What class do gangsters belong to?

[Mr. Piccolo]

How should members of organized crime gangs be classified? I am not really thinking of petty criminals who might sell small amounts of drugs or steal to supplement their income from working a regular job, but professional criminals who belong to organized crime groups such as the mafia.

[G4b3n]

They are still lumpen proles. Just because their activity is more profitable than other criminals does not make them bourgeois. Though they may be more entrenched in bourgeois culture.

[Bala Perdida]

Highly organized gangsters are what I like to call black market bourgeois. They usually exploit the lumpen-proletarian criminals in order to keep their own hands clean and to have a more widespread business. Also at that point, they can buy off the law to certain extent. I don't think they could still accurately be called lumpen-proletarian given how much they relay on exploitation to run their activities. Such as drug distribution, extortion and such.

[Sasha]

organized crime can even develop feudal aspects. but who cares what 100 year old label is most fitting, they are class enemies plain and simple.

[newdayrising]

Gangsters aren't proletarian at all, lumpen or otherwise. They exploit other people's work. A point could be made about small time criminals who work for them. But organized crime is a capitalist enterprise like any other. I don't see how who profit from it can be "proles" in any way.

[BIXX]

organized crime can even develop feudal aspects. but who cares what 100 year old label is most fitting, they are class enemies plain and simple.
I suppose you're referring to the crime bosses here? Cause they're the only ones I'd call my enemy.

[Sasha]

I talk about organisations that exploit the people for profit, organised crime syndicates are often (but not always) the most ruthless exploiters there are, preying often on those already getting the rough end of the stick. That said, i do not fault the poor from joining criminal organisations in an act of self-defence or a chance to better their economic position but, excluding a few social/revolutionary movements that got slanderd as criminal organisations by those in power, all organized crime organisations are at best a counter power to and on par with the state and the bosses of the legal fiels in exploitation of the workers and often much worse.
That said, i do have an intrest in the history and circumastances that lead to the formations of organised crime, be it mob/yakuza/triads etc, minority/indigenous gangs and criminal MCs.

[Antiochus]

Criminals are the dregs of society, there is nothing redeemable about them so long as they maintain their criminal activities. Any attempt at "solidarity" with them is pure idiocy.

[Bala Perdida]

Criminals are the dregs of society, there is nothing redeemable about them so long as they maintain their criminal activities. Any attempt at "solidarity" with them is pure idiocy.
Yes, I'm sure they just love being persecuted and earning less than minimum wage. I'm also sure they love being abused brutally, and being systematically destroyed in an attempt to alienate them and even make them 'unexploitable' in a sense. It's not like revolutionary activities involve 'criminal' acts. It's not like revolutionaries are constantly born out of 'criminalistic' origins.

Fuck your moral elitism.

[consuming negativity]

the biggest criminals are the ones we call the bourgeoisie

if you trace the money back far enough, there is no difference other than industry

[Bala Perdida]

the biggest criminals are the ones we call the bourgeoisie

if you trace the money back far enough, there is no difference other than industry
If you look at money in general

[Illegalitarian]

Small-time gangbanger types who sell drugs, enforce gang territory, etc, could be counted among the lumpenproletariat.


Those who they work for, big time organized criminals, could be counted among the lumpenbourgeois.


I think both are too irrelevant to matter in a real class analysis. Historically, they've never been a relevant class, and I don't see them ever being one.

[Counterculturalist]

Engaging in revolutionary activity would also be considered "criminal activity," and the ruling classes see anyone living in a poor neighbourhood as "the dregs of society."

The poor are often driven to crime through sheer desperation and lack of any alternative opportunity. This should be obvious. Dismissing those whose material conditions have excluded them from society to the point that they must engage in dehumanizing activities to survive is about as reactionary as you can get.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Gangsters aren't proletarian at all, lumpen or otherwise. They exploit other people's work. A point could be made about small time criminals who work for them. But organized crime is a capitalist enterprise like any other. I don't see how who profit from it can be "proles" in any way.

Yes, this is what I was thinking. Can we really say a made member of the mafia is selling his labor power to his boss for something like a wage?

The way I understand how organized crime works is that the soldiers make "scores." A score could be stealing and selling goods, selling drugs, extorting a legitimate business, etc. Then portions of the money gained from this activity is "kicked up" to the captains and then finally to the boss.

Most gangsters seem to be criminal entrepreneurs with a quasi-feudal relationship added on if they are part of a formal mafia organization with a hierarchy.

[Bala Perdida]

Yes, this is what I was thinking. Can we really say a made member of the mafia is selling his labor power to his boss for something like a wage?

The way I understand how organized crime works is that the soldiers make "scores." A score could be stealing and selling goods, selling drugs, extorting a legitimate business, etc. Then portions of the money gained from this activity is "kicked up" to the captains and then finally to the boss.

Most gangsters seem to be criminal entrepreneurs with a quasi-feudal relationship added on if they are part of a formal mafia organization with a hierarchy.
Nobody is saying otherwise at this point. Just making the point that the petty-criminals are also exploited workers.

