New Classes?

[Question everything]

If you look at the world to day there are new classes or at least classes that seemed to be over looked by Marx, as Marx's class system seems to categorize, a richer nation's class system, but not really world wide, like

1. the people starving in Africa and other poor regions

2. the people who entirely exploited, like The people working for Nike who are getting paid about 4.00$ a week for 50 hours of work

3.those who are getting layed off by larger companies (and losing their jobs to those mentioned perviously), but continue to try and get jobs

Are these all Lumpen Proletarian?

[Lenin II]

I don’t necessarily believe that Marx meant the proletariat to just mean the working class or the bourgeois to mean the land owners and bosses—I think it is meant to be broader than that. His “class war” is between two factions, that is the powerful and the powerless. Since the groups you mentioned are mostly powerless or have been deprived of their power, they would still fall under the category of the proletariat.

[midnight marauder]

The groups you have described are all proletatian for the most part, aside from extreme situations: they are all exploited economically by their respective ruling classes.

The only exceptions under the examples that you listed would be those people who are completely rejected by capitalism and totally alienated from economic processes, which might be people who are incredibly poor across the world who have no ability to work for anyone (which is, yeah, probably best considered to be lumpenproletarian, meaning people who are the "refuse" of class society) or people who are laid off or whatever when no work is available (same thing).

In any event, I agree with the thesis of your topic: Marx's class division is outdated. It's clear (it should be -- silly sectarians Marx worshipers still deny this) that the lumpenproletariat has vast revolutionary potential. Further, if we're going to be making new classes, one important aspect in modern societies is the role of students. Students aren't necessarily part of the economic process yet, but they are people who are generally being trained to be a part of the system, and are nontheless exploited by it. And we all know their revolutionary potential, as evidenced from Paris '68 to even just this week when thousands of high school students in Chile rioted against urban transportation services and police brutality on the Day of the Young Combatant.

[Question everything]

I don’t necessarily believe that Marx meant the proletariat to just mean the working class or the bourgeois to mean the land owners and bosses—I think it is meant to be broader than that. His “class war” is between two factions, that is the powerful and the powerless. Since the groups you mentioned are mostly powerless or have been deprived of their power, they would still fall under the category of the proletariat.

Marx did not say only two class exist he said that if trends continued then there would only be two classes, however they have not, instead classes have broken and divided unto themselves


The groups you have described are all proletatian for the most part, aside from extreme situations: they are all exploited economically by their respective ruling classes.

Not neccarially I mean it's hard to relate a 9 year old performing forced labour in Indonesia for pennys a day and a 40 year old American earning a (relatively) decent wage at a Ford factory.


In any event, I agree with the thesis of your topic: Marx's class division is outdated. It's clear (it should be -- silly sectarians Marx worshipers still deny this) that the lumpenproletariat has vast revolutionary potential.

I agree with you generally, but you can't underestimate capitalist propaganda and the chance for self advancement, not to mention that Lumpen Proletarian in gangs and other suchs groups are by nature counter revolutionary, although I have to admit that Marx underestimated their value entirely.


Further, if we're going to be making new classes, one important aspect in modern societies is the role of students. Students aren't necessarily part of the economic process yet, but they are people who are generally being trained to be a part of the system, and are nontheless exploited by it. And we all know their revolutionary potential, as evidenced from Paris '68 to even just this week when thousands of high school students in Chile rioted against urban transportation services and police brutality on the Day of the Young Combatant.

Student themselves are as diverse as the economic classes, they, or rather we I suppose I should say, are fledling, we may fall to fascism, reactionism, or even more common Apathy, to count us as a revolutionary class is a mistake.

[Aurora]

Marxist class analysis is based on ones relationship to the means of production not how much money they make.

1. the people starving in Africa and other poor regions
If they are selling there labour for a wage they are proletarian

2. the people who entirely exploited, like The people working for Nike who are getting paid about 4.00$ a week for 50 hours of work
Proletarian

3.those who are getting layed off by larger companies (and losing their jobs to those mentioned perviously), but continue to try and get jobs
lumpen proletarian


Student themselves are as diverse as the economic classes, they, or rather we I suppose I should say, are fledling, we may fall to fascism, reactionism, or even more common Apathy, to count us as a revolutionary class is a mistake.
That is very true.

[Question everything]

3.those who are getting layed off by larger companies (and losing their jobs to those mentioned perviously), but continue to try and get jobs


lumpen proletarian

But surely they are a more revolutionary force then the forced labourers in Asia. according to your analysis, the Rabble Proletarian can live in appartments while Proletarian are literally slaves?

[Janus]

the people starving in Africa and other poor regions
They're not part of any of the Marxist classes simply because Marx's classification system was meant for industrialized, capitalist regions.


But surely they are a more revolutionary force then the forced labourers in Asia
They can still be classified as workers since they're only temporarily unemployed. Marx originally meant for lumpenproletariat to classify those who existed outside the wage labor system altogether.

[midnight marauder]

Not neccarially I mean it's hard to relate a 9 year old performing forced labour in Indonesia for pennys a day and a 40 year old American earning a (relatively) decent wage at a Ford factory.

Anarion already won this -- Marx observed class based on one's relation to the means of production, not how much money they made.


I agree with you generally, but you can't underestimate capitalist propaganda and the chance for self advancement, not to mention that Lumpen Proletarian in gangs and other suchs groups are by nature counter revolutionary, although I have to admit that Marx underestimated their value entirely.

I don't know what capitalist propaganda has to do anything (maybe with your misguided views on gangs?). Lumpenproletariats aren't "by nature counter revolutionary", in fact, no one, of any class is necessarily anything! There are thousands of reactionary workers, just like there are revolutionary members of the petit bourgