Lumpen

[Nox]

What exactly are the lumpen-proletariat?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Here's one definition: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/u.htm

[el_chavista]

What exactly are the lumpen-proletariat?
The lumpen-proletariat are "the flower of the proletariat", according to Bakunin.

[dodger]

What exactly are the lumpen-proletariat?


Please yourself .....but I avoid at any cost. Observe from a safe distance. Binoculars are a useful tool. Although I did learn how to hotwire a car and deal with most locks, very useful if you're as forgetful as me. It's a lot smaller than the media paint it. Most of us have cottoned onto the fact that a steady job is the road to a life worth living. That is they are actively seeking work. We rarely meet the successful career criminals. Do you know their modus operandi? Can you keep a secret NOX ? ...good !...So can I..!

[hatzel]

It's an imaginary class created by labourphiles so that they can look down on and subsequently distance themselves from 'society's undesirables.'


Here's one definition: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/u.htm

The term was coined by Marx in The German Ideology 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...

I can't actually be bothered to read Marx's polemic in full (not least because it's a really immature text, all this 'Saint Max,' 'Sancho' and '"Stirner"' crap...) to figure out how exactly Stirner's Lumpe and Marx's Lumpenproletariat are linked, if at all. Interestingly enough, however, Stirner's use of the word Lumpe (ragamuffin in this translation) is as follows:


We are freeborn men, and wherever we look we see ourselves made servants of egoists! Are we therefore to become egoists too! Heaven forbid! We want rather to make egoists impossible! We want to make them all "ragamuffins"; all of us must have nothing, that "all may have."

So say the Socialists.

[...]

Before the supreme ruler, the sole commander, we had all become equal, equal persons, that is, nullities.

Before the supreme proprietor we all become equal - ragamuffins. For the present, one is still in another's estimation a "ragamuffin," a "have-nothing"; but then this estimation ceases. We are all ragamuffins together, and as the aggregate of Communistic society we might call ourselves a "ragamuffin crew."

When the proletarian shall really have founded his intended "society" in which the interval between rich and poor is to be removed, then he will be a ragamuffin, for then he will feel that it amounts to something to be a ragamuffin, and might lift "Ragamuffin" to be an honourable form of address, just as the Revolution did with the word "Citizen." Ragamuffin is his ideal; we are all to become ragamuffins.He then goes on to say:


In humane liberalism ragamuffinhood is completed. We must first come down to the most ragamuffin-like, most poverty-stricken condition if we want to arrive at ownness [Eigenheit], for we must strip off everything alien. But nothing seems more ragamuffin-like than naked - Man.

It is more than ragamuffinhood, however, when I throw away Man too because I feel that he too is alien to me and that I can make no pretensions on that basis. This is no longer mere ragamuffinhood: because even the last rag has fallen off, here stands real nakedness, denudation of everything alien. The ragamuffin has stripped off ragamuffinhood itself, and therewith has ceased to be what he was, a ragamuffin.

I am no longer a ragamuffin, but have been one.I don't know if any of this gets us any closer to explaining the old Marxist disdain for these so-called Lumpen, though...I guess we'll have to join the dots ourselves...

[Charlie Watt]

It's one of the things that turned me off from Marxism. Utterly disgusting, snobbish notion. A lot of it is fairly ill defined too. Chronically unemployed describes me, not held steady job in about 4 years. There are no jobs, but apparently that's irrelevant to my "undesirable" status in the revolutionary cause. Many of my friends are severely mentally ill, long term recipients of disability benefits, which classes them as lumpen too. Utter nonsense.

[The Idler]

Counter-revolutionary proletariat.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's one of the things that turned me off from Marxism. Utterly disgusting, snobbish notion. A lot of it is fairly ill defined too. Chronically unemployed describes me, not held steady job in about 4 years. There are no jobs, but apparently that's irrelevant to my "undesirable" status in the revolutionary cause. Many of my friends are severely mentally ill, long term recipients of disability benefits, which classes them as lumpen too. Utter nonsense.

I seriously doubt you've ever read what Marx actually wrote about lumpen.

I don't blame you for not wanting anything to do with with his false "Marxist" followers and their bastardization of nearly everything he wrote, did and stood for though. I don't want anything to do with them either.

[Manic Impressive]

Counter-revolutionary proletariat.
no I don't believe that's correct. I think Marx said that for some of the lumpen their interests may lie with sustaining capitalism and so some may choose to fight to protect it while others will side with the proletariat.
I don't think that a prostitutes interests lie in maintaining capitalism....

@ Charlie Watt I agree that the concept of the lumpen proletariat is a mistake within Marxism possibly caused by snobbish prejudices held by Marx. But it's a myth that the unemployed are part of the lumpen proletariat.

[danyboy27]

The lumpen proletariat are folks living on welfare, the beggars and the small time criminals.

Technically those folks dont do anything productive and all they do is suck up the labor of other peoples.

It dosnt make them bad people tho, someone could live on welfare beccause he or she is unable to work due to a physical handicap, beggar and small time criminals are reduced to this kind of work beccause of their material conditions.

[Manic Impressive]

The lumpen proletariat are folks living on welfare
where do you get that from? seeing as there was no welfare in Marx's day it seems unlikely that he included them in his description of the Lumpen proletariat.

[RedGrunt]

I'm probably wrong but I did think it meant certain elements at the bottom of society that were rather fucked up by, and made subservient to, capitalism. Such as prostitutes that was already mentioned. I don't know, it didn't seem to be something I could fully agree with concerning their potential for revolution.

[danyboy27]

where do you get that from? seeing as there was no welfare in Marx's day it seems unlikely that he included them in his description of the Lumpen proletariat.

there was no welfare but poorhouse existed.

according to Marx analysis A lumpen is someone who is a part of the underclass, and in the society of today, welfare recipients fall in that category, so yes, people on welfare are considered lumpen.

Criminals, welfare folks and beggar usually dont produce anything, they live off other people labour.

That being said, its not a reason to despise the Lumpens, they are what they are beccause of various material conditons they didnt really choose and they dont necessarly have the mean to get out of their messy predicament.

[Charlie Watt]

Crime's another supposedly lumpen activity that irks me. The law is dictated by the state and the state is illegitimate, so essentially what we have are actions which are moral or immoral which are entirely subjective. I know a lot of drug dealers, who punt pills or weed to make ends meet. Symptom of capitalism and purely a criminal activity because the state doesn't get a cut.

I also see nothing wrong with stealing if you're that desperate, so long as it's not from other poor folk. People do what they can to accumulate enough worthless fiat to make their lives bearable, and it infuriates when elements of the left are so keen to write off sections of the population for the same reasons that are usually sited by right wing scumbags. It smacks of social darwinism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wretched scum that most be purified by the cleansing flame of revolution!!!:cursing::cursing::cursing:

[Os Cangaceiros]

On a more serious note, it's pretty easy to find out what was meant by "lumpen". If none of the answers above satisfy you, go take a looksee on MIA or something.

Marx wrote about how the lumpen were sometimes marshalled forth by the ruling class in order to suppress revolutionary ambitions. A more contemporary example that I've mentioned before on this site was the Hells Angels (you really couldn't get a better example of "lumpen" than 1% motorcycle clubs) attacking anti-war protesters during the Vietnam War (not that they were called forth by the ruling class or anything, they were just being patriotic 'murikans, which baffled the leftists at the time, some of whom thought that the HA had the potential to be social bandits or something). The bottom line is that some lumpen will join a serious revolutionary movement, others will oppose it.

Lumpen, like the "petite bourgeoisie", has also proven reliable for communist parties as a label for those they disagree with. Rebellious students during the 60's/70's who refused to channel their aggression through the limp-wristed, impotent communist parties were sometimes described as "lumpen".

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm very sceptical of much Marxist commentary on the "lumpenproletariat"; it often strikes me as representing an attempt to hammer what was for Marx a sociological category into an economic class. This misses one of Marx's key observations about capitalist society, which is that only the bourgeoisie and the proletariat constitute true classes, in that only they represent the antagonistic relationship of capital and labour. If the lumpenproletariat are not a true class, it makes it very difficult for meaningful generalisations to be made about them, so any commentary can only have any use insofar as it addresses a specific stratum in a specific time in a specific place. All that can be said is that there is no objective force pushing them towards conservatism, but, rather, they merely lack an objective force pushing them towards class struggle, and so any conservative tendencies express a subjective reaction to their experiences. You could even go so far as to argue that, despite the poverty which afflicts most of them, they represent the only truly subjective actors in capitalist society, which is perhaps why Bakunin saw as much in them as they did. But, that's just some spontaneous hypothesising.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's worth noting that what Bakunin meant by "lumpen" was/is different than what Marxists refer to as "lumpen". What Bakunin considered "lumpen" were people who contributed to the capitalist system but existed on it's periphery and were some of the most heavily exploited subjects. A good example was Pancho Villas army, largely comprised of ranch-hands, peon laborers, lumberjacks, miners, cowboys, peasants etc.