[BIXX]

Criminals are the dregs of society, there is nothing redeemable about them so long as they maintain their criminal activities. Any attempt at "solidarity" with them is pure idiocy.
Lol, there are criminals who take pride in that. Not even the dregs of society, but its enemies.

[BIXX]

Everyone bringing up the feudal relations thing: care to explain why you say that? Cause as far as I see it, they aren't any more similar in structure to feudal relations as they are to capitalist relations.

[Antiochus]

Yes, I'm sure they just love being persecuted and earning less than minimum wage. I'm also sure they love being abused brutally, and being systematically destroyed in an attempt to alienate them and even make them 'unexploitable' in a sense. It's not like revolutionary activities involve 'criminal' acts. It's not like revolutionaries are constantly born out of 'criminalistic' origins.

Fuck your moral elitism.


LOL. I am aghast at the level of stupidity spawned by some people here. I mean honestly, are you THIS fucking insane, or are you just pretending? The fact that you got 2 "likes" (which was probably the point of your asinine post) shows the Einstein was right, human stupidity is infinite.

Are you SERIOUSLY defending gangsters, hired killers, drug peddlers, child prostitution rings, humman traffickers? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim I should sympathize with them because I supposedly am a "moral elitist". My fucking god.

And like a true liberal dipshit you throw in one or two "revolutionary" buzzwords to get a few applause from your brain dead audience.


Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème

These people are ENEMIES of the proletariat and of any real meaningful class consciousness. I can sympathize with a prostitute, I will NEVER sympathesize with murders, rapists, thief and drug peddlers whose main job is to serve as a pressure valve for the capitalist class.


It's not like revolutionaries are constantly born out of 'criminalistic' origins.

Fuck your moral elitism.

Oh shut the fuck up you walking lobotomy. Anarchist and Communist movements that used crime (usually bank robberies) to temporarily fund their movements cannot possibly be compared to anything of what I described. If you pulled your head out of your rectum you'd know that.

Oh and fuck you and the two failed abortions that liked your post.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Highly organized gangsters are what I like to call black market bourgeois. They usually exploit the lumpen-proletarian criminals in order to keep their own hands clean and to have a more widespread business. Also at that point, they can buy off the law to certain extent. I don't think they could still accurately be called lumpen-proletarian given how much they relay on exploitation to run their activities. Such as drug distribution, extortion and such.

Yes, the gangster bosses would be lumpen-bourgeoisie.

[Sasha]

LOL. I am aghast at the level of stupidity spawned by some people here. I mean honestly, are you THIS fucking insane, or are you just pretending? The fact that you got 2 "likes" (which was probably the point of your asinine post) shows the Einstein was right, human stupidity is infinite.

Are you SERIOUSLY defending gangsters, hired killers, drug peddlers, child prostitution rings, humman traffickers? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim I should sympathize with them because I supposedly am a "moral elitist". My fucking god.

And like a true liberal dipshit you throw in one or two "revolutionary" buzzwords to get a few applause from your brain dead audience.



These people are ENEMIES of the proletariat and of any real meaningful class consciousness. I can sympathize with a prostitute, I will NEVER sympathesize with murders, rapists, thief and drug peddlers whose main job is to serve as a pressure valve for the capitalist class.



Oh shut the fuck up you walking lobotomy. Anarchist and Communist movements that used crime (usually bank robberies) to temporarily fund their movements cannot possibly be compared to anything of what I described. If you pulled your head out of your rectum you'd know that.

Oh and fuck you and the two failed abortions that liked your post.

oi, keep it civil, infraction for flaming

[Rafiq]

The lumpenproletariat are criminals by profession. Working class individuals who resort to petty crime can't be, and aren't lumpen - even if such crime is contingent upon the lumpens existence. Merely engaging in crime isn't qualifications for a distinct class, otherwise every rich kid who buys or even sells (as a side activity) narcotics is a member of the lumpen.

The lumpen seldom have potential for political mobilization - how could they? They target a demographic in areas of misery, hopelessness and ignorance. They are therefore adversaries, not potential recruits.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Everyone bringing up the feudal relations thing: care to explain why you say that? Cause as far as I see it, they aren't any more similar in structure to feudal relations as they are to capitalist relations.

Members of a criminal enterprise pay homage/tribute to their boss in the form of giving them a cut of whatever lucrative criminal activity they engage in, in exchange for the protection that comes with being part of a crime organization as opposed to a freelance, "self-employed" criminal.

EDIT: This strikes me as being somewhat similar to feudal relations, although perhaps only cosmetically.

[Antiochus]

It hardly seems fair that I get singled out for flaming when I was merely responding to a provocation. But whatever.

[Hermes]

Are you SERIOUSLY defending gangsters, hired killers, drug peddlers, child prostitution rings, humman traffickers? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim I should sympathize with them because I supposedly am a "moral elitist". My fucking god.

These people are ENEMIES of the proletariat and of any real meaningful class consciousness. I can sympathize with a prostitute, I will NEVER sympathesize with murders, rapists, thief and drug peddlers whose main job is to serve as a pressure valve for the capitalist class.



Oh shut the fuck up you walking lobotomy. Anarchist and Communist movements that used crime (usually bank robberies) to temporarily fund their movements cannot possibly be compared to anything of what I described. If you pulled your head out of your rectum you'd know that.


Alright, but you said that 'criminals are the dregs of society'.

Making such a blanket statement then, when someone objects to it, saying that they support hired killers, child prostitution rings, human traffickers, etc, with no evidence for such claims whatsoever, is really off-target, it seems to me.

In many places prostitution is illegal, and prostitutes would therefore be criminals, and yet you can sympathize with them. You sympathize with 'Anarchist and Communist movements that used crime', and are therefore criminals.

I don't really understand why, in the first place, one would use the law to determine a person's worth, or their ability to gain any meaningful class consciousness. Distinctions need to be made. And, second, I guess what I'm trying to say is that your anger seems really misplaced.

[John Nada]

If the shot-callers are the lumpenbourgeoisie, then are their lieutenants petty-lumpenbourgeoisie, growers the lumpenpeasantry, cooks and hackers the lumpenintelligentsia, corrupt cops and bureaucrats(like there's any other:lol:) the lumpen-labor aristocracy? What about a lone criminal who hustles his/her way to millions? I'm half joking but has the concept of lumpenbourgeoisie been fully fleshed out?
Small-time gangbanger types who sell drugs, enforce gang territory, etc, could be counted among the lumpenproletariat.

Those who they work for, big time organized criminals, could be counted among the lumpenbourgeois.

I think both are too irrelevant to matter in a real class analysis. Historically, they've never been a relevant class, and I don't see them ever being one.On the contrary. They can be very relevant.

Organized crime have attacked union, took over once-promising groups, sold cut and impure addictive drugs(though I'm not the one to moralize on this:unsure: ), selling people as slaves(sex workers and not-paid undocumented immigrants) ratted on and even killed leftist, and often have close connections to the bourgeoisie as their hired muscle. Like the Mafia helping the CIA attack Communists in exchange for helping them sell heroin mostly to minorities. Also when the Triads massacred the workers in the Shanghai Commune. Or the Contras selling coke. And the killings of leftist and union members in Colombia. Just recently over 40 leftist students in Mexico were "disappeared".

It seems like any potentially revolutionary organization that has lumpenproletariat as leaders degenerates into gangs. The name Crips originally meant Community Revolution In Progress. They could've allied with the Black Panthers for a revolutionary goal(or one in the first place). They and many other gangs could've been progressive. Unfortunately, this was during COINTELPRO. Some say all this beef between crews was promoted by the gov. Now all that's left is the Maoist grammar.:(
Just making the point that the petty-criminals are also exploited workers.Just because they're oppressed and often exploited by the bourgeoisie doesn't make them proletarians, or even allies. The petty-bourgeoisie, peasantry(big and small), labor aristocracy, career soldiers, even the remaining feudal classes or subjugated national bourgeoisie, can face oppression and exploitation by the bourgeoisie to varying degrees. If they must sell there labor to survive and exploit no one, they're proletarians. It's not a moral judgement, but fact.

It seems like there's a few groups where it's hard to tell if they're proletariat or lumpen. The chronically unemployed, homeless and those that turn to crime for survival, seem like they'd be supportive of a proletarian revolution, however are they the lower strata of the proletariat or lumpen?

Another is mafia types, where it's clear that they have different class interests. Yet what I find troubling is they often forcefully recruit, often among poor and oppressed peoples. I can't help but look at the news, and think how they're turning it in the wrong direction.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Criminal elements, especially organized crime, have a long and storied history of being enemies of the working class. For example, the Jewish Mafia helping break up garment workers strikes in New York City (before the Italians started dominating crime there), the yakuza helping squash strikes in Japan, la Cosa Nostra's activities in both the USA (defrauding pension funds and such, and harassing/attacking/even killing anyone in unions who spoke against them) and Sicily, etc. The list goes on. The historical record in the modern political era is littered with accounts of the "dregs of society" being used a shock troops in power struggles...I believe that Marx talked about this in the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, didn't he?

With that being said, often criminals become radicalized against the system once they start facing persecution...prisons have always been a fertile seed bed for radicalism. Malcolm X being probably the most famous example of this. Perhaps a more recent example would be Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who apparently before becoming one of Al-Qaeda's top leaders was a drunken thug and petty criminal. Or one of the leaders of the recent Pelican Bay prison strike in California, who was inspired by Bobby Sands. Etc

[Antiochus]

Alright, but you said that 'criminals are the dregs of society'.

Making such a blanket statement then, when someone objects to it, saying that they support hired killers, child prostitution rings, human traffickers, etc, with no evidence for such claims whatsoever, is really off-target, it seems to me.

In many places prostitution is illegal, and prostitutes would therefore be criminals, and yet you can sympathize with them. You sympathize with 'Anarchist and Communist movements that used crime', and are therefore criminals.

I don't really understand why, in the first place, one would use the law to determine a person's worth, or their ability to gain any meaningful class consciousness. Distinctions need to be made. And, second, I guess what I'm trying to say is that your anger seems really misplaced.

The lumpenproletariet, i.e the common thug and criminal, has 0 revolutionary potential. This is what virtually every major leftist, with few exceptions, has opined. I used the phrase 'dregs of society' as a reference to this. What, exactly, do you think your average gangster does? Do you think he is a Robin Hood fellow? Gangs are some of the most reactionary elements of society because they are parasites of the Capitalist system they live in. My statement that they could never be part of a revolutionary movement in so far as they continue the activities that designate them as criminals, is totally valid and I think completely uncontroversial. Do you really want a rapist, thief, killer etc... in your movement?

That isn't "moral elitism" or "bourgeois morality", its just fucking common sense. Historically these elements of society have EXPLICITLY been used to destroy progressive movements. Even as far back as Ancient Rome one of the primary elements used to crush the Grachii were these criminal gangs, financed off course by the elites.

At best the lumpen are people that must be reformed, at worst they are just cancers that eat away at any revolutionary movement and are inherently reactionary. Finally, about prostitutes: As far as I know, a prostitute working in that employment harms nobody but herself. It is a victim less (unless we argue that she is harming her own self) born out of total desperation. Hardly the same as the culture that has revolved around gangs and thugs.

[BIXX]

Oh god fuck you revleft. I was so interested in this thread for a change then some dumbass had to squirt their bullshit on it.

FTFY

[Bala Perdida]

The lumpenproletariet, i.e the common thug and criminal, has 0 revolutionary potential. This is what virtually every major leftist, with few exceptions, has opined. I used the phrase 'dregs of society' as a reference to this. What, exactly, do you think your average gangster does? Do you think he is a Robin Hood fellow? Gangs are some of the most reactionary elements of society because they are parasites of the Capitalist system they live in. My statement that they could never be part of a revolutionary movement in so far as they continue the activities that designate them as criminals, is totally valid and I think completely uncontroversial. Do you really want a rapist, thief, killer etc... in your movement?

That isn't "moral elitism" or "bourgeois morality", its just fucking common sense. Historically these elements of society have EXPLICITLY been used to destroy progressive movements. Even as far back as Ancient Rome one of the primary elements used to crush the Grachii were these criminal gangs, financed off course by the elites.

At best the lumpen are people that must be reformed, at worst they are just cancers that eat away at any revolutionary movement and are inherently reactionary. Finally, about prostitutes: As far as I know, a prostitute working in that employment harms nobody but herself. It is a victim less (unless we argue that she is harming her own self) born out of total desperation. Hardly the same as the culture that has revolved around gangs and thugs.
Have you ever met a common street gangster? Some simple interactions will show you that they have quite a revolutionary potential at times. Most of them are just seeking things like guidance and acceptance. Solidarity. You know, that thing that those 'major leftists' you love so much advocate. Also I don't much care for vague progressive movements, or for what major leftists say.

Also you seem to have an obsession with saying that I love rapists and murderers. Short and simple, I don't. Specifically not rapists.
Murderer is a vague term, and the way the system defines it I can't say that I hate all murderers. It's a desperate resort in most situations to take someones life, even if it's in spite of the person they murder. Also if you talk about people charged with murder, I don't think you understand how terrible and corrupt the system is when it comes to that. So that just makes you look even worse.

Finally, thieves! For somebody that shouldn't believe in property, I find it quite alarming that you see thieves on par with brutal murderers and rapists. Their worst crime is literally expropriation, the very thing we advocate. I can understand if you hate the idea of robbers mugging 'innocent old ladies'. That is terrible, indeed. Also I understand, growing up poor remembering an incident when a rich kid stole my scooter. My means of transportation from a school miles from my home. But shit, even then items are just disposable commodities. If they didn't kill or 'stab' the person they robbed, I don't see why they're so terrible. So again, a vague generalization presented aggressively.

Also, calling me a liberal. That's strange. I've never met a liberal that was so sympathetic to people who commit crimes or are forced into them. I have met liberals that are under the same view of crime as you present yourself. I don't think you are one, but you do share that with them.

Seriously, fuck off. Nobody likes rapists, brutal murderers, or brutal muggers. Stop acting like that's who we're defending.

[Antiochus]

Oh god fuck you revleft. I was so interested in this thread for a change then some dumbass had to squirt their bullshit on it.

FTFY

Oh I am sorry your little feelings were hurt. I am sorry I didn't take into account your unfathomable nihilist stupidity when I wrote my post. Next time I'll be sure to tailor my posts to your level of mental acuity (none).


Have you ever met a common street gangster? Some simple interactions will show you that they have quite a revolutionary potential at times.

Yes I have. The notion that they have 'revolutionary potential' is a joke since historically they have had quite the opposite, reactionary potential. But you know, that's just history and facts. If I listed them Placenta Cream would make some worthless post about how I am not edgy or whatever and would get 2-3 likes from the resident clowns.

Sorry if this seems like "flaming", its just how I write.


Also if you talk about people charged with murder, I don't think you understand how terrible and corrupt the system is when it comes to that. So that just makes you look even worse.


Killing in self-defense is or for the purpose of overturning oppressive hierarchical institutions is one thing (although off course I advocate avoiding it if possible, in the case of revolution it is unavoidable). "Murder", in the most common sense, is a crime. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "system". Murderers were dealt with quite swiftly in Anarchist Catalonia and S. Arabia. That is because it is a repulsive anti-social action that even the most polar opposites of people will agree on. I guess not nihilists.


Finally, thieves! For somebody that shouldn't believe in property, I find it quite alarming that you see thieves on par

Err, most of the 'property' stolen by common thieves, as far as I am concerned, is personal property. Which off course is essential for any functioning society.

Finally, if a common thief DOES steal "property", he isn't doing it based on the reasons why a leftist opposes property. He is doing it to enrich himself (however miserable his condition is) and enhance his own property. Nobody was talking about some Jean Valjean stealing to feed his family. Gangsters generally abandon their family and directly cause their corrosion based on their anti-social activities.



I've never met a liberal that was so sympathetic to people who commit crimes or are forced into them.

I am sympathetic to the reasons that might have PUSHED a person to THINK doing these things was the only alternative. I am NOT sympathetic with what they do and what they represent, a counter-revolutionary cancer within the proletariat.

I guess you must have missed the last 150 years of Western literature and cinema.

[Bala Perdida]

I guess you must have missed the last 150 years of Western literature and cinema.Really? Is that what you're basing this on?

I mean the rest of your post is what it is, but if that's where your view is coming from I guess this all makes much more sense. Whatever, have fun hating on criminals. Please don't snitch.

[Palmares]

Sorry if this seems like "flaming", its just how I write.

Usually, some aggressive polemics are tolerated here. But certainly there is a limit. Saying stuff like "walking lobotomy", "If you pulled your head out of your rectum", "the two failed abortions", etc, are a bit too much.

On top of that, this is the Learning subforum, where the rules are stricter, for example, in this regard. So please be civil, and exercise some restraint. :)

[Antiochus]

Really? Is that what you're basing this on?

I mean the rest of your post is what it is, but if that's where your view is coming from I guess this all makes much more sense. Whatever, have fun hating on criminals. Please don't snitch.

You said liberals are not "sympathetic with criminals". The entire corporate rap industry springs to mind. Hating on criminals, my god.

[Bala Perdida]

Usually, some aggressive polemics are tolerated here. But certainly there is a limit. Saying stuff like "walking lobotomy", "If you pulled your head out of your rectum", "the two failed abortions", etc, are a bit too much.Goddamn, I didn't notice that until now.


You said liberals are not "sympathetic with criminals". The entire corporate rap industry springs to mind. Hating on criminals, my god.Lol. As if that weak rap from the industry is taken seriously.

[John Nada]

Have you ever met a common street gangster? Some simple interactions will show you that they have quite a revolutionary potential at times. Most of them are just seeking things like guidance and acceptance. Solidarity. You know, that thing that those 'major leftists' you love so much advocate. Also I don't much care for vague progressive movements, or for what major leftists say.I have. And I don't think it's as clear-cut. A lot of them are racists as fuck and want to be bourgeois themselves. Some are outright fascist.

. However, I do think that some can be allies. There are gangs that force people to join them, they don't have a choice. Many of the lower section of the proletariat turn to crime for survival, though I'm not sure if that would make them lumpenproletarians, since 1/3 of the US have been arrested(even higher for oppressed people) and crime is cross-class. Perhaps under the leadership of the proletariat they can be revolutionary.

However, I don't see how you could say gangs replacing progressive groups isn't a bad thing. Are the drug cartels revolutionizing Latin America? Did the gangs that replaced groups like the Black Panthers or Brown Berets revolutionize oppressed people? I'd say they've held back revolutionary consciousness. Make us turn our guns on each other, instead of the bourgeoisie.
The historical record in the modern political era is littered with accounts of the "dregs of society" being used a shock troops in power struggles...I believe that Marx talked about this in the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, didn't he?Yes, that's what I think he was talking about
With that being said, often criminals become radicalized against the system once they start facing persecution...prisons have always been a fertile seed bed for radicalism.It can be radicalizing as fuck.;)

[Stirnerian]

The lumpenproletariat are criminals by profession. Working class individuals who resort to petty crime can't be, and aren't lumpen - even if such crime is contingent upon the lumpens existence. Merely engaging in crime isn't qualifications for a distinct class, otherwise every rich kid who buys or even sells (as a side activity) narcotics is a member of the lumpen.

The lumpen seldom have potential for political mobilization - how could they? They target a demographic in areas of misery, hopelessness and ignorance. They are therefore adversaries, not potential recruits.

This is nonsense, and while I don't like throwing around left-liberal terms like classism (after all, every revolutionary leftist is a 'classist' against the bourgeoisie), that's essentially what this is.

I am a member of the lumpenproletariat, as are most of those in my neighborhood. We happen to be white, and so we'd probably be counted among the 'working class' by government statisticians using mainstream standards of evaluation, but I am under no illusion that that's what we are.

There is a lot of criminality in my neighborhood, I have no doubt of it. I myself have a rather long rap sheet, which accounts for my inability to raise myself out of this class. But the idea that we're essentially antithetical to the working class is, quite frankly, borderline-producerist nonsense. In a genuinely revolutionary scenario in which the working class were mobilized, I can guarantee you that we'd probably be the ones on the front lines.

If professional leftists were at all useful, they'd be going into the ghettos and into the trailer parks and talking to these people, rather than talking down at them.

[Counterculturalist]

Some of this rhetoric about criminals being the scum of the earth is dangerously close to conservative "law-and-order" scaremongering.

Yes, the leadership of organized gangs prey on the weakest and most vulnerable elements of society, often creating a counterrevolutionary situation in the process. But it is structural inequality that creates the space in which these gangs are allowed to exist. We're trying to change the conditions that leave people with options so pathetic that joining these kinds of gangs seems acceptable, or even necessary.

Some of the comments here seem to abandon social analysis in favor of seeing people forced into crime as a bunch of jerks who dispassionately chose hurting people out of the myriad of other options available to them.

[BIXX]

I guess I am just confused as to why someone would hate all gang members rather than just the rich fucks at the top? Like, I get hating them. But the low level gangster? Doesn't make sense yo.

Also what about people who use crime to support their lives, like thieves and burglars? Prostitutes who spend more time holding up Johns than fucking them? I mean, there is a wide variety of things that criminals do that are pretty fucking cool.

For example, a lot of gang bangers know exactly on the role of cops in out society. They don't need some academic or whatever to pass down the info, because to them it isn't info but a fact of life that the cops are there to keep you docile. How can you see a group of people who attack capital on a daily basis, fucking hate cops, and actively create better circumstances of life and not think "oh shit maybe I should get some tips".

Of course there is, in most organized crime, a heavy internal hierarchy, which is what robs gangs of all their potential in my opinion. They mimic the upward flow of profit and capital, rather than its negation.

To the person who responded to my question about feudal relations- I do feel that it is largely cosmetic. For example I could say it is capitalist because (when it comes to drugs, for example) it is the prole working with capital to produce more capital for the boss. But all together, I think the question of whether or not it mimics this or that mode of organization is entirely irrelevant. The important thing is that, at least in my experience (meaning I could just have strange experiences) most of these people are only a hair away from flat out attacking capitalism, and I think it is a safe assumption that it is the internal hierarchy of command that makes that impossible. And the coolest part is that they didn't need some fancy analysis to get where they are at, it just came from their lived experiences.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Some of this rhetoric about criminals being the scum of the earth is dangerously close to conservative "law-and-order" scaremongering.

Yes, the leadership of organized gangs prey on the weakest and most vulnerable elements of society, often creating a counterrevolutionary situation in the process. But it is structural inequality that creates the space in which these gangs are allowed to exist. We're trying to change the conditions that leave people with options so pathetic that joining these kinds of gangs seems acceptable, or even necessary.

Some of the comments here seem to abandon social analysis in favor of seeing people forced into crime as a bunch of jerks who dispassionately chose hurting people out of the myriad of other options available to them.

While there is some truth in what you're saying here, it is also true that even in the most wretched ghettos on earth there are working people who *don't* turn to predating off their neighbors in order to get by, unlike criminal elements who more often than not go after "soft targets"...hardly social bandits.

I don't really see anything worth glamorizing at all in even low-level criminality. You gotta do what you gotta do, but the mindset of many "professional criminals" ranges from pitiful desperation (such as hustling money to feed a drug addiction) to some kind of need for the accumulation of wealth and/or status which, to me, just re-enforces the conception of the criminal underworld as simply capitalism organizing itself among marginalized and "outsider" groups within society.

I guess the best example in the criminal world of groups which are more "ideological" than most, with strong anti-authoritarian leanings and non-hierarchical modes of organization would be 1% motorcycle gangs. Who were idiotically romanticized as social bandits by 1960's leftists and intellectuals, who all scratched their heads in astonishment when the Hells Angels beat the shit out of an anti-Vietnam War rally, and who's viewpoints on certain topics (like women) are incredibly, almost cartoonishly reactionary. Yes, the working class also often has very reactionary viewpoints, but "workerists" who foolishly glamourize prole life are also dumb IMO.

[Antiochus]

I don't "hate" gangsters or the lumpen, whatever you want to call it. I hate their activities and what those represent. They are predatory activities and if you think its just the "fucks at the top" you are kidding yourself.

