where do "regional warlords" fit in the class spectrum?

[homegrown terror]

they aren't bourgeois because they (usually) don't control and capitalise means of production. they aren't proletariat, because they do not work and in fact exploit those who do. i suppose they could be considered lumpen-proletariat, but i don't think that definition really fits either. anyone else that can weigh more heavily on the subject?

[bcbm]

they aren't bourgeois because they (usually) don't control and capitalise means of production.

why not? i guess it would depend on the specific warlord, but in general i imagine these only exist in places without a powerful centralized state and basically act like a mini state.

[magicshoemonkey]

Wouldn't warlords be somewhat the equivalent of feudal lords? I mean, maybe I'm just ignorant, but I didn't thought the class "bourgeois" is a specifically capitalist class, and other systems have other class structures.

[MarxSchmarx]

You mean like David Cameron?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

It might depend on the context.Military strong men in some parts of Africa, Afghanistan, China in the 1910s-20s combine economic and military roles. Often they are businessmen with a military force of some sort. At the very least they need financing to keep their military running.They fulfill state and economic functions where the state is weak or non-existent and the local bourgouise is almost totally dependent on other states or foreign capital. Warlords can be seen as a survival of feudalism which again plays a role where modern capitalism has either collapsed or regressed (Mad Max) or where it is locked into a very under developed condition.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

They are rentiers. They demand income based on the productivity of another with a sort of "tax" (i.e a protection racket). If miners want to mine, they need to first pay the "landlord" (i.e warlord) to do so.