June 2010, 08:21

To be fair, I still use the prefix "lumpen," both by itself and as part of "lumpenproletariat."

The bank manager-fraudster and the Internet scammer are just criminals, but they aren't lumpen.

Nor should lumpen refer to workers outside what is sometimes called "the formal economy".

It depends on what the "formal economy" is. Remember in my work where I put illegal prostitutes or low-level gangsters as lumpenproletarians (outside the wage-labour system)? There's definitely a spectrum on this one. The Third World case you're referring to is something that Dimentio deems to be the return of the old Proletarii (in the Roman sense of high unemployment and being a class apart from the plebs).

And does it really make sense to call one taxi driver a proleteriat and another a lumpen simply because the latter drives a gray cab and the former is licensed?

Not at all.

BTW, also recall that "lumpen" is separate from "lumpenproletariat." "Lumpen" refers to beggars, genuine welfare cheats, and others not wanting to be in the wage-labour system at all. This is the scum class that Bakunin pinned much of his "revolutionary" hopes upon.

At least there are illegal prostitutes and low-level gangsters, plus whatever other folks outside the "formal economy" who actually are lumpenproletarians, who would prefer more proletarian work.

A.J.

12th June 2010, 15:46

http://www.mltranslations.org/US/Rpo/classes/classes4.htm

The above article is a good analysis of the lumpenproletariat.

But, anyway, all I want to say it is ordinary working class people who are the victims of the lumpen strata's criminalistic activities not the bourgeoisie in their gated communities. Indeed, it could be said the lumpenproletariat share with the bourgeoisie the common characterstic of oweing their 'livelihood' to leeching off the working class.

They will be re-located to facilities of special internment during the dictatorship of the proletariat.

El Rojo

12th June 2010, 16:24

holy shit some of the posts here are disturbing. i totally get that in some instances the lumpen "leech" of the working class, but @ armani hammer, so the bourgosie never get robbed? given a chance the lumpen and the proletariat would both do over the ruling class

isnt a revolution supposed to be about turning the class system on its head so that the oppressed become the ruling class? isnt socialism about advancing the interests of the weakest and most vulnerable in society. this wierd labourism some of you have is sickening. sure some of the "lumpen" cause problems for the working class, but despite that these people are far more vulnerable than us. street peoples life expectancy is measured in days rather than years.

the posts of some people here are exactly the same as the "get a job" attitudes of the capitalists. but surely the lumpen should be are greatest potential source of revolutionaries. yes, they may be hateful, racist ect ect, but thats due to the ideas of capitalism colonising thier minds. in no way is this any different from most people, who are at first indifferent to politics, but who can become revolutionary when they realise that ordinary people can change the world.

all this labour aristocracy bullshit is incredibly petit bourgoise.

Die Neue Zeit

12th June 2010, 16:35

It is from the lumpen as I have defined it above that you get the absurd class politics of Unconditional Basic Income (even if they themselves are in no position to advocate this, they are the main beneficiaries).

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 16:48

all this labour aristocracy bullshit is incredibly petit bourgoise.

Indeed it is...But you are not seeing what exactly is Labour Aristocracy shit...We who actually have to live in the same council estates, housing projects and neighbourhoods as the lumpens (who are not necessarily the long term unemployed but a particular "caste") cannot afford to the sentimentality about them that the labour aristocrats and petit bourgoise idealists can.

The Red Next Door

12th June 2010, 17:03

Prostitutes working in a neighbourhood attracts sex addicts and the other sickos who use them and makes it much more unsafe for working class women.

Of course after the revolution prositutes will be sent to re-education camps.

These women are doing this, shit as a result of how capitalism treat, people. You sound like a fucking religious extremist!

Zanthorus

12th June 2010, 17:22

Ugh. Come on, I've seen your posts you're a smart guy you can't possibly believe this bullshit. All lumpens do is blow shit up? You mean like the Panthers? Everyone here talks so much shit about how capitalism is a flawed system and leaves people out of work, how crime is caused by class warfare, poverty, etc but for everyone who serves as evidence of these assertions, they're social scum. All they know how to do is blow shit up. My neighborhood is almost entirely lumpen, a lot of people listen to me and agree with what I have to say. If they read this thread they wouldn't want shit to do with any of you and with good reason.

Please find in my post where I said "All lumpens do is blow shit up". I said that it's only true that the Lumpen have revolutionary potential if your idea of a revolution is just causing chaos. The former doesn't imply the latter.

Communists seek to overthrow capital. And capital is nothing but surplus-value appropriated by the capitalist which allows them to go into markets and buy labour-power and production goods. The surplus-value is created by wage-labourers. The relationship between capital and wage-labour is not one of completely one-sided opression, it's reciprocal. Capital relies on being able to exploit wage-labourers, it couldn't exist otherwise. Since wage-labourers are in the convenient position to be both the pillar on which capital relies and the class which is exploited by capital they are the class which is suited to a revolution for overthrowing capital.

The lumpen have no relation to capital since they fall outside the production process as such. Since they stand on the outside of capital they can't overthrow capital as such, the only activity they can really engage in is mindless destruction. In fact Bakunin himself fetishised lumpen elements as the revolutionary vanguard:

To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the Marxists, the upper layer, the aristocracy of labor, those who are the most cultured, who earn more and live more comfortably than all the other workers. Precisely this semi-bourgeois layer of workers would, if the Marxists had their way, constitute their fourth governing class. This could indeed happen if the great mass of the proletariat does not guard against it. By virtue of its relative. well-being and semi-bourgeois position, this upper layer of workers is unfortunately only too deeply saturated with all the political and social prejudices and all the narrow aspirations and pretensions of the bourgeoisie. Of all the proletariat, this upper layer is the least social and the most individualist.

By the flower of the proletariat, I mean above all that great mass, those millions of the uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable, the illiterates, whom Messrs. Engels and Marx would subject to their paternal rule by a strong government – naturally for the people’s own salvation! All governments are supposedly established only to look after the welfare of the masses! By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal “meat” (on which governments thrive), that great rabble of the people (underdogs, “dregs of society”) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase Lumpenproletariat. I have in mind the “riffraff,” that “rabble” almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner being and in its aspirations, in all the necessities and miseries of its collective life, all the seeds of the socialism of the future, and which alone is powerful enough today to inaugurate and bring to triumph the Social Revolution.

This of course is what comes of see "heirarchy" as the enemy. If "heirarchy" is the enemy then of course the revolutionary class must be the lowest strata of society.

(I'm not trying to imply that all anarchists fetishise lumpen elements mind. But it does seem to follow logically from anarchist principles)

Of course the lumpen would gain from capitalism, as would practically every class besides the bourgeoisie (And even then it's debatable). But that in no way implies they can form any kind of revolutionary class.

Crusade

12th June 2010, 17:39

Please find in my post where I said "All lumpens do is blow shit up". I said that it's only true that the Lumpen have revolutionary potential if your idea of a revolution is just causing chaos. The former doesn't imply the latter.

Maybe if your idea of revolution is just blowing shit up. (responding to me saying lumpens have revolutionary potential)

There it is. ^ And your explanation of your comment was my original interpretation of it and that's what I was responding to. I figured you meant all lumpens do in the form of "revolution" is blow shit up, not that it's all they do in general. Although that would have been an entertaining assertion. Which is far from the truth. The rest of your post was informative, I'll give you my response a little later, I have to make my g/f waffles.

The Red Next Door

12th June 2010, 17:41

I find it to be very elitist to call these people scum, these scums are just like anybody else. You have some criminals who are actually good hearted People something in their life like losing a job and needing the money to survive, is why they turn to crime. This is really disgusting to hear a leftist talk about them in a elitist manner, and you called them scum and shit like, and say shit. like they need re-education blah blah blah. They do need re-education but not the kind. Ms.P was talking about, i do not see nothing re-educational about locking people, and telling them shame shame shame, through a fucking tv or speaker.

How we re-educate our brothers and sisters is by being their friend and telling them instead of crime, how about revolution? come on brothers and sister join the motherfucking resistance against the people made you turn to crime. drug pushing and etc won't solve your problem, revolution will.

infraxotl

12th June 2010, 18:31

It's mean to say not-nice things. I guess that crypto-fascist Marx never learned that growing up.

Crusade

12th June 2010, 18:38

It's mean to say not-nice things. I guess that crypto-fascist Marx never learned that growing up.

It's also mean to say alienating, inaccurate things.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 19:54

This of course is what comes of see "heirarchy" as the enemy. If "heirarchy" is the enemy then of course the revolutionary class must be the lowest strata of society.

(I'm not trying to imply that all anarchists fetishise lumpen elements mind. But it does seem to follow logically from anarchist principles)

Of course the lumpen would gain from capitalism, as would practically every class besides the bourgeoisie (And even then it's debatable). But that in no way implies they can form any kind of revolutionary class.

Part of what makes the working class is the revolutionary class is that it more than any other class realises the necessity of co-operation as opposed to competition. Lumpens tend to be very individualistic and out for themselves.

Also as I think if you examine lumpen culture it is extremely hierarchal. With the gang leader driving around in a flashy car at the top and the barely eating heroin addict attempting to mug people at the bottom. Roles of domainance and submission amongst them are clearly marked.

Also in the bitter class struggles in Dublin in the 80s and 90s between the working class and the lumpens the capitalist state waded in along with its media on the side of the lumpens. Police baton charged women and childern demonstrating outside the house of the local head of the heroin trade for example in the Summerhill estate. The fact that the capitalists took the side of the lumpens in a struggle between the lumpens and the working class tells me all I need to know.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 21:07

Part of what makes the working class is the revolutionary class is that it more than any other class realises the necessity of co-operation as opposed to competition. Lumpens tend to be very individualistic and out for themselves.
You have an idealised vision of the working class based upon age old theory. The working class is revolutionary because the it controls the cogs of capitalism and thus can bring them to a halt, we also out number capitalists. What you're talking about, collective action, is based around the formation of class conciousness, which isn't prevalent in modern society at the moment.
Anyway, since when is individualism a bad thing? To establish opposition to the class society we first have to break out of the herd mentality of capitalism and understand ourselves as freethinking people first and foremost, whose furthering of interests relies on forming voluntary associations with others.

Also as I think if you examine lumpen culture it is extremely hierarchal. With the gang leader driving around in a flashy car at the top and the barely eating heroin addict attempting to mug people at the bottom. Roles of domainance and submission amongst them are clearly marked.
Not all street gangs are hierarchical, well no more so than friendship circles. Anyway, modern youth gangs, atleast in the UK, do not always respect the old criminal formations and actually come into conflict with eachother more often than not.

Also in the bitter class struggles in Dublin in the 80s and 90s between the working class and the lumpens the capitalist state waded in along with its media on the side of the lumpens. Police baton charged women and childern demonstrating outside the house of the local head of the heroin trade for example in the Summerhill estate. The fact that the capitalists took the side of the lumpens in a struggle between the lumpens and the working class tells me all I need to know.
Try different tactics then.

Zanthorus

12th June 2010, 21:14

I love it when people prove my point for me.

Anyway, since when is individualism a bad thing? To establish opposition to the class society we first have to break out of the herd mentality of capitalism and understand ourselves as freethinking people first and foremost, whose furthering of interests relies on forming voluntary associations with others.

See the first quote in my sig and think again.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 21:19

I love it when people prove my point for me.

See the first quote in my sig and think again.
And what? I'm talking of the creation of class conciousness, not a market system. I'm a communist afterall.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 21:21

(I'm not trying to imply that all anarchists fetishise lumpen elements mind. But it does seem to follow logically from anarchist principles)

.

A lot of anarchism though is tied into syndicialism which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Platformists as a rule also dont fetishize lumpen elements (though sadly decayed elements of first world Maoism do).

Zanthorus

12th June 2010, 21:21

I'm a communist.

Then what's all this business about "voluntary associatons"? You think "voluntary association" is the key to breaking capitalism?

A lot of anarchism though is tied into syndicialism which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Platformists as a rule also dont fetishize lumpen elements (though sadly decayed elements of first world Maoism do).

Well that's an entirely different kettle of fish. The main problem of course with making any criticisms of anarchism is that there's no coherent anarchist position on anything. Some of them are frenzied petty-bourgeois stirnerites and some of them are crypto-Trotskyists. That's at least one of the reasons I stopped being an anarchist. That plus even the collectivist ones have a tendency to go on about "individualism", "voluntary socialism" etc

nuisance

12th June 2010, 21:23

Then what's all this business about "voluntary associatons"? You think "voluntary association" is the key to breaking capialism?
I edited my post. But in the simpliest form yes. Afterall voluntary association is a non-coerced relationship which forms an organisation or group. Or do you not believe that revolutionaries should not freely interact?

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 21:25

Try different tactics then.

Which happened...The lumpens were driven back ultimately by the hurley stick and the gun.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 21:30

Which happened...The lumpens were driven back ultimately by the hurley stick and the gun.
I haven't said that heroin dealers/those destorying communities shouldn't be combated in such ways by locals. It's just a form of community policing, which many anarchists advocate and try to put into practice.

Zanthorus

12th June 2010, 21:34

I edited my post. But in the simpliest form yes. Afterall voluntary association is a non-coerced relationship which forms an organisation or group. Or do you not believe that revolutionaries should not freely interact?

I don't see why we need "individualism" to form revolutionary organisations. You think the RSDLP (Bolshevik) for example, was formed because Lenin, Martov and Plekhanov realised they were sovereign individuals with the right to form voluntary associations?

