The Lumpenproletariat

[Vanguard1917]

What are people's opinions on the role of the lumpenproletariat in the class struggle? Can it ever have revolutionary potential? Can people who lack the discipline and organisation of a labouring workforce ever have a progressive impact on a worker's movement? Or is the lumpenproletariat more likely to side with reactionary forces? What about the Panthers in America? How did the fact that they had their base largely in the lumpenproletariat affect their movement?

[Amusing Scrotum]

I assume you are using the broader definition of "lumpenproletariat" which constitutes people that are unemployed and not just criminals or "street workers"?

If this is the case then I'd refer you to the KDP - especially its "street fighters" - who nearly all came from the ranks of the German unemployed and showed themselves far more willing to participate in "revolutionary struggle" than the employed Germans who (mostly) sided with the SDP.

Basically, there's probably a lot of "revolutionary potential" in the ranks of the unemployed.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Well I think I would disagree with the assertion that the majority of Panthers were lumpenproletariat. I must admit that I am not exactly well-versed in Panther history, but from what I've read, most of their leaders came from the petty bourgeois and college educated people from blue collar families. It's possible that many of their rank-and-file came from the underclasses.

When it comes to the lumpenproletariat, I would make a sharp distinction between different classes. I don't really know if being unemployed (as someone mentioned in the KPD reference) necessarily means one is a member of the lumpenproletariat. Being unemployed just means that you are a very unlucky proletariat, and more likely than not your allegiances will lie with the workers. The same seems to go for the very poor underclass that for whatever reason (disability, drug addiction, etc.) can not work, but identify with the workers. On the other hand, individuals who make their life off of crime would usually identify and side with the status quo since they rely on it to survive. Even then when it comes to gangs and what not, I would make certain distinctions. There is no way some drug cartel leader or mobster would ever side with the workers. On the other hand, many low-level street gang members are essential black-market workers who supply their labor to illicit industry when there are no legitimate avenues.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:50 AM
What are people's opinions on the role of the lumpenproletariat in the class struggle? Can it ever have revolutionary potential?
No. Lumpenproletariat correctly used does not refer to part of the working class, employed or unemployed. It refers to people who make their living through crime or preying on others - the scum of all classes. Workers hate these people for good reason, and since lumpen have little sense of human solidarity they're more likely to side with the highest bidder than with the workers' movement .


Can people who lack the discipline and organisation of a labouring workforce ever have a progressive impact on a worker's movement?

Yes, they can and they have. In the U.S., for example, unemployed organizations were a major force during the 1930s, both raising their own demands and supporting the strikes of employed workers.

According to some of those involved with 'em, unemployed organizations did tend to be very unstable. They achieved a certain degree of ongoing effectiveness for part of the 30s mostly due to the structure of WPA projects and links with unions of the employed. See Teamster Power by Farrel Dobbs for a detailed description of unemployed organizing in Minneapolis in the 30s.


What about the Panthers in America? How did the fact that they had their base largely in the lumpenproletariat affect their movement?

The lumpen element of the Panthers was definitely one of the problems which contributed to their eventual disintegration. Former Panther Sundiata Acolia identifies part of the problem:
4. Lumpen Tendencies: It can be safely said that the largest segment of the New York City BPP membership (and probably nationwide) were workers who held everyday jobs. Other segments of the membership were semi-proletariat, students, youths, and lumpen-proletariat. The lumpen tendencies within some members were what the establishment's media (and some party members) played-up the most. Lumpen tendencies are associated with lack of discipline, liberal use of alcohol, marijuana, and curse words loose sexual morals, a criminal mentality, and rash actions. These tendencies in some Party members provided the media with better opportunities than they would otherwise have had to play up this aspect, and to slander the Party, which diverted public attention from much of the positive work done by the BPP.
Acoli's list of positive and negative features of the BPP (http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/bla2.html)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Sundiata Acoli
Lumpen tendencies are associated with lack of discipline, liberal use of alcohol, marijuana, and curse words, loose sexual morals, a criminal mentality, and rash actions.

http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/bla2.html

Sounds like they should have recruited more Mormons, eh? :lol:

It seems to me likely that only a small part of the "Lumpenproletariat" -- if such a thing can be said to exist at all -- would provide any serious problems in the course of building for a proletarian revolution or in the tasks to be completed afterwards.

The "hustler mentality" is one response to capitalist exploitation...but it's not terribly wide-spread.

Indeed, it's the form that bourgeois ideology takes at the very bottom of the social pyramid. Most very poor people neither like nor respect the hustlers and avoid them entirely whenever possible.

Mr. Acoli emphasizes "lack of discipline" from the same motives that both the Leninists and the bourgeoisie bitterly lament such failings.

Goddam people won't do what they're told!

It's a safe prediction that they'll all have even more to whine about in the coming decades. :D

As to the consumption of alcohol and marijuana, the use of "curse words", and -- horror of horrors -- "loose sexual morals", it's clear that Mr. Acoli is completely unacquainted with the vast majority of the population in modern capitalist societies.

Indeed, he'd be scandalized by the opinions expressed on this board. :lol:

His views are really a distant echo of Lenin's.

Lenin on Sex -- "Just Say No!" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1140167502&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

What's this then?

Drug use, drinking yourself into a stupor and promiscuous sex, this is the Redstar vision for a "21st century socialism" is it?

I've always thought that one the main goals of the movement was to engender in people a sense of self-respect and pride, as well as having an emotional connection with their fellow human beings. Consumer capitalism wants us to to simply piss our lives away. It encourages us to see fellow human beings as simply "means" to furthering our own ends (as in sex), or as obstacles to our pleasure.