Not that it stops some people from making dishonest statements about Bakunin wanting an army of unwashed beggars (marshalled forth by a secret conspiracy) to overthrow capitalism, though.

[Vanguard1917]

Crime's another supposedly lumpen activity that irks me. The law is dictated by the state and the state is illegitimate, so essentially what we have are actions which are moral or immoral which are entirely subjective. I know a lot of drug dealers, who punt pills or weed to make ends meet. Symptom of capitalism and purely a criminal activity because the state doesn't get a cut.

We shouldn't be engaging in morally reproaching individuals. You can classify a drug dealer as a lumpen, while also 'understanding' why he does what he does - just like you would with, say, a butcher, a baker, a shopkeeper, etc. But just as you would accept that the latter group of people have class interests distinct from workers, you would also have to accept that a person who makes his living from selling drugs on an illegal market, rather than from selling his labour power to a capitalist, is likely to have his own particular set of interests, too.

[Red Planet]

It's one of the things that turned me off from Marxism. Utterly disgusting, snobbish notion. A lot of it is fairly ill defined too. Chronically unemployed describes me, not held steady job in about 4 years. There are no jobs, but apparently that's irrelevant to my "undesirable" status in the revolutionary cause. Many of my friends are severely mentally ill, long term recipients of disability benefits, which classes them as lumpen too. Utter nonsense.

Considering that Marx conceptualized the reserve army of labor and was therefore well aware of capitalism's structural unemployment problem, I doubt his intent was to denounce unemployed persons in general. By "lumpen," he referred to those portions of the proletariat (i.e., the class which only has its labor power to sell) that subsist on the economic periphery; that is, they must either scrape from the proletariat or from the capitalists, but they are industrial outcasts. Also, considering that the lumpenrpoletariat was prone to expansion and contraction in accordance with capitalism's crises, it would not follow that Marx would irrationally discount the lumpen as a whole as "worthless" to revolution. This strikes me more as nonsense propounded by those who know little about or would sensationalize Marxism, but it doesn't surprise me, since so many here seem to be adopting reactionary views anyway.

[Jose Gracchus]

Marx isn't being some snob for snob's sake. His theory is that the development of capital itself generates a working-class which is capable, and in fact compelled by that development to constitute itself as an active agent, capable of resistance, and through that real resistance inevitably move to overturn capital itself.

Pointing out the lumpen is simply automatic to the theory: if one posits that capital's circulation and exploitation of labor necessarily digs its own grave, than those individuals and elements which find themselves expelled from that process of class formation will obviously not be subject to the same real movement toward a class-for-itself. Beggars and the perennially unemployed and many criminals simply have been ejected from the proletariat proper, and thus will not participate (directly) in its formation into a class-for-itself as long as their condition (ipso facto expulsion from the proletariat proper, that is, circulating in and out of wage-labor attached to capitalist enterprises) is perpetuated. That does not mean it cannot be an ally, only that (like the petty-bourgeoisie, including esp. the artisan, self-employed, and peasant) it necessarily exists in an ambiguous position vis-a-vis capital, and is not directly implicated in Marx's revolutionary subject. If that makes sense.

[Red Planet]

Marx isn't being some snob for snob's sake. His theory is that the development of capital itself generates a working-class which is capable, and in fact compelled by that development to constitute itself as an active agent, capable of resistance, and through that real resistance inevitably move to overturn capital itself.

Pointing out the lumpen is simply automatic to the theory: if one posits that capital's circulation and exploitation of labor necessarily digs its own grave, than those individuals and elements which find themselves expelled from that process of class formation will obviously not be subject to the same real movement toward a class-for-itself. Beggars and the perennially unemployed and many criminals simply have been ejected from the proletariat proper, and thus will not participate (directly) in its formation into a class-for-itself as long as their condition (ipso facto expulsion from the proletariat proper, that is, circulating in and out of wage-labor attached to capitalist enterprises) is perpetuated. That does not mean it cannot be an ally, only that (like the petty-bourgeoisie, including esp. the artisan, self-employed, and peasant) it necessarily exists in an ambiguous position vis-a-vis capital, and is not directly implicated in Marx's revolutionary subject. If that makes sense.