In your original post you seemed to be saying that "voluntary associations" could somehow break capitalism. But communism is not a "voluntary association", it is where the entirety of society is organised into a single production unit. Now of course this unit is controlled democratically by it's members, but it's not "voluntary". "Voluntary" organisation would lead back to the market system.

Atlee

12th June 2010, 21:38

i have a sneaking supicion that ive already made a thread similar to thise on, if so, mods, kindly slash and burn.

so. Communist Manifesto, marx calles the lumpenproletariat "socail scum" and "a passivley rotting mass" as well as "bribed tools of reationary intruige"

whats with this? is so disimilar from the rest of marxs rather accurate writtings, why does he knock the lumpen so? was he mugged by an unemployed person or what?

Is this not what the democrats are doing to Alvin Greene in SC?

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 21:40

I haven't said that heroin dealers/those destorying communities shouldn't be combated in such ways by locals. It's just a form of community policing, which many anarchists advocate and try to put into practice.

"Community policing" is a messy and usually ugly business (that can also lead to injustice on some occasions)...Sadly its often a necessity. I really wish we had a proper police force and proper rehabilitation of people.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 21:44

I don't see why we need "individualism" to form revolutionary organisations. You think the RSDLP (Bolshevik) for example, was formed because Lenin, Martov and Plekhanov realised they were sovereign individuals with the right to form voluntary associations?
I reckon that they believed that they and the working class should not to be exploited. To understand the idea of exploiting, the profiteering of one person over another, you have to recongise that you are an individual and that another shouldn't not be able to dominate you. Did those theorists you speak of not make the individual choice to join a organisation (voluntarily associating) that they thought could aid the toppling of capitalism?

In your original post you seemed to be saying that "voluntary associations" could somehow break capitalism. But communism is not a "voluntary association", it is where the entirety of society is organised into a single production unit. Now of course this unit is controlled democratically by it's members, but it's not "voluntary". "Voluntary" organisation would lead back to the market system.
No, you just don't seem to understand what a voluntary association is, here's a wiki page to help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association
Anyway, communism to be truly attractive as a economic framework has to be completely voluntary to actually work effectively- or do you not understand communism as a stateless, moneyless society with each working to ones ability and taking what they need?

gorillafuck

12th June 2010, 21:44

Recent example: You'd be surprised how many Tea Party'ers are on government benefits.

The lumpenproletariat's tendency to serve reaction is a sad fact, but it has proven true on more than one occasion.
You consider people on government benefits "lumpenproletariat" and therefore have a problem with them?

Wow, go fuck yourself. I can't believe I'm seeing trash like this posted.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 21:46

Well that's an entirely different kettle of fish. The main problem of course with making any criticisms of anarchism is that there's no coherent anarchist position on anything. Some of them are frenzied petty-bourgeois stirnerites and some of them are crypto-Trotskyists. That's at least one of the reasons I stopped being an anarchist. That plus even the collectivist ones have a tendency to go on about "individualism", "voluntary socialism" etc

True...But the majiority of anarchists today are either syndicalist or platformist neither of whom are psycho-individualists. I have known and know good working class militants who identify themselves as anarchist so a lot of the "Marxist" criticisms of anarchism dont ring true to me (which doesnt stop me from being a Gothonic Stalinoid).

What do you mean by crypto-Trotskyite?

nuisance

12th June 2010, 21:53

The main problem of course with making any criticisms of anarchism is that there's no coherent anarchist position on anything.
There's plently of coherent positions taken by anarchists of varying stripes (insurrectionist, communist, platformist, syndicalist etc) but sice anarchism isn't a dogma, it is constantly evolving to modern contributions to the thought tract.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 22:02

Not all street gangs are hierarchical, well no more so than friendship circles. Anyway, modern youth gangs, atleast in the UK, do not always respect the old criminal formations and actually come into conflict with eachother more often than not..

How much do you really know about them?

The "unofficial" hierarchies of "hardness" or "coolness" are very different than the bonds that arise out of affection or commonality. Also modern youth gangs in the UK are often tied into inter-cultural violence (Sikhs against Muslims, "whites" against Muslims and/or Sikhs, etc).

As a not very tall girl from a council estate I may feel differently about them than you do based on my position in the scheme of things. "Rebeliousness" doesnt equal "Revolutionariness"...I dont imagine that Die Neue Zeit is very hard but he is a lot more revolutionary than "street gang" members.

Zanthorus

12th June 2010, 22:09

No, you just don't seem to understand what a voluntary association is, here's a wiki page to help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association

:rolleyes:

I'm not a bleeding five year old. You don't have to patronise me by linking to wikipedia to explain what a "voluntary association is.

Anyway, communism to be truly attractive as a economic framework has to be completely voluntary to actually work effectively- or do you not understand communism as a stateless, moneyless society with each working to ones ability and taking what they need?

Apparently you don't understand communism as a system based on directly social labour and organised according to a common plan.

And I don't believe in free access.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 22:10

How much do you really know about them?

The "unofficial" hierarchies of "hardness" or "coolness" are very different than the bonds that arise out of affection or commonality. Also modern youth gangs in the UK are often tied into inter-cultural violence (Sikhs against Muslims, "whites" against Muslims and/or Sikhs, etc).

As a not very tall girl from a council estate I may feel differently about them than you do based on my position in the scheme of things. "Rebeliousness" doesnt equal "Revolutionariness"...I dont imagine that Die Neue Zeit is very hard but he is a lot more revolutionary than "street gang" members.
I was talking about the structure of the gangs, not inter-cultural violence and the like, which I'm pretty sure most people know about. Anyway, hardness and coolness don't just effect gangs but friendships also.
Didn't say they were revolutionary though and I didn't say 'rebeliousness', so I don't know who you quoted that from.
However my crew has ex-youth gang members in, that you'd refer to as lumpen, and I believe them to be top notch mates and good honest revolutionaries. Wayward people aren't beyond redemption. You need to stop trying to read into thing that have been said.

this is an invasion

12th June 2010, 22:14

My crew is a mix of prole and lumpen prole people.

Sorry that capitalism has forced some of us into using scams and selling weed to get by.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 22:17

:rolleyes:

I'm not a bleeding five year old. Yo udon't have to patronise me by linking to wikipedia to explain what a "voluntary association is.
I know, however you didn't seem to understand it the first two times I mentioned/explained it, or were you just being pig ignorant? :blink:

Apparently you don't understand communism as a system based on directly social labour and organised according to a common plan.
Yeah...people coming together for mutual benefit. A voluntary association.

And I don't believe in free access.
Ok, then I don't consider you a economic communist.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 22:17

I was talking about the structure of the gangs, not inter-cultural violence and the like, which I'm pretty sure most people know about. Anyway, hardness and coolness don't just effect gangs but friendships also.
.

Maybe when you are 14 or 15 they do.

My friendships are based on affection and common interests and experiances not "hardness" or "coolness". Infact having those things effect friendships is a sign of immaturity. Inter-cultural and inter-neighbourhood violence goes hand in hand with gangs. The whole culture around them is sickening and reactionary.