Rather than proffer a rebuttal of this rather disgusting and degrading aspect of late capitalism, Redstar is happy to make yet another useless glib remark about Leninism.

Anyway, I'm sure any of the 40 million HIV positive Africans will agree, sexual "morals" are pointless.

[rebelworker]

Quebec has a very strong street culture of resistance.
Being a squeegy punk is almost synonimus(though not always the case) with being an "anarchist".

Though it is true that there are from organisational standpoints very serrious problems with instability(hard to find people who live on the street sometimes)indicipline and drug realted problems, there continues to be some very well organised projects.

The anti racist streetfighting scene is filled with street punks, also they yearly police brutality demo is well atended by and in part also organised by street youth. This demo is going into its tenth year.

Also the street msic scene here, hip hop, punk and oi is very left leaning, with many political organisations relying for much of their funding from benefit concerts.

Also in the rest of canada Street peoples unions are not uncomon, there is currently a local of the IWW in ottawa made up uf pnhandlers and street youth, there was also a similar local in vancouver for several years(im not sure if it still exists).

There is also a drug users union in east vancouver(the place with the worst heroin problem in the western world) made up almost entierly of street people.There is a good film about it called "FIX", you can probably find it online or through the national film board.

The First(oakland) chapter of the BPP reqruited heavily from the lumpenprole.

How you identify the lumoenprole changes alot of the answer to this question, but i feel layers of all opressed social classes are nesesary for a sucessful revolution.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:10 PM
Lenin on Sex -- "Just Say No!" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1140167502&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:lol: I had no idea! (IF the quotations are authentic, of course)

* * * *

As for the original question: Modern sociologists, leftist or not, agree that the lumpen is a fraction which exists on a margine of society, outside the wage system. Their sole existence and influence upon society seems to be marginal.

Unemployed workers are not lumpen, because they are by their existence within the productive process (wage system), but only temporarily excluded from it. We have an old name for them which Engels used: industrial reserve army. They are active in the class struggle, as an integral part of the proletariat.

You can draw the conclusions yourself.

[Vanguard1917]

I wouldn't list temporarily unemployed workers as members of the lumpenproletariat. Such workers are, afterall, victims of unemployment - an economic problem in capitalist society - and they will return to work when work is available. Even when out of work, they remain working class - hence 'unemployed workers' - and they are likely to identify their interests with those of their class.

The lumpenproletariat, on the other hand, has no desire to work. It actively excludes itself from the production process in society. Lumpenproletarians are social outcasts, placing themselves outside of the productive relations of society.

Redstar2000:

As to the consumption of alcohol and marijuana, the use of "curse words", and -- horror of horrors -- "loose sexual morals", it's clear that Mr. Acoli is completely unacquainted with the vast majority of the population in modern capitalist societies.

You have a point. But i think the author was refering to things that are associated with lumpen individuals. The key characteristic, i think, is the lack of discipline. It's not a matter of them 'not doing as they are told', as you claim. In fact, on the contrary, lumpenproletarians have historically been passive followers of certain reactionary political movements. For example, the lumpens of interwar Europe were quite easily converted into the robotic thugs of various fascist corps organisations by the fascist leaderships. Fascists in Britain have traditionally recruited from lumpen football hooligans. They are told to attend fascist marches and rallies, to stand up straight and look tough, but they rarely ever directly influence the policies of the organisation (that is left to sections of the petit-bourgeoisie, which is a real social force on which fascism has historically been based). I think this is due to the fact that the lumpenproletariat - in contrast to the working class, the bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie - has no dynamic within it, largely due to its exclusion from the production process.

A disciplined class has an interest in the future of society. It dedicates much time and effort to further its interests in society. It actively involves itself in organisations that have been created to represent the class. Class discipline is actually necessary to fight passivity in the class and its movements. Lumpenproletarians lack this discipline. The personal traits that we associate with lumpenproletarians (e.g. alcohol and drug abuse, and the use of unsophisticated, degenerate forms of language) are symptoms of the degenerate and undisciplined nature of the lumpenproletariat.

YouKnowTheyMurderedX:

Anyway, I'm sure any of the 40 million HIV positive Africans will agree, sexual "morals" are pointless.

It's difficult for me to let a statement like this pass without saying anything. Though, coming from a SWP supporter, such opportunistic and populist rhetoric is expected. Everyone seems to agree that sexual relations between men and women are the cause of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa: from the Vatican to Nelson Mandela to red ribbon-wearing 'safe sex' campaigners. Apparently, Africans are too promiscous; or they sleep with too many prostitutes; or they have a 'cultural preference' for more risky sexual behaviours like anal sex.

The causes of the AIDS problem in Africa are very complex and should never be reduced to such moralistic explanations - especially not by people who call themselves Marxists. We should be angrily attacking our leaders (along with their spokespeople) for using the African AIDS crisis as moral backing for their reactionary political agendas.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's difficult for me to let a statement like this pass without saying anything. Though, coming from a SWP supporter, such opportunistic and populist rhetoric is expected. Everyone seems to agree that sexual relations between men and women are the cause of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa: from the Vatican to Nelson Mandela to red ribbon-wearing 'safe sex' campaigners. Apparently, Africans are too promiscous; or they sleep with too many prostitutes; or they have a 'cultural preference' for more risky sexual behaviours like anal sex.

The causes of the AIDS problem in Africa are very complex and should never be reduced to such moralistic explanations - especially not by people who call themselves Marxists. We should be angrily attacking our leaders (along with their spokespeople) for using the African AIDS crisis as moral backing for their reactionary political agendas.

I'm glad you said it. I would have used much harsher words.

[BuyOurEverything]

I'm glad you said it. I would have used much harsher words.

As would I. Implying that Africa's AIDS problem is a result of 'loose sexual morals' is incredibly ignorant and reactionary on a variety of levels.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+Feb 17 2006, 11:41 PM--> (DJ-TC @ Feb 17 2006, 11:41 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 10:10 PM
Lenin on Sex -- "Just Say No!" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1140167502&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:lol: I had no idea! (IF the quotations are authentic, of course)

* * * *
[/b]
there's no sourses so apart from reading everylittlie thing lenin wrote how are we spose to know there authenticity?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)Drug use, drinking yourself into a stupor and promiscuous sex, this is the Redstar vision for a "21st century socialism" is it?[/b]

Beats the crap out of neo-puritanical abstentionism...at least that seems to be the wide-spread and growing popular preference.

There's long been a rather reactionary thread in "left politics" which promotes the idea of "self-denial" as a "sign" of left "moral supremacy".

As if sensual pleasures are a mark of "moral degeneracy" that a righteous proletariat will disdain.

I expect people in a communist society will embrace sensual pleasures according to individual taste with enthusiasm...free of all of the guilt and self-reproach produced by thousands of years of reactionary superstition.


I've always thought that one the main goals of the movement was to engender in people a sense of self-respect and pride, as well as having an emotional connection with their fellow human beings.

The self-respect and pride come from standing up and resisting the despotism of capital...not from monkish vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

That Leninists would be confused by these alternatives is hardly surprising.


Consumer capitalism wants us to to simply piss our lives away.

What capitalism really "wants" us to do is produce commodities of greater exchange value than the wages they pay us.

They want us to work our lives away!

The age of retirement should be raised to 85 by 2050 because of trends in life expectancy, a US biologist has said. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/4726300.stm)

And while consumption is certainly strongly encouraged, how much of that consumption is actually pleasurable?

Is it really a "big thrill" to have a cell phone that plays 10,000 stupid songs? A 50" dummyvision screen with 600 channels of lies and bullshit? An SUV the size of a small tank in which to spend your fun-filled morning and evening commutes?

The "pleasures" promised by capitalist consumption are mostly empty! The mammoth "entertainment" industry exists to alleviate one of the most fundamental characteristics of working class life under capitalism: BOREDOM!

It's enjoyed a "long run" of success, no question about it. But how far can they go with the proposition that "fun" is nothing but watching other people have fictional fun?


Anyway, I'm sure any of the 40 million HIV positive Africans will agree, sexual "morals" are pointless.

As I understand it, HIV is a mutation of a similar virus that infects (harmlessly) chimpanzees...and was acquired by Africans from killing and eating "bush meat" -- chimps.

Your implication is that the virus would not have spread among humans (in Africa or anyplace else) had people been life-long monogamists like the Bible says we should...and carefully avoided ever needing a blood transfusion, of course.

Not very likely, eh?

The fact is that any sexually-transmitted disease will inevitably become epidemic among humans; puritanical sexual mores will, at best, slow down the process somewhat. Whenever humans have even the slimmest chance of novelty in sexual partners, they seize it with enthusiasm!

It's the way we are.

The Africans had the bad luck to be first exposed to HIV; if there's anyplace on Earth where it doesn't exist now, it will.

At the present time, it's clearly in the interests of the pharmaceutical giants to "control" HIV with an expensive "cocktail" of drugs. At some point, a "rogue" pharmaceutical outfit will come up with both a cure and an effective vaccine...and enjoy profits that even an oil corporation executive might envy.

And when that happens, folks like yourself will have nothing to fall back on again except the Bible...or, given your own political affiliation, perhaps the Qu'ran. :lol:


Originally posted by DJ-[email protected]
I had no idea! (IF the quotations are authentic, of course)

They have the "look and feel" of authenticity. And one would be hard-pressed to think of a motive for Clara Zetkin to "make them up".


Modern sociologists, leftist or not, agree that the lumpen is a fraction which exists on a margin of society, outside the wage system.

It's a thorny problem.

Every capitalist country has an "underground economy". People in it do work for wages, from time to time as the opportunity arises. But it's all "off the books"...these wages are never reported (or taxed!).

A few years ago when I had to move because the building I had been living in was sold, I paid a couple of guys with a truck $200 in cash to move my stuff to a new apartment. Knowing them a little, I sort of expect that they went out and bought some cocaine with the money. :lol:

Are they "workers" or "lumpen"?

I once knew a women who was like a third-generation welfare recipient and who had never had a "formal job" in her life. But she used to baby-sit for some of her neighbors who did have jobs and make "off the books" cash...because it's almost impossible to live "just on welfare" in the U.S. The benefits are too low.

"Worker" or "lumpen"?

How about sex workers? Are they "workers" or "lumpen"?

Not long ago, I read a report focusing on young drug dealers in a Chicago slum. A surprising number of these kids still lived with their parent or parents and often had shit jobs at McDonald's or places like that. Their "drug dealing" was a second job that hardly paid them any more than a regular shit job...it was just less hard work.

"Workers" or "lumpen"?

I'm skeptical, as you may have gathered, of the usefulness of a concept like "lumpenproletariat".

Professional criminals are either petty-bourgeois or, if spectacularly successful, just plain bourgeois.

The occasional petty thief may also work at McDonald's...or work "off the books". It's all a matter of what opportunities to survive come along.

I don't expect most of these people to ever become conscious in a revolutionary sense...they live in a "culture of survival" that rarely permits time for reflection on "bigger issues".

But I don't see them as a "reactionary sub-class" either...though some of them might "hire themselves out" to the bourgeoisie depending on circumstances.

After all, some people of indisputably working-class origins become cops...certainly as reprehensible an act of class treason as anything a lumpenproletariat might do.


Vanguard1917
For example, the lumpens of interwar Europe were quite easily converted into the robotic thugs of various fascist corps organisations by the fascist leaderships.

Most of the thugs to which you refer were ex-soldiers for whom no jobs existed. Bourgeois sociologists said that they "failed to adjust to civilian life".

They just didn't feel comfortable outside of a military or quasi-military environment.

On the other hand, the KPD did have something of an alliance with some adolescent gangs in Berlin. When it came to kicking Nazi ass, there was "room for agreement". :lol:


I think this is due to the fact that the lumpenproletariat - in contrast to the working class, the bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie - has no dynamic within it, largely due to its exclusion from the production process.

Well, they have very narrow "horizons" -- getting the rent money together or getting the electricity turned back on or qualifying for some welfare benefit...these are the "big issues" in their lives. A fair percentage probably suffer from psychological problems and, of course, the schools they attended were shit.

So you really can't expect much.


A disciplined class has an interest in the future of society. It dedicates much time and effort to further its interests in society.

That's a little too metaphysical for my taste. Interest in the future of society? Well, yeah. Dedicating time and effort to further its interests? Sure.

But what does "discipline" in the abstract have to do with this?

In practice, what does "discipline" boil down to other than Shut Up and Do What You're Told!?

How can anything good (revolutionary) come from that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

Beats the crap out of neo-puritanical abstentionism...at least that seems to be the wide-spread and growing popular preference.


So does gluttony, racism, homopbia etc. These things are widely accepted as "bad" products of the capitalist society, why is it your assumption that "promiscuity" must be positive?

Let's be clear, I think it's positive that people are sceptical of christian values, it doesn't mean that I think all Christian values are neccessarily "wrong". There is rising rates of STD's in the Western world, and the AIDS epidemic is spreading across the world.

I think our message has to be something better than what you're suggesting.


I expect people in a communist society will embrace sensual pleasures according to individual taste with enthusiasm...free of all of the guilt and self-reproach produced by thousands of years of reactionary superstition

Yes, but as I'm sure you're aware, we don't have communism. And as long as we don't, we have to ask ourselves what is best for "us", as a class. Who does degeneracy and alcoholism and drug abuse benefit? Is it us? I doubt it.


The self-respect and pride come from standing up and resisting the despotism of capital...not from monkish vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

That Leninists would be confused by these alternatives is hardly surprising

Be reasonable, Redstar. Where did I, or anybody, suggest "chastity", or "poverty".

You're kneejerk anti-theologism means you can't think through this matter properly.

"Oh well, the Catholic church calls for abstinence, so that means everyone should fuck anything that moves and nevermind the consequences".

I don't think that's the right approach.


What capitalism really "wants" us to do is produce commodities of greater exchange value than the wages they pay us.

They want us to work our lives away!


Quite so.

The 'consumer' lifestyle has replaced religion as the 'soul of the souless world' in much of the secular West. Included in this lifestyle is a 'rejection' of religious morals. Good? Yes, but to be replaced by what? An atomised life where fellow human beings become, as I said earlier, merely "vessels" for your own gratification. Where you numb the pain not with prayer, but by getting blinding drunk and having sex with a stranger you'll never see again.

What's progressive about that?

What's the proto-communist impulse in damaging your central nervous system and then having yet another meaningless emotional connection with another human being?

Perhapsyou should spend more energy on challenging "existing" bourgeis values (rapid consumption, individuality, sexual "freedom") rather than attacking 200 year old discredited mythologies.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)Why is it your assumption that "promiscuity" must be positive?[/b]

It's not a matter of numbers. It's the fact that people should be free to choose their partners based on mutual attraction, not what would "Jesus" think?.

Much less, what would the Party think. :lol:


Let's be clear, I think it's positive that people are sceptical of Christian values, it doesn't mean that I think all Christian values are necessarily "wrong".

Of course you don't. As a good Leninist, you value obedience to authority as highly as any serious Christian.

Many ex-Leninists have noted with despair the quasi-religious atmosphere that surrounds Leninist parties...although it would be helpful if they'd speak of it more often and in public.

How disappointing it is to discover that what one thought was a "gateway" to liberation turns out to be a church.

Moreover, one which does attempt to enforce "poverty, chastity, and obedience" with varying degrees of rigor. That is, some are fairly relaxed while others really go after people's personal pleasures with the torches and pitchforks.


Who does degeneracy and alcoholism and drug abuse benefit?

Degeneracy? :lol:

Actually, it's a "null question" -- there's no real systematic evidence of benefit or harm.

Most drinkers never become alcoholics. Most drug addicts who manage to avoid the attentions of the police function ok. Most sexual "degenerates" (:lol:) either never acquire a sexually transmitted disease or they acquire one that's easily curable.

Some Leninists argue that such "self-indulgence" diverts time and energy away from the Party's activities. That might be true.

So what?

Why should it matter to me or most people if a "revolutionary monk" breaks his vows? Indeed, why would I or any sensible person want to live in a society run by a sect of "revolutionary monks" anyway?

They'd be just as intolerably oppressive as the fucking Christians or the fucking mullahs!


Where did I, or anybody, suggest "chastity", or "poverty".

Leninists don't necessarily put it in plain words -- that not being one of their strengths anyway.

But the inference is there. To enjoy sex with multiple partners is "lumpen" and "degenerate". A "good comrade" gives all of his surplus funds to the Party...and the more minimal his basic needs are, the more he can give to the Party. Spending money on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, etc. is "bourgeois self-indulgence" and wasting money that should be given to the Party.