That's right. It should also be understood that in Marx's day, the terms "degenerated," "ragged," "ragamuffin," "slumed," etc., especially Marx's usage, did not carry a deprecatory connotation, per se, but were generally used to describe unfortunate and destitute individuals. Lumpenrpoles could be considered the elements of society that have been denied legitimate work for acquiring the means of subsistence.

However, certain institutions, such as organized crime syndicates, are lumpen but practically mirror capitalist organizations, and powerful figures within these formations rival bourgeois entities and sometimes have legitimate businesses, therefore being in a dual role.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think that most organised crime syndicates are just plain old capitalist, actually. The fact that their activities are illegal doesn't change the fact that they are based around the appropriation of labour power (albeit often to some extent non-directly, through monopolies and such), any more than the illegality of running a private factory in the former Soviet Union made that a non-capitalist activity.

[Red Planet]

I think that most organised crime syndicates are just plain old capitalist, actually. The fact that their activities are illegal doesn't change the fact that they are based around the appropriation of labour power (albeit often to some extent non-directly, through monopolies and such), any more than the illegality of running a private factory in the former Soviet Union made that a non-capitalist activity.

The bosses are capitalists, and the most reactionary and ruthless stratum of the bourgeoisie at that. True scum.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The bosses are lumpenbourgeoisie. The criminal grunts are lumpenproles. The likes of beggars are just plain lumpen.

[Charlie Watt]

Considering that Marx conceptualized the reserve army of labor and was therefore well aware of capitalism's structural unemployment problem, I doubt his intent was to denounce unemployed persons in general. By "lumpen," he referred to those portions of the proletariat (i.e., the class which only has its labor power to sell) that subsist on the economic periphery; that is, they must either scrape from the proletariat or from the capitalists, but they are industrial outcasts. Also, considering that the lumpenrpoletariat was prone to expansion and contraction in accordance with capitalism's crises, it would not follow that Marx would irrationally discount the lumpen as a whole as "worthless" to revolution. This strikes me more as nonsense propounded by those who know little about or would sensationalize Marxism, but it doesn't surprise me, since so many here seem to be adopting reactionary views anyway.

There is a difference though. Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, and others with small, private business interests are distinct from the low level dealers that I concern myself with. These people are involved in drugs to supplement the meager income they receive from selling their labour, as well as to fund their own recreational use. The small financial incentive they receive is hardly likely to turn them into foaming at the mouth strike breakers, or some other unpleasent counter-revolutionary. Some would argue that their involvement in the trade is detrimental to their community as it plays into the hands of organised crime, but if that's the case you'd (general you,) best start stealing everything you consume, as all that VAT goes to the state, the biggest racket of them all.

On a lighter note, I reckon that in the communist society, those that wish to take drugs will be able to contribute to their free manufacture and distribution. I'm no chemist, but I know a couple, and they aint that hard to make apparently.

[Charlie Watt]

Marx isn't being some snob for snob's sake. His theory is that the development of capital itself generates a working-class which is capable, and in fact compelled by that development to constitute itself as an active agent, capable of resistance, and through that real resistance inevitably move to overturn capital itself.

Pointing out the lumpen is simply automatic to the theory: if one posits that capital's circulation and exploitation of labor necessarily digs its own grave, than those individuals and elements which find themselves expelled from that process of class formation will obviously not be subject to the same real movement toward a class-for-itself. Beggars and the perennially unemployed and many criminals simply have been ejected from the proletariat proper, and thus will not participate (directly) in its formation into a class-for-itself as long as their condition (ipso facto expulsion from the proletariat proper, that is, circulating in and out of wage-labor attached to capitalist enterprises) is perpetuated. That does not mean it cannot be an ally, only that (like the petty-bourgeoisie, including esp. the artisan, self-employed, and peasant) it necessarily exists in an ambiguous position vis-a-vis capital, and is not directly implicated in Marx's revolutionary subject. If that makes sense.

Certainly more than the reactionary context I've usually heard it being used in, cheers.