You know the working class isnt just anrgy young hard men...There are women, the eldery, the nerdy, the middle aged aswell. We count and deserve to be thought about.

this is an invasion

12th June 2010, 22:21

m1917

12th June 2010, 22:21

My understanding is that lumpenproletariet isn't a class in the sense of the materialist definition. Its more of a tendency within the lower rungs of the working class. Its just a fancy name for the criminal element. Its not separate class from the proletariat itself.

very well said, lunpen prolettariat is the "lower extract of the proletariat" that will never achieve class consciousness, its the refuse of all class.

Zanthorus

12th June 2010, 22:21

I know, however you didn't seem to understand it the first two times I mentioned/explained it, or were you just being pig ignorant? :blink:

I understand the concept of "voluntary association" fine. Communism would not be one. If people merely came together on a voluntary basis, you would have autonomous production units. Those autonomous production units would inevitably end up trading with each other. In order to have communism the whole of society needs to be co-ordinated according to a single plan.

Yeah...people coming together for mutual benefit. A voluntary association.

People coming together for mutual benefit because they would have no other choice... not a voluntary association.

Ok, then I don't consider you a economic communist.

Says the one who wants to base everything on "voluntary association"? FYI, my beliefs are perfectly in accordance with Marx's view of communism.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 22:26

Maybe when you are 14 or 15 they do.

My friendships are based on affection and common interests and experiances not "hardness" or "coolness". Infact having those things effect friendships is a sign of immaturity. Inter-cultural and inter-neighbourhood violence goes hand in hand with gangs. The whole culture around them is sickening and reactionary.
You have to look into why gangs are formed in the first place and way they are more lurcative in certain areas. The destruction of the traditonal working class communities- old skool estates with local shops and places for communal recreation being replaced by towerblocks and cuts in public spending to those areas are the most obvious reasons for this, aswell as the breakdown of traditional industries and apprenticeships.
You seem to be glorifying gang life for the actual members. Many join because they're safer and find it easier to get by in a group, aswell as creating a sense of community between them and distanting themselves from those that have sold them up the river by creating informal markets.

You know the working class isnt just anrgy young hard men...There are women, the eldery, the nerdy, the middle aged aswell. We count and deserve to be thought about.
Erm, what? You've gotta stop reading invisible posts, noone said the working class was just hard lads?

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 22:31

omfg shhh. Some of the hardest people in my crew are women.

I know this will be denied here...But do you know where the term "gang-bang" comes from? It comes from the fact that a female in order to gain enterance to gang had to be fucked and I mean fucked and not made love to repeatably by male gang members one after another....To willingly endure such crap makes you hard but it also takes away your dignity, your humanity.

I know full well that violence is necessary and I admire and look up those who were "hard" enough to apply necessary violence...But the reality of violence is horrifying and dehumanizing. Those who faced that horror for love of their people I admire...Those you have dived into that horror for the "buzz" I detest.

Os Cangaceiros

12th June 2010, 22:34

This thread kind of reminds me of when the lefty intellectuals of the 60's thought that the Hells Angels would be some kind of new, revolutionary force, simply because they were outlaws, did/sold drugs and hated the cops.

Then the Hells Angels beat the crap out of a bunch of Vietnam War protestors, because what the misguided leftists didn't know was that the Hells Angels were actually patriotic 'murikans. Point is that just because a group has some of the same enemies that we do, doesn't necessarily make them allies. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

That's not to say that some segments of "the lumpen" couldn't play a helpful role in a revolutionary situation, because I think that they could. I don't view them as "scum" to be exterminated, as some vulgar Marxists do (that one user OI OI OI was banned for holding that opinion, as I remember).

nuisance

12th June 2010, 22:35

I understand the concept of "voluntary association" fine. Communism would not be one. If people merely came together on a voluntary basis, you would have autonomous production units. Those autonomous production units would inevitably end up trading with each other. In order to have communism the whole of society needs to be co-ordinated according to a single plan.
So, you agree that people will voluntarily engage in communist production, this is a voluntary association because it is composed of people choosing to engage in that activity using self-managed workplaces owned by the whole community, as production is social the goods are owned by the whole community.
What are you on about autnomous production units? Is this just some retro strawman critique you've read or soemthing?

People coming together for mutual benefit because they would have no other choice... not a voluntary association.
No choice? People do not have to join in, and if they wish to not contribute to society then they can leave the commune, no one is making them stay.

Says the one who wants to base everything on "voluntary association"? FYI, my beliefs are perfectly in accordance with Marx's view of communism.
Marx used this quote- 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.
Anyway, this isn't important.

this is an invasion

12th June 2010, 22:37

I know this will be denied here...But do you know where the term "gang-bang" comes from? It comes from the fact that a female in order to gain enterance to gang had to be fucked and I mean fucked and not made love to repeatably by male gang members one after another....To willingly endure such crap makes you hard but it also takes away your dignity, your humanity.

The fuck does this have to do with an anarchist crew?

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 22:39

You have to look into why gangs are formed in the first place and way they are more lurcative in certain areas. The destruction of the traditonal working class communities- old skool estates with local shops and places for communal recreation being replaced by towerblocks and cuts in public spending to those areas are the most obvious reasons for this, aswell as the breakdown of traditional industries and apprenticeships.
You seem to be glorifying gang life for the actual members. Many join because they're safer and find it easier to get by in a group, aswell as creating a sense of community between them and distanting themselves from those that have sold them up the river by creating informal markets

Im well aware of lumpenization on one hand and the bourgiousification of the working class on the other in the Imperialist heartlands...But it is something to be fought and not just accepted.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 22:41

The fuck does this have to do with an anarchist crew?

Why use such terms like "crew" than?

nuisance

12th June 2010, 22:41

Im well aware of lumpenization on one hand and the bourgiousification of the working class on the other in the Imperialist heartlands...But it is something to be fought and not just accepted.
Who's accepting it? I've already spoken about communities organising against anti-social behaviour.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 22:42

Why use such terms like "crew" than?
There's no such term as a 'crew bang', so what's you're problem with this word?

this is an invasion

12th June 2010, 22:43

Why use such terms like "crew" than?

Because that's what we are?

Your logic is completely fucked if you think that because there are some reactionary people that form crews that ALL crews are reactionary.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 22:45

There's no such term as a 'crew bang', so what's you're problem with this word?

Because maybe im a Gothonic Stalinoid? ;)

Zanthorus

12th June 2010, 22:59

So, you agree that people will voluntarily engage in communist production,

No. Sorry, but I don't trust people enough to go to work entirely of their own accord. People will go to work because they will be rewarded for going to work by getting back a portion of the total social product according to labour-time performed.

What are you on about autnomous production units? Is this just some retro strawman critique you've read or soemthing?