And so it goes.


"Oh well, the Catholic church calls for abstinence, so that means everyone should fuck anything that moves and nevermind the consequences".

Only if someone wants to fuck "everything that moves" and "everything that moves" is willing.

The only communist criterion is mutual consent.

All the rest is superstitious bullshit -- theological or secular.


The 'consumer' lifestyle has replaced religion as the 'soul of the soulless world' in much of the secular West. Included in this lifestyle is a 'rejection' of religious morals. Good? Yes, but to be replaced by what? An atomised life where fellow human beings become, as I said earlier, merely "vessels" for your own gratification. Where you numb the pain not with prayer, but by getting blinding drunk and having sex with a stranger you'll never see again.

To be "atomized" sounds like a "bad thing"...but I'm not so sure of that.

If one is disconnected from other atoms, then one is, at least in theory, free to move in one's own chosen direction.

One "connects" with other atoms on the basis of choice rather than some form of socially imposed compulsion.

In modern capitalism, this is largely an illusory "freedom"...the essential compulsions that keep capitalism running are still there and operating.

But I can't help but wonder if the illusion of freedom is not a prerequisite for the desire for real freedom to emerge?

That is, a person who is trapped in the social matrix of pre-capitalist formations (family, church, village, culture, nation, etc.) cannot really imagine what it would be like to escape all that and associate with other people only by choice.

Modern capitalism undermines the legitimacy of all those old social forms...leaving only class behind.

And they try to ideologically undermine that as well...with varying degrees of success.

I think the most likely outcome of this process is that when the "workers of the world unite", it will be a conscious and deliberate choice...not a consequence of "peer pressure" or "just going along with the crowd" or a "temporary fad", etc.

If I'm right about that, then the Leninist pretensions of "providing leadership" are all the more superfluous.

We will not need to be "led" to what we have already chosen.


What's the proto-communist impulse in damaging your central nervous system and then having yet another meaningless emotional connection with another human being?

Meaningless?

Where is it written that there must be "meaning" in all human interactions?

Did you have a good time or did you have a really "meaningful good time"? :lol:


Perhaps you should spend more energy on challenging "existing" bourgeois values (rapid consumption, individuality, sexual "freedom") rather than attacking 2000 year old discredited mythologies.

Well, you missed this...


redstar2000
The "pleasures" promised by capitalist consumption are mostly empty!

And I did note earlier in this post that the "individuality" that capitalism permits is still largely illusory.

As someone who actually lived in the era when there were still "good girls" and "bad girls", I think considerable progress has been made...though there is still a long way to go.

But those old superstitious mythologies are still far from discredited.

Look at the Religion subforum...and see how people arrive here over and over again with the idea that one can be religious and still be "a communist".

Indeed, look at your own reluctance to reject Christian "sexual values"...trying to find a "medical" reason for people to be "chaste" or monogamous.

Indeed, you sound almost like a secular Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul"): It's better to marry than to get AIDS.

Perhaps it's just as well that you and many (most?) Leninists have these views. It serves to "warn people off" of a paradigm that might otherwise temporarily attract them.

Like hanging up a sign: SLOW: ARCHAIC IDEAS AHEAD. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

Indeed, look at your own reluctance to reject Christian "sexual values"...trying to find a "medical" reason for people to be "chaste" or monogamous.

Monogamy is a bad thing now?

Give me a break.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
Monogamy is a bad thing now?

It is neither "bad" nor "good". Politically speaking, it is a matter of indifference.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

I'll just reply to a few things, because most of that was self-parodying claptrap.



Many ex-Leninists have noted with despair the quasi-religious atmosphere that surrounds Leninist parties...although it would be helpful if they'd speak of it more often and in public.


Like whom? People who decide to abandon their revolutionary aspirations for a career in bourgeois society make great capital out of how "weird" and "cultist" their erstwhile convictions were. We should always take their "relevation" with a truckload of salt.


Moreover, one which does attempt to enforce "poverty, chastity, and obedience" with varying degrees of rigor. That is, some are fairly relaxed while others really go after people's personal pleasures with the torches and pitchforks.


*sigh*

Really, what are you talking about?


Actually, it's a "null question" -- there's no real systematic evidence of benefit or harm.


Eh? Are you sure about that one?

There's ample evidence that drink and drug abuse is more common in the working classes. We also know about the massive profits of the alcohol industry and drug lords.

How you can say that the doping up of the working class in the interest of profit is "neutral" is baffling.


Most drinkers never become alcoholics.

Meaningless. Most soldiers never shoot anyone.


Most drug addicts who manage to avoid the attentions of the police function ok.

Depends what you mean by "addict" and "function". Also depends on the class of the user.


Some Leninists argue that such "self-indulgence" diverts time and energy away from the Party's activities. That might be true

This isn't about "self-indulgence", it's about protecting your mental and physical faculties.


. To enjoy sex with multiple partners is "lumpen" and "degenerate".

Two things:

Are you going to offer an alternative analysis i.e say why it isn't those things?

And I never claimed that "multiple" partners is "lumpen". I simply made the suggestion, in the first instance, that to "support" promiscous sex in a society where 1 in 8 of the adult population is positive and contraception in frowned upon is stupid.

I'm quite clear that if people want to have sex with lots of diffirent people (I mean, c'mon, I'm not going to cast the first stone in any of these matters) then they can.


A "good comrade" gives all of his surplus funds to the Party...and the more minimal his basic needs are, the more he can give to the Party. Spending money on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, etc. is "bourgeois self-indulgence" and wasting money that should be given to the Party.


Fantasy. I don't know anybody who says that.


The only communist criterion is mutual consent.