Sure, we can argue who bears more culpability, a soldier that fired on a crowd or the officer that gave the order, but the point stands that both of them (at least tacitly) support and have an interest in supporting the status quo.

And like I said before, I don't really care about "prostitution" (for example) since it is totally victimless (unless you argue she harms herself or her family, or himself I guess).

But we aren't talking about de jure morality. We are talking about the objective type of morality that virtually every person on the planet (whether or not they admit it is another thing) upholds, with the exception of psychopaths and libertarians.

Finally, I never said a gangster CANNOT be progressive, I said that they can't be while they continue undertaking those activities, how on earth is this even being debated? No one is talking about the 14 year old that steals clothes from a store, we are talking about hardened, professional criminals for whom, by virtue of their profession, murder, theft, rape, coercion is the norm.

[Artiom]

I think this discussion need to separate crime in high level, and low level.

To me low level crime (burglury, robbery, prostitution) is a symphtom of capitalism that most of the time will affect other prole's. When some one trie's to get control over the "outcast" (low level)we will have organized crime like the mob (high level), with all the stuff as trade with human organs, human traffiking. And i use this wen arguing with right-winger's, to compare high level criminals with the truth of a corporation. They have the same structure, ruthlesness and character with just the intention to make as much profit as possible and eliminate any competition.

[Counterculturalist]

I don't really disagree with anything in the most recent replies. It's just that some of the more extreme "anti-lumpen" sentiments expressed earlier seemed to carry an element of blaming individuals for societal problems, like how conservatives will blame the poor for being "too lazy" to work.

Spending time in grad school recently has given me a bit of insight into the mentality of the more privileged classes, and I can say that even the most enlightened among them view both the "proletariat" and the "lumpenproletariat" as one great undifferentiated mass of uneducated, reactionary losers.

As traditional proletarian jobs become more and more a thing of the past, the working class - particularly those who are not in a position that allows access to higher education - faces "lumpenproletarianization" on a large scale. I worry that broad-brush dismissal of "criminals" paves the way for dehumanization of the increasingly large number of people forced to live on society's margins.

[John Nada]

I don't really disagree with anything in the most recent replies. It's just that some of the more extreme "anti-lumpen" sentiments expressed earlier seemed to carry an element of blaming individuals for societal problems, like how conservatives will blame the poor for being "too lazy" to work.For me, I was think of the lumpenproletariat as a class. It's probably different in 2015 US from 19th century France. Fuck, hypothetically under the broadest definition I might even be lumpenproletarian:(.
Spending time in grad school recently has given me a bit of insight into the mentality of the more privileged classes, and I can say that even the most enlightened among them view both the "proletariat" and the "lumpenproletariat" as one great undifferentiated mass of uneducated, reactionary losers.I love it when the (petty-)bourgeoisie does that. The fear of the "unwashed masses". I find that shit kind of hilarious:laugh:, but sad in a way that I'll get to.
As traditional proletarian jobs become more and more a thing of the past, the working class - particularly those who are not in a position that allows access to higher education - faces "lumpenproletarianization" on a large scale. I worry that broad-brush dismissal of "criminals" paves the way for dehumanization of the increasingly large number of people forced to live on society's margins.In the US, about 2.25 million people are imprisoned. Nearly 40% are Black, 20% Latino, with other minorities, such as Native Americans, also overrepresented. Nearly 5 million are on probation. Nearly half of Black men, nearly 40% White men and 45% of Latino males will be arrested by age 23. "Land of the Free"(TM), or the "Prison-House of Nations"?

This is a large amount of the proletariat(it sure as hell ain't the bourgeoisie getting locked up) that's been "lumpenized". Disproportionately from oppressed peoples, who they like to pit against each other in prison "politics". And it's damn near legal to use them as slave labor, they can pay them under a dollar an hour for work. This also takes parents away from their families.

That's a lot of people to write off as a counter-revolutionary class.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Are you SERIOUSLY defending gangsters, hired killers, drug peddlers, child prostitution rings, humman traffickers? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim I should sympathize with them because I supposedly am a "moral elitist". My fucking god.

See, the thing is, only a tiny minority of criminals fall into the categories you mention. In fact, they're something of an ideological boogie man used as justification by bourgeois states for all sorts of repression. So, while you may not be a moral elitist, you're certainly employing some sloppy thinking.

Though maybe I have a bias since I supplemented my $8000 annual income. Oops - guess I'm a vicious class enemy! Lol.


Oh shut the fuck up you walking lobotomy. Anarchist and Communist movements that used crime (usually bank robberies) to temporarily fund their movements cannot possibly be compared to anything of what I described. If you pulled your head out of your rectum you'd know that.

The thing is, you're totally wrong. Look at some source documents - anarchists and communists are constantly compared to criminals (and in fact, are literally often criminals, since they are literally criminalized). The point isn't to play a respectability game, demanding acknowledgement in terms of existing categories (like " criminal "), but to attack the idea itself. I have been a criminal; yet I'm not a gangster. Funny that.