Imagine for a second that everyone in the world were suddenly allowed free reign to associate with whoever they wanted. Do you really think this would lead to a societal wide system of conscious planning?

No choice? People do not have to join in, and if they wish to not contribute to society then they can leave the commune, no one is making them stay.

People will join in communist society or they won't join in society at all.

Marx used this quote- 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.
Anyway, this isn't important.

Marx used that quote once in a letter that was never intended for publication and the slogan was based on the slogan of the social-reformist Louis Blanc. He also only used it after qualifying that before that in communism the social wealth would be distributed out according to labour time.

infraxotl

12th June 2010, 22:59

I can't help thinking you're all talking about sailors, or possibly hip-hop dance squads. Anyone in a "crew" couldn't possibly be that hard.

Vendetta

12th June 2010, 23:00

this is an invasion

12th June 2010, 23:06

I can't help thinking you're all talking about sailors, or possibly hip-hop dance squads. Anyone in a "crew" couldn't possibly be that hard.

Read about hardcore, graffiti, and skinhead culture.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 23:14

Palingenisis, have you ever considered WHY people do the things they do?

It's called survival, and yeah it's not pretty, but thats the effect capitalism has. So instead of writing them off as scum, look at the situation that put them there in the first place.

And don't even think about calling them lazy. That is the worst reactionary thinkimg.

I really want to scream middle class wankers at you all....

I have begged, I have sex four times with people in an unspoken "exchange" because I felt I had too at the time, I have shoplifted...But Im not proud of any that, I know how horrible life can be...And I really dont think any of you understand the real class divide in council estates and housing projects between the lumpens and the working class and war between.

Im also unemployed at the moment...And I hate the fact. I want to work...I want to contribute to society. Is that such a weird thing? Is being freaked out at those who dont want to contribute to society reactionary?

nuisance

12th June 2010, 23:21

No. Sorry, but I don't trust people enough to go to work entirely of their own accord. People will go to work because they will be rewarded for going to work by getting back a portion of the total social product according to labour-time performed.
Your points are confused. That doesn't differ from what I said...anyway the communalising of production comes through from the expropriation during the revolutionary situation. This means that the means of production shall be being mobilised to provide for the population and coordinate with others to fulfil needs and fight eneimes. It isn't a reward to take what you need from social production, that is the point of social production.
Anyway, it seems you're talking about labour notes, which is collectivist, not communist.

Imagine for a second that everyone in the world were suddenly allowed free reign to associate with whoever they wanted. Do you really think this would lead to a societal wide system of conscious planning?
You seem to be missing out one vital part, the collective expropriation of production by the workers and the coordination necessary in a heavily conflictual period that this would take place in. I'm not arguing against workplaces organising planning, and I don't quite know why you'd think that other than a misunderstanding of language and terms.

People will join in communist society or they won't join in society at all.
Fair. But what others create will also be 'societies'.

Marx used that quote once in a letter that was never intended for publication and the slogan was based on the slogan of the social-reformist Louis Blanc. He also only used it after qualifying that before that in communism the social wealth would be distributed out according to labour time.
I couldn't care less.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 23:22

Vendetta

12th June 2010, 23:27

I really want to scream middle class wankers at you all....

Yeah 'cuz the homeless are middle class now. Thanks.

You shouldn't assume shit.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 23:30

I really want to scream middle class wankers at you all....
Yeah, you're the only working class person in this thread! :laugh:

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 23:30

Yeah 'cuz the homeless are middle class now. Thanks.

Lots of people go through stages of being homeless without actually being lumpen...We are talking about basically the criminal "caste"...Those who dont want to work, anti-social elements...

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 23:32

Yeah, you're the only working class person in this thread! :laugh:

No at all...Zanathoros or whatever is probably working class as is infra. There are a few more.

12th June 2010, 23:46

No at all...Zanathoros or whatever is probably working class as is infra. There are a few more.

Ohh got it, those who agree with you are the working class.The rest of us are just middle class wankers, to quote yourself.Great way to find the difference, and judge who is working class or not.It depends who agrees with your (stupid) ideas and who donts:lol: Thats a first, you kind of people impress me every day, i will never stop learning.:lol:

nuisance

12th June 2010, 23:55

No at all...Zanathoros or whatever is probably working class as is infra. There are a few more.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA CLASSIC!
Those that take your line are the only working class people! Thanks for clearing that up!
Anyway, I thought tRoO pRoLeS didn't have computers and shit?!

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 00:01

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA CLASSIC!
Those that take your line are the only working class people! Thanks for clearing that up!

I didnt say that at all a chara....But there is a certain way of looking at the world that generally goes with being working class.

nuisance

13th June 2010, 00:03

I didnt say that at all a chara....But there is a certain way of looking at the world that generally goes with being working class.
Of course there is, however you seem to think it equates to your pov. Are you even out of school?

Zanthorus

13th June 2010, 00:03

a chara

Well I know mo chara means my comrade... so what does a chara mean?

Vendetta

13th June 2010, 00:08

I didnt say that at all a chara....But there is a certain way of looking at the world that generally goes with being working class.

Indeed, but you are just covering your own opinions as that of all the working class, everyone with a different opinion is quite obviously bourgie.

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 00:09

Well I know mo chara means my comrade... so what does a chara mean?

A chara is a more "native" way of saying it while mo chara is more a translation from English.

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 00:11

Indeed, but you are just covering your own opinions as that of all the working class, everyone with a different opinion is quite obviously bourgie.

Well Karl Marx was considerably more brutal than me on this issue as have revolutionaires been traditionally.

this is an invasion

13th June 2010, 00:17

Well Karl Marx was considerably more brutal than me on this issue as have revolutionaires been traditionally.

OH FUCK. If Karl Marx believed something, then we all must believe it!

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 00:20

Well I know mo chara means my comrade... so what does a chara mean?

Its a great expression because it can used with utter sarcasm the way Nigerians say "my friend" meaning they want to smash your face in or as a sign of utter respect.

Zanthorus

13th June 2010, 00:24

OH FUCK. If Karl Marx believed something, then we all must believe it!

Except Marx's hostility to the Lumpen is interesting and relevant because it was an extension of his hostility to the bourgeoisie in general:

Since the finance aristocracy made the laws, was at the head of the administration of the state, had command of all the organized public authorities, dominated public opinion through the actual state of affairs and through the press, the same prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get rich was repeated in every sphere, from the court to the Café Borgne to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the already available wealth of others, Clashing every moment with the bourgeois laws themselves, an unbridled assertion of unhealthy and dissolute appetites manifested itself, particularly at the top of bourgeois society – lusts wherein wealth derived from gambling naturally seeks its satisfaction, where pleasure becomes crapuleux [debauched], where money, filth, and blood commingle. The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society.

The Red Next Door

13th June 2010, 05:49

I really want to scream middle class wankers at you all....