Absolutely unmitigated rubbish. I'm amazed you've said that.

The only bourgeois liberal criterion is "mutual consent". Or, as Adam Smith would put, a "mutually beneficial exchange".

The real communist criterion are:

a) Who's class interests does a certain phenomena benefit
b) What are the social conditions that create and perpetuate a given social phenomena

That's what we should be asking about these things, not whether people "want to do it" or not.

Silly.


To be "atomized" sounds like a "bad thing"...but I'm not so sure of that.


Of course you're not.


If one is disconnected from other atoms, then one is, at least in theory, free to move in one's own chosen direction.

One "connects" with other atoms on the basis of choice rather than some form of socially imposed compulsion.


Here we have layed out in simple terms the basic diffirence between a Marxist anaylsis of society and an Anarchist one.

In Redstar's fantasy land we have a collection of "free spirits" making their way in the bourgeois utopia, free from nasty "social compulsion", free to join with other "atoms", so we can all progress together as "Individual Agents".

The only problem with Redstar's analogy, as anyone who's studied remedial chemistry will know, is that atoms don't choose to come together or split apart. A Force outwith their control, namely energy, determines their movement. Atoms can't "go their own way".


Where is it written that there must be "meaning" in all human interactions?

Did you have a good time or did you have a really "meaningful good time"?

What's the point of socialism then?

If the goal of history is just to make sure as many people as possible can have meaningless orgasms with strangers, then surely we should just be advocating the spread of prostitution, or pornography, rather than socialism.

Do you have a concept of alienation?

[redstar2000]

It's clear, I think, that YKTMX is just totally lost on this subject...and can only scatter words like "bourgeois" and "communist" around without regard for either their historical or their contemporary meanings.

What he actually illustrates is the accuracy of my remarks on Leninist neo-puritanism...and his willingness to over-rule what "people want" in favor of what's "good for them".

This view of "politics" actually goes all the way back to Plato -- yeah, it's true. Plato's view of a "good government" was one that would "make people good".

The definition of "good" has changed over the past 25 centuries, but the outlook is the same. People won't be "good" unless there is some authority around to "make them be good".

Is it any wonder that the appeal of Leninism in the west continues to decline? Capitalist despotism is certainly bad enough...but the Leninists are "inspired" to make things even worse! :o

Can you imagine what it would be like if these clowns actually had state power???


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
There's ample evidence that drink and drug abuse is more common in the working classes. We also know about the massive profits of the alcohol industry and drug lords.

The upper classes have many ways to "disguise" their "drink and drug abuse" and reduce their numbers in the "official total".

But suppose you were right? Again, so what?

Many workers drink alcohol, smoke tobacco and/or marijuana, and some even occasionally try a little cocaine or heroin or other drugs...usually it's only the really messed-up ones who "fall off the cliff".

And psychologically messed-up people are pretty good at "finding a cliff to fall off of" no matter what "legal fences" are in place.

You find this objectionable and wish to "save people from their own folly" at any cost!

That is, you're willing and eager to impose sensual deprivation on everyone in order to save a small minority from "hurting themselves".

As to profits, are you going to trash your computer because the computer industry makes enormous profits? Or turn off your electricity because your utility makes enormous profits?

Profit is the name of the game in capitalist society...and only a few "lifestyle anarchists" attempt to consistently avoid contributing to it.

I'm too old to live by sofa-surfing and dumpster-diving...how about you? :lol:


How can you say that the doping up of the working class in the interest of profit is "neutral" is baffling.

Chemicals are actually a rather trivial aspect of "doping up the working class" and at least provide a genuinely pleasurable effect.

What of religion? Or patriotism? Or dummyvision? Or racism? Or professional sports?

Those are infinitely worse forms of "doping up the working class"...and even the "pleasure" that they purport to provide is fake!


I'm quite clear that if people want to have sex with lots of different people (I mean, c'mon, I'm not going to cast the first stone in any of these matters) then they can.

However, they must be prepared to accept being labeled by you "lumpen" and "degenerate".

It wouldn't be so bad if guys like you confined yourselves to wagging the finger of moral disapproval.

But since we've seen what the Christians and the Muslims and the Hindus do to people they morally disapprove of, on what grounds should we assume you'd be any better?


The only bourgeois liberal criterion is "mutual consent".

What makes that a bourgeois liberal criterion is the ignored inequalities of class.

It's based on the assumption of equality when, in fact, that equality does not and cannot exist in a class society.

It's another illustration of what I spoke about earlier: the illusory quality of "individual freedom" under capitalism.

Under communism, individual freedom and mutual consent will be real.

Probably much to your dismay.


The real communist criteria are:

a) Whose class interests does a certain phenomenon benefit?

b) What are the social conditions that create and perpetuate a given social phenomenon?

I see. You meet an attractive potential mate and do a "communist analysis" before you decide whether or not to have sex with that person. :lol:

Whenever Leninists come up with this kind of stuff, I always just assume that they're lying. But that might not be justified...it's entirely possible that some of them really mean it. :o


In Redstar's fantasy land we have a collection of "free spirits" making their way in the bourgeois utopia, free from nasty "social compulsion", free to join with other "atoms", so we can all progress together as "Individual Agents".

Substituting the word communist for your deliberately dishonest "bourgeois", that's not such a bad summary.

We will be "free spirits" under communism...something that you, no doubt, find both "utopian" and morally repugnant.


If the goal of history is just to make sure as many people as possible can have meaningless orgasms with strangers, then surely we should just be advocating the spread of prostitution, or pornography, rather than socialism.