[StromboliFucker666]

I would consider the bosses to be bourgeois. It's a company like any other, the only difference is that a normal company is legal because they serve the state. Organized crime runs like a business in a lot of ways but (usually) serves the interests of themselves and not the state.

[Luís Henrique]

Instead of thinking of social classes as boxes into which we classify people, we should think of them as living organisms, that grow, evolve and (re-)act upon their environment.

People in organised crime certainly do organise in a way that mimicks the organisation of society at large. There are bosses and rank-and-file pawns, and there are moguls. To the extent that those crime lords do participate in the accumulation of capital, they are capitalists; the illegal nature of their activity doesn't matter very much. But we should wonder about what exactly make their activities illegal (for (il)legality is determined by the bourgeois State, which acts, ultima ratio, in the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole).

If evidently those people are not proletarians, and could be called lumpen only in a very generic and not really useful way; if the idea of a "lumpenbourgeoisie" doesn't make sence at all, and if their belonging to the bourgeoisie is problematic because their activities are considered criminal by the bourgeois State, we should consider the possibility that these people's class belonging is contradictory in itself: that while the form of their subsistence is similar to the form of subsistence of the regular bourgeois, in that they do extort surplus value and accumulate capital, the content of their activity is incompatible with capitalism at large, in that it implies directly disturbing the reproduction and accumulation of capital in general.

Luís Henrique

[Invader Zim]

Everyone bringing up the feudal relations thing: care to explain why you say that? Cause as far as I see it, they aren't any more similar in structure to feudal relations as they are to capitalist relations.

They employ a system based on vassalage, patronage and operate crude fiefdoms. Indeed, the origins of modern organised crime family based systems, such as the Mafia, Yakuza and the Triad gangs have their roots in fuedalism.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ydvbBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=organised+crime+feudalism&source=bl&ots=wCM4fZSr8L&sig=qIfr1vPhFPetxnmfejQ_Pg9X0Bo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMI3Pbx1NbxxgIVxpnbCh0AsAdE#v=on epage&q=organised%20crime%20feudalism&f=false


Indeed, all this is so obvious I have to ask: do you actually know what feudalism is?

[StromboliFucker666]

Am I the only one who finds organized crime to be the logical conclusion within capitalism? If you force people into a life of (basically) slavery, some will do anything to get out. Kill, steal, lie, cheat, etc so it should not be surprising to the legal bourgeois that some of these people are successful at what they do and live like kings because of it

Basically, some people are willing to take any chance they are given to be successful. When some people feel they have no other chance, they turn to organized crime.

[Lord Testicles]

I guess I am just confused as to why someone would hate all gang members rather than just the rich fucks at the top? Like, I get hating them. But the low level gangster? Doesn't make sense yo.

There are a plethora of reasons to not like people who engage in activities like people trafficking, kidnap, extortion, money lending etc. etc.
These people are not our friends, often they are people who prey on the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society.

As for "why don't we just hate the rich folk at the top?" Should we apply that logic to the police and the bailiffs?

[noble brown]

first of all, i dont know about anyone else here but the reason i am a leftist revolutionary is because i understand that in order to bring about a better world, that is to bring out the best in all of us, we absolutely have to create better environments. its a simple understanding of human social behavior and what motivates it. one thing we know w out a fucking doubt is that environments are much better predictors of behavior then any other metric. if you have a community rife with criminal sub cultures then you have, for what ever reason, a social economic environment that promotes that shit, like high unemployment. you do not have a community of a bunch of low lifes or "dregs of society" (you ignorant jackasses). you in fact have whole communities of victims of a predatory social structure. how the hell do you figure that the most acute victims of the system you claim to know so well and hate so vehemently have 0 fucking revolutionary potential?! Because your "god", the ancient author of your pompous dogma says so! you are the one who needs to pull their head out of their ass!
I'm a ex con & ex gangbanger whose done plenty of time in prison and on the streets next to these very people whom you reduce to nothings with your ivory tower intellectualism's. i know their revolutionary potential because I AM them! we have more revolutionary potential then you have now or will ever likely have, you know why? because we aint got shit, wont never have shit and therefore have nothing to loose. Educate us, don't denigrate and exclude us. we were used as counter revolutionary forces in the past because the contemporary revolutionary theory excluded us a priori and never realized our potential, while the enemy fully understood and hijacked our motivations for their own by brainwashing us with their propaganda. exclude my people again and they will remain ignorant and the enemy will once again use my people to their nefarious ends.
your position leaves the people like me out in the field alone and without resources. your theory excludes from the strategy of the people. you claim to represent the people do you not? you claim to wish to see the rise of the people do you not? are we not people too? are in fact not "the people" too?
get out in the field where the real oppression is going down everyday, look into our eyes filled with hate and hunger, then tell me which side you want us on. help educate us or loose the potential of the people. period!