I have begged, I have sex four times with people in an unspoken "exchange" because I felt I had too at the time, I have shoplifted...But Im not proud of any that, I know how horrible life can be...And I really dont think any of you understand the real class divide in council estates and housing projects between the lumpens and the working class and war between.

Im also unemployed at the moment...And I hate the fact. I want to work...I want to contribute to society. Is that such a weird thing? Is being freaked out at those who dont want to contribute to society reactionary?

Don't because i am welfare class, and me having access to a computer doesn't mean shit.

Hiero

13th June 2010, 06:04

I think you will find the reason for Marx's hostility not in his actual words agains the lumpen proleteriat but in his revolutionary theory.

In Marx's idea, revolution is about the appropriationof the ownership of the means of production. The proleteriat are the only class that is firmly related to the means of production (other then the bourgioeisie) yet do not own the means of production. So they have an interesting in appropriating the means of production.

The lumpen proleteriat have a fickle relationship (if any) to any dominant means of production. They have no revolutionary potential, why would they be interested in ownership of means of production that they have no relationship to?

If in th 21st centuary there was a progressive movement in the lumpen proleteriat, it was not a revolutionary movement in Marx's sense, but the movement was related to other contradictions, like underdevelopment, civil rights, race, ethnicity etc.

ComradeOm

13th June 2010, 10:53

Revolutionary potentials?Thats all you people care?They are people for fuck sakeWhich is not in question. What is in question is the revolutionary potential of this class. I can have sympathy for the likes of junkies, who are undoubtedly victims of the capitalist system, but that does not mean that I see them as comrades or imagine that they'll be the first to take to the barricades (figuratively speaking)

If you don’t agree with the Marxist position that the proletariat is the only true revolutionary class (and this is entirely different from slurs about ‘Saint Karl’) then that’s fair enough. But don’t pretend that all those who disagree with you on this are heartless bastards who "see revolution as a fucking game"

Lyev

13th June 2010, 12:45

Can I just interject here and say: everything that son of God Karl Marx said was irrefutably true - don't question the messiah. We know that He is eternal and omnipresent.

Hiero

14th June 2010, 11:43

Can I just interject here and say: everything that son of God Karl Marx said was irrefutably true - don't question the messiah. We know that He is eternal and omnipresent.

Karl Marx did not just provide an opinion, he provided a whole system. The lumpen proleteriat sit outside this system.

It isn't what Karl Marx thought about the lumpen proleteriat, such as his remarks how they are this or that, but it is his dialectical and historical materialist method and what it shows about the lumpen proleteriat is important here.

People have to read Marx and Engels stuff to have an understanding as to why the lumpen proleteriat is considered reactionary in that system of thought.

14th June 2010, 13:51

Which is not in question. What is in question is the revolutionary potential of this class. I can have sympathy for the likes of junkies, who are undoubtedly victims of the capitalist system, but that does not mean that I see them as comrades or imagine that they'll be the first to take to the barricades (figuratively speaking)

If you don’t agree with the Marxist position that the proletariat is the only true revolutionary class (and this is entirely different from slurs about ‘Saint Karl’) then that’s fair enough. But don’t pretend that all those who disagree with you on this are heartless bastards who "see revolution as a fucking game"

You didnt got my post correct, you misunderstood.In order to understand on what exactly i was talking about, you should have been reading the thread from the start, if you did and still didnt understand, fair enough, but yeah you are talking about a different thing than i am.
I never refuted that proletariat is the true revolutionary class, i mostly agree, proletariat is the one whos gonna have most power, and "lead" if you want to say it like that, from the proletariats the revolution will come, i dont disagree with that, and i even support it.I have never talked about lumpen etc etc as "comrades" nor i implied that they would make any significant action in a revolution. My response was towarded to people describing them scums, unnecessary etc etc, and based on that they cant help the revolution some "communists" dont give a fuck about them and describe them as above, scums etc etc.While they are not those you can call comrades, are the ones need our compassion, and certainly are the ones who wont turn against us, so having such kind of reactions is sick from "communists" and that was where i responded, not on the fact that proletarians is the revolutionary class, i know that pretty well, and dont deny that.While i dont consider myself a Marxist, but an Anarcho-Communist, the second part of my ideology isnt for shit, i held high appreciation for Marx, i reject some of his ideas obviously, but i accept a lot of them.
But all in all, i dont think you disagree with me that judging someone personally from his/her revolutionary potentials is stupid, and that communism is build on ideas that support compassion of our fellow human, war against capitalism and its causes, freedom, equality, no fucking prejudice etc.And how people who want to call themselves communists reacted go against most of those ideas.

synthesis

15th June 2010, 05:57

Well, let's take a step back and look at what we know.

The lumpenproletariat is a byproduct of capitalism. Even before capitalism was the dominant mode of production, the lumpenproletariat consistently flourished in the same cities in which the bourgeoisie developed and coalesced as a class.
In the West, they are the ones who got "left behind." American ghettos, for example, are the way they are because all the industry packed up and moved overseas, so most of the jobs are gone, at least the ones that provide security and any measure of dignity to the working class.
These days, people have to choose between starvation, McDonald's jobs that don't pay shit and get you no respect, or selling something illegally - whether it be drugs, stolen goods or your body itself.
This is not so much a choice as it is an imperative of survival.
Furthermore, because lumpenproletarians exist outside the system, they are targeted by the system and therefore are generally hostile towards it.
At the same time, circumstances breed mentalities, and lumpenproletarians are very rarely possessed of even a lumpenproletarian class consciousness, much less any sort of identification with those exploited by the system as a whole.
However, is this not "our" fault as much as it is theirs?
Regardless of Marx's opinion, lumpenproletariat certainly does have revolutionary potential, but potential must be developed.
Marxists often shy away from attempting to recruit lumpenproletarians into the broader fold of radical socialism, but perhaps even that is not the solution in and of itself.
Perhaps, as Marxists, we could put some of our energy into "de-lumpenizing" them within the system as it currently exists, and in the process we can develop a proletarian consciousness among them.
After all, the lumpenproletariat often serves to conveniently provide a neat lubricant for the capitalist system. When you walk outside and see prostitutes, panhandlers and/or drug addicts - not to mention all the people you don't see, because they're in prison - working a 9-to-5 doesn't seem quite so bad.
Many people who grew up in crime-ridden communities regard their proletarian existence as a privilege, not as exploitation.
The existence of lumpenproletarians makes proletarian existence more acceptable to those residing within it, since they are regularly witness to alternatives that are much, much worse.
This effect is not necessarily quantifiable, but it is present. Sometimes it breeds a theoretically developed anti-lumpen mentality among the proletariat itself, as we have seen here, in this thread.
In conclusion: Perhaps, instead of coldly dismissing the lumpenproletariat as "class enemies," the solution lies in a nuanced appreciation of the role that they serve within modern capitalism as a whole, and in concentrated action to unravel the fabric of which they are a part and with which capitalism is woven everyday. I could be wrong - but I don't think I am.