There's that word "meaningful" again. :lol:

History does not have a "goal" in your Hegelian (metaphysical) sense. But even if it did, it would concern things far more important than orgasms, "meaningful" or otherwise.


Do you have a concept of alienation?

Well, I suppose I could patch one together on the spur of the moment.

How's this: we are "alienated" when anything that we must do is controlled by others. Autonomy is what makes us human...and to be at the mercy of another's authority turns us into "tools" (or "objects") -- simple instruments of another's will.

It is one thing to freely choose to cooperate with others on some agreed-upon common project; it is quite a different thing to be compelled to obey under the threat of violence or severe material deprivation.

How's that? :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

Is it any wonder that the appeal of Leninism in the west continues to decline?

It isn't. As I've tried to tell you over and over again, the far left in Europe is stronger now than at any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Whether you "like" this fact is not important.


Capitalist despotism is certainly bad enough...but the Leninists are "inspired" to make things even worse!


Ooo, Max Shachtman lives! Haha.

Are you sure you weren't in favour on incinerating the Vietnamese to beat back the tide of "bestial Leninism", Red?

Oh yes, I forgot, you were too busy growing a beard and ruminating wistfully on the hidden depth of the 'Little Red Book'.

:lol:


Can you imagine what it would be like if these clowns actually had state power???


Фестиваль угнетаемого


And psychologically messed-up people are pretty good at "finding a cliff to fall off of" no matter what "legal fences" are in place.


Oh lord. I knew you would say something like that.

"The poor are alcoholics because it's "in their genes".

Reactionary gutterspeak, well below this forum.


What of religion? Or patriotism? Or dummyvision? Or racism? Or professional sports?


Sure, but what I was trying to suggest was that in the West the other forces you quite properly outlined are largely in decline - with the exception of the TV, and maybe sports.

Replacing the values of "patriotism", racism and religion is a new social phenomena, a product of ruling ideology like everything else in the capitalist mainsteam. It, too, is designed to legitimise class inequality and prohibit class consciousness - and it's the values and practices we've been discussing.


I see. You meet an attractive potential mate and do a "communist analysis" before you decide whether or not to have sex with that person.



Well, I didn't really want to get personal here, but, yes, sort of. I do "live" my socialist, egalitarian principles as well as sqwuak about them on a message board.

Therefore, I would tend not to just use another person, even if they were formally "willing", to satisfy me.

If you think this is ridiculous, then fine. I can live with that.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Replacing the values of "patriotism", racism and religion is a new social phenomena, a product of ruling ideology like everything else in the capitalist mainstream. It, too, is designed to legitimise class inequality and prohibit class consciousness - and it's the values and practices we've been discussing.

Another Leninist "development" of Marxist theory: the "lumpenization" of the proletariat? :lol:

A bit difficult to explain the "war on drugs" in such a context, eh?


I do "live" my socialist, egalitarian principles as well as squawk about them on a message board.

How nice for you.

But your personal preferences are not "laws of history". You have no right to impose them on others...not even when you costume them as "socialist" or "egalitarian".

You certainly have the right to be old-fashioned. You don't have the right to make everyone behave as old-fashioned as yourself.

Publicly wagging your finger in moral disapproval will provoke a certain amount of ridicule, of course.

But you already know that. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 17 2006, 04:10 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 17 2006, 04:10 PM)
Sundiata Acoli
Lumpen tendencies are associated with lack of discipline, liberal use of alcohol, marijuana, and curse words, loose sexual morals, a criminal mentality, and rash actions.

http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/bla2.html

Sounds like they should have recruited more Mormons, eh? :lol: [/b]
I'm going to leave aside the general debate over Redstar's hippie libertarian perspective vs the communist perspective which has broken out here, and somewhat derailed the thread.

And just point out there's a very practical problem, in a revolutionary organization, with the behavior Acoli describes. The experience of the Panthers does show, very dramatically, how that can injure an organization and make it more vulnerable to police repression.

Use of marijuana, for example, certainly is widespread; but if you're serious about revolutionary organizing you gotta recognize it leaves you open to police repression. Additionally, anything that leaves an organization's members open to arrest - increases the opportunities for cops to pressure 'em to become informants.

Even something like "liberal use of...curse words." How ridiculously puritanical, huh? There's no harm to curse words. Well, yeah.

But I've had to learn by experience that overuse of "curse words" does unnecessarily offend some people you want to reach....anything that unnecessarily isolates you does weaken you.

[loveme4whoiam]

I completely agree with everything Severian said; stuff that leaves you open to criticism is a bad thing. Hell, just been characterised as swearing a lot means that the media can protray you as a "foul-mouthed, inarticulate, uneducated yob". The right-wingers pounce on anything and everything they can to discredit people (they&#39;ve had so much practice at it <_<) that having such behaviour within an organisation that relies on and is trying to cultivate public support is always going to be a bad thing.

Case in point; the French riots about ethnic discrimination. I had no clue what they were really about until I read it on here, since the media could focus on the yobbish behaviour instead of the reasons behind it. If we had lumpen (chav-ish) members of an organisation go around doing what they do best, we would all be branded with the stigma.

[STI]

Use of marijuana, for example, certainly is widespread; but if you&#39;re serious about revolutionary organizing you gotta recognize it leaves you open to police repression. Additionally, anything that leaves an organization&#39;s members open to arrest - increases the opportunities for cops to pressure &#39;em to become informants.


Any cop who wants to go after any serious, active communist will have a lot better things to bust him or her for than having pot (especially when you live in a place where the worst punishment anybody ever gets for possession is being put on academic probation). Anybody who&#39;s going to sell out and become a snitch over blackmail regarding marijuana was never that great a comrade to begin with.