Die Neue Zeit

15th June 2010, 06:09

At the same time, circumstances breed mentalities, and lumpenproletarians are very rarely possessed of even a lumpenproletarian class consciousness, much less any sort of identification with those exploited by the system as a whole.
However, is this not "our" fault as much as it is theirs?
Regardless of Marx's opinion, lumpenproletariat certainly does have revolutionary potential, but potential must be developed.
Marxists often shy away from attempting to recruit lumpenproletarians into the broader fold of radical socialism, but perhaps even that is not the solution in and of itself.
Perhaps, as Marxists, we could put some of our energy into "de-lumpenizing" them within the system as it currently exists, and in the process we can develop a proletarian consciousness among them.

That's why, for example, we should all be for full political, economic, and social rights for practitioners of "the world's oldest profession": sex workers.

But even a lumpenproletarian prostitute is still quite different from the perpetual street beggar who's hostile to the very notion of working (lumpen). They in fact belong to different classes (the "underclass" is not one homogenous class). Throw pimps and other criminal bosses into the mix, and you've got the lumpenbourgeoisie.

I'm all for the struggles of the lumpenproletariat proper to become proletarians or "other" workers (paralegals, butlers, maids, and factory workers producing military armaments not being productive, so not proletarian), but against the lumpenbourgeoisie and the lumpen(-scum).

synthesis

15th June 2010, 06:42

That's why, for example, we should all be for full political, economic, and social rights for practitioners of "the world's oldest profession": sex workers.

But even a lumpenproletarian prostitute is still quite different from the perpetual street beggar who's hostile to the very notion of working (lumpen). They in fact belong to different classes (the "underclass" is not one homogenous class). Throw pimps and other criminal bosses into the mix, and you've got the lumpenbourgeoisie.

I'm all for the struggles of the lumpenproletariat proper to become proletarians or "other" workers (paralegals, butlers, maids, and factory workers producing military armaments not being productive, so not proletarian), but against the lumpenbourgeoisie and the lumpen(-scum).

I think you are right to note that there are divisions and hierarchies within the group that Marx identified as the "lumpenproletariat," but ultimately I do not believe that these are useful distinctions to make when analyzing the role they play within the capitalist system.

A street beggar might have been a lumpenproletarian at one point. He might have been a prostitute that got so old and his body so ravaged by disease and drug use that clients no longer sought his services.

He could have been a lumpenbourgeoisie, now he's out on parole, using drugs to reproduce the high that one gets from "being on top." He might have even been a proper proletarian who became disillusioned and disenchanted.

The lumpenproletariat is perhaps the most fluid of class categories, because it is a catch-all term for those who exist outside the system. Again, I do not believe that these distinctions are useful for determining whether or not an individual is a class enemy, because they all serve essentially the same purposes within the system.

Future proletarians see them and think they're lucky to be where they're at. Even the lumpenbourgeois serve as deterrents eventually, since they often get the longest sentences.

Eventually, lumpen-proletarians themselves - and "lumpens," and the "lumpenbourgeois," it doesn't matter - often become the most exploited members of the proletariat proper, because their criminal record excludes them from any sort of secure, gratifying, and dignified work.

So, again, I do not think that the distinctions you have made - "lumpenproletarians," "lumpenbourgeois," and "lumpens" - are entirely useless or incorrect; just the opposite.

But even that paradigm is too simple, given the fluidity, complexity and nebulousness of the concept itself, and by delving into its intricacy, we can miss the bigger picture - that is, how they all serve to lubricate the machinery of capitalism in many different yet confluent ways, and what they must do, and what we must do, to replace this machinery with something less mechanical and more human.

ComradeOm

15th June 2010, 14:23

My response was towarded to people describing them scums, unnecessary etc etc, and based on that they cant help the revolution some "communists" dont give a fuck about them and describe them as above, scums etc etc.While I do not necessarily condone those opinions I can understand someone's reluctance to embrace a pusher or someone who's just stolen their car radio. It has to be borne in mind that the victims of the lumpen, aside from themselves, are more often than not the proletariat itself. So let's not start lauding pimps, pushers, thieves, etc, simply because they've been marginalised by capitalism

Regardless of Marx's opinion, lumpenproletariat certainly does have revolutionary potential, but potential must be developedI disagree. Even if we accept that the lumpen are opposed to the capitalist mode of production, something I do not necessarily agree with, it does not automatically follow that they can obtain proletarian class consciousness and therefore assume a role in any socialist revolution/society

The only way that one can become "de-lumpenized" is through (re)entering the wage-labour system and assuming a place amongst the proletariat proper. Then, and only then, does it become in one's material interest to both abolish capitalism and install a socialist mode of production

Sometimes it breeds a theoretically developed anti-lumpen mentality among the proletariat itself, as we have seen here, in this thread. As I've noted above, the reason that working class communities are so often hostile to criminal elements, particularly drug pushers, is not some subtle capitalist propaganda or the fear that they might one day end up the same, but rather the reality that it is these communities that typically feel the full ill effects of a lumpen presence. There are very good reasons why nobody wants criminals in their neighbourhood and why communities have often rallied to expel the likes of pushers

Kyrite

15th June 2010, 15:05

Prostitutes working in a neighbourhood attracts sex addicts and the other sickos who use them and makes it much more unsafe for working class women.

Of course after the revolution prositutes will be sent to re-education camps.

What is it with you and re-education? Earlier I read you going on about re-educating drug users, and now this? I'm starting to wonder who you wouldn't put in these 'camps'...

Vendetta

15th June 2010, 15:22

What is it with you and re-education? Earlier I read you going on about re-educating drug users, and now this? I'm starting to wonder who you wouldn't put in these 'camps'...

Herself. :lol:

Robocommie

15th June 2010, 17:39

it seems a little lazy to just say the cause of every social problem is capitalism and the solution to the problem is the elimination of the cause (i.e. capitalism).. imo

Not if you're an economic determinist. While other forces are at work in society, economics is the primary mover of social forces.

Zanthorus

15th June 2010, 18:05

While other forces are at work in society, economics is the primary mover of social forces.