Even something like "liberal use of...curse words." How ridiculously puritanical, huh? There&#39;s no harm to curse words. Well, yeah.

But I&#39;ve had to learn by experience that overuse of "curse words" does unnecessarily offend some people you want to reach....anything that unnecessarily isolates you does weaken you.

Anybody so up themselves that they can&#39;t get the message because of a few swears is so up themselves that they wouldn&#39;t be into revolutionary leftism all that much anyway.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by redstar2000
They have the "look and feel" of authenticity. And one would be hard-pressed to think of a motive for Clara Zetkin to "make them up".

Indeed.


Every capitalist country has an "underground economy". People in it do work for wages, from time to time as the opportunity arises. But it&#39;s all "off the books"...these wages are never reported (or taxed&#33;).

That is true. Underground economy influences the "flow" of the system as much as "official" side. And it could be said that there are alot of people in that same cathegory: "worker or lumpen?", in between two sections of economic process.

But we must ask these questions: does class struggle develop into a revolutionary struggle within the frame of "underground economy"? When workers organize to fight capital who are the ones to "step up" first? Over what do they fight? How do they do it? Where do they do it? Does lumpen have any actual place in it?

A priori, it seems to me how "survival" in that sense has an individualistic character. It&#39;s something "you do" in order to "make more money", which the current day job does not give. There&#39;s no place for a struggle any other then fragmented one, nececarily isolated, unable to take higher forms other then organized crime itslef. The whole "underground economy" has a secondary nature to it, and as you said, it&#39;s a life in a "culture of survival".

You&#39;re right, the whole "worker or lumpen?" group is not a counter-revolutionary sub-class, if it takes part in the actual struggle within the productive "wage system". There&#39;s a chance that the struggle within both sides of the economy - "primary" and "underground" - creates an apathy which turns individual "survival" into revolutionary practice by rejecting it.

My basic thought is that the revolutionary struggle will develop outside the lumpens&#39; "underground" frame.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC
My basic thought is that the revolutionary struggle will develop outside the lumpens&#39; "underground" frame.

That&#39;s certainly what has happened up to now.

In the future...well, I&#39;m not so sure. The "late capitalist" state seems to inexorably drift in a more repressive direction...and we may end up finding ourselves "among the lumpen" whether we like it or not.

I think we should keep an "open mind" on this one...and see how things develop.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Lamanov]

What do you mean by "among the lumpen"?

If we stay within the productive process, then we&#39;re just not lumpen. Even if both classes want to destroy capitalism - we still are the only ones who can organize in our workplace. Although...

...it is true that the situation at a current state of things has changed drasticly. There&#39;s a huge increase in the number of unemployed, so there&#39;s a main reason to keep an "open mind", and expect, at least for now, a dose of originality needed to aproach the problems of struggle.

[emokid08]

Lumpenproletariat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The lumpenproletariat (German Lumpenproletariat, "rabble-proletariat"; "raggedy proletariat") is a term originally defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1845), their famous second joint work, and later expounded upon in future works by Marx. In Marx&#39;s The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), the term refers to the &#39;refuse of all classes,&#39; including &#39;swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ-grinders, beggars, and other flotsam of society.&#39;

In the Eighteenth Brumaire, the lumpenproletariat were a &#39;class fraction&#39; that constituted the political power base for Louis Bonaparte of France in 1848. In this sense, Marx argued that in the particular historical events leading up to Louis Bonaparte&#39;s coup in late 1851, the proletariat and bourgeoisie were productive and progressive, advancing the historical process by developing society&#39;s labor-power and its capabilities, whereas the &#39;lumpenproletariat&#39; was unproductive and regressive.

According to Marx, the lumpenproletariat had no real motive for participating in revolution, and might have in fact an interest in preserving the current class structure, because members of the lumpenproletariat often depended on the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy for their day-to-day existence. In that sense, Marx saw the lumpenproletariat as a counter-revolutionary force.

Marx&#39;s definition has influenced contemporary sociologists, who are concerned with many of the marginalized elements of society characterized by Marx under this label. Marxian and even some non-Marxist sociologists now use the term to refer to those they see as the victims of modern society, such as prostitutes, beggars, and homeless people, who exist outside the wage-labor system, but depend on the formal economy for their day-to-day existence.

I think that they will in the end, just end up as an overall negative, even counter revolutionary force as Marx suggested.Communism offers a better life and a better way of living (duh a no brainer), and overall a better existence here on Earth. If we could sway these people and show them the light so to speak, then they might except Communism and play and important role in the Revolution. Yes the potential might be there, but the motive and interest are not, I would have to say that they might be an obstacle in the way of the Revolution and our Communist movement in general(as they see it at least,in thier current perspective,but we all know it&#39;s all in our best interest to build a Communist Society, since everyone, in the end benefits)

[Severian]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+Feb 20 2006, 09:51 AM--> (DJ-TC @ Feb 20 2006, 09:51 AM)
redstar2000
They have the "look and feel" of authenticity. And one would be hard-pressed to think of a motive for Clara Zetkin to "make them up".

Indeed. [/b]
Aside from the fact she was part of Stalin&#39;s faction...but she wrote that in 1924, it&#39;d seem, when the falsification machine was just beginning to develop. So it might well be accurate....no, scratch that. It might contain only honest mistakes. It&#39;s one person&#39;s recollection of a private conversation, after all.

Redstar, on the other hand, has plenty of motive to quote things out of context, and quite a record of doing that and worse. So:
Here&#39;s Zetkin&#39;s complete article (http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm)

And directly from Lenin, his letters to Inessa Armand commenting on "freedom of love":
letter one (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jan/17.htm)
letter two (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jan/24.htm)