There is a sense in which this is true in that the entry into productive relations in order to meet certain needs is prime motive behind the creation of society and inevitably shapes it to some degree and all the other elements like politics, law or what is commonly known as the "superstructure" arises out from that particular "base" and that a change in the "base" can set forces into play which change the "superstructure" but that doesn't necessarily imply that economic forces determine either completely or "in the last instance" what the superstructure is like. Nor would such an argument need to be made in order to sustain Marx's critique of capitalism or Marxism as such. What is important is that although "men make their own history" they don't do it on their own terms. You are born in a certain country into a certain social class in a society bearing the legacy of umpteen previous generations and can only "make" history on such a basis. In every society from ancient slave regimes to capitalism society has been structured on various alienating social institutions (One of the main elements of which is the stratification within the social organisation of labour which leads to the creation of various economic classes) and men have had to make history in that specific context. Capitalism is a world ripped apart. It's ways of working are, as Marx said, completely verrückt (Crazy). While many of the bad things that happen within it would be impossible to prevent even a future classless society it amplifies various things unnecessarily. Especially in terms of human suffering, a constant result of economic crises which all economists seem to ignore. A classless society would provide us with a basis at least to solve the problems that are insolvable and/or amplified within capitalism

this is an invasion

15th June 2010, 21:54

synthesis

16th June 2010, 07:27

I disagree. Even if we accept that the lumpen are opposed to the capitalist mode of production, something I do not necessarily agree with, it does not automatically follow that they can obtain proletarian class consciousness and therefore assume a role in any socialist revolution/society

The only way that one can become "de-lumpenized" is through (re)entering the wage-labour system and assuming a place amongst the proletariat proper. Then, and only then, does it become in one's material interest to both abolish capitalism and install a socialist mode of productionI don't really see how we are in disagreement here - certainly not on how they can be "de-lumpenized." Perhaps we disagree on the role that committed lumpenproletarians can play in a socialist revolution, to which I would simply respond that many of them often have more visceral reasons to be opposed to capitalism than many who would objectively classify as proletarians.

As I've noted above, the reason that working class communities are so often hostile to criminal elements, particularly drug pushers, is not some subtle capitalist propaganda or the fear that they might one day end up the same, but rather the reality that it is these communities that typically feel the full ill effects of a lumpen presence. There are very good reasons why nobody wants criminals in their neighbourhood and why communities have often rallied to expel the likes of pushersNo offense - really - but you strike me as having somewhat of an outsider's perspective on this. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) For many people in these communities, those pushers could be their brothers, sons, whatever - the division is not as clear-cut as you have presented it here. Nobody wants drug dealers on their corner, but you can't get anywhere without a sober, materialist analysis, and this isn't it.

Furthermore, I never said it was "propaganda," and your interpretation of my argument as such is another indicator that your perspective is, again, no disrespect, but "from the outside looking in." It's not "propaganda," it's how the system fucking works.

With regards to "the fear that they might one day end up the same," this is not based the perspectives of those communities, and honestly I've never heard anyone else express such an argument - it's usually me, expressing it to other people, particularly other people in those communities. When I do, they are that much more sympathetic to my broader socialist agenda. Something to think about.

ComradeOm

16th June 2010, 12:46

I don't really see how we are in disagreement here - certainly not on how they can be "de-lumpenized." Perhaps we disagree on the role that committed lumpenproletarians can play in a socialist revolution, to which I would simply respond that many of them often have more visceral reasons to be opposed to capitalism than many who would objectively classify as proletariansMy point being that there is no role for the lumpenproletariat, certainly as a class, in a socialist revolution. Being opposed to capitalism is not enough in itself to engender a socialist consciousness and the lumpen are, by definition, removed from the relations of production that could foster such a mentality. This only changes when they re-engage with the latter, ie re-enter the workforce and become proletarians

No offense - really - but you strike me as having somewhat of an outsider's perspective on this. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) For many people in these communities, those pushers could be their brothers, sons, whatever - the division is not as clear-cut as you have presented it here. Nobody wants drug dealers on their corner, but you can't get anywhere without a sober, materialist analysis, and this isn't itI'm somewhat lucky in this regard in that the Dublin neighbourhoods in which I've lived have been significantly improved by the community anti-drug campaigns of the late 80s and 90s. These were spearheaded by working class organisations established precisely for the purpose of driving out those pushers who were poisoning their neighbourhoods. Heroin is still present in Dublin, and can obviously never be eradicated under capitalism, but it is no longer the epidemic it was once. This, along with first hand observations, is my frame of reference when talking about working class reactions to the lumpen

robbo203

16th June 2010, 13:09

My point being that there is no role for the lumpenproletariat, certainly as a class, in a socialist revolution. Being opposed to capitalism is not enough in itself to engender a socialist consciousness and the lumpen are, by definition, removed from the relations of production that could foster such a mentality. This only changes when they re-engage with the latter, ie re-enter the workforce and become proletarians

Dont see why this should necessarily be the case. Even Marx and Engels acknowleged the lumpenproles could be swept up into the proletarian revolution even though they thought them more likely to be used as a tool of reactionary intrique. Nevertheless, they didnt rule out a possible revolutionary role.....

While I question the claim that the lumpenproles constitute a distinct "class", at least in Marxian terms, if we are speaking in those terms M & E also spoke of the possibility of a small section of the ruling class cutting itself adrift from that class and allying itself with the workers.

There is in other words no necessary correlation between class position and consciousness which applies inflexibly in all cases. Needless to say, many proletarians are among the most fervant of capitalism's suporters. So we are talking about statistical probabilities here. All things being equal a proletarian is "more likely" to develop a socialist outlook than others but that does not rule out others developing such an outlook themselves. That well known capitalist, Frederick Engels , for one, would certainly not want to disagree with this claim.

Zanthorus

16th June 2010, 13:19

While I question the claim that the lumpenproles constitute a distinct "class", at least in Marxian terms, if we are speaking in those terms M & E also spoke of the possibility of a small section of the ruling class cutting itself adrift from that class and allying itself with the workers.

I think M & E were mostly talking about themselves in that paragraph. And I think the main role they wou'dve ascribed to that small section of the ruling class cut adrift (And that they themselves played) would be merely giving a theoretical expression to the workers movement. Not necessarily becoming a revolutionary class.

robbo203

16th June 2010, 14:08

I think M & E were mostly talking about themselves in that paragraph. And I think the main role they wou'dve ascribed to that small section of the ruling class cut adrift (And that they themselves played) would be merely giving a theoretical expression to the workers movement. Not necessarily becoming a revolutionary class.

Yes I would agree with this. But then you could also argue that the claim that the proletariat is the only revolutionary class is perhaps slightly misleading insofar not every proletarian is likely to become revolutionary. Far from it. It is only a generalisation and generalisation allows for exceptions. Not every swallow doth a summer make. It is broadly true that the socialist revolution will be a proletarian revolution but it is not absolutely true.

On the lumpen. Ive met and chatted with folk round this neck of the woods - southern Spain - who would almost certainly be classed as lumpen - drifters, travellers, new age types etc There are one or two of them I know of who live down a nearby rambla under nothing more than a canvass between two olive trees covering a rusty old transit van that has long given up the ghost. You speak to some of these people and they will tell you that far from them being a mere "tool of reactionary intrique", it is your actual proletarian who has bought into the myth of the consumer society and sold his soul to the highest bidder, who is clearly the tool of capitalism in this instance.

Now I think that is a bit far fetched but it does make you think that perhaps a slighly more nuanced approach to the question of the lumpen might be called for. They are no less part of the proletariat than the unemployed and just occasionally their social exclusion provides them with a vantage point that could, but not necessarily does , have revolutionary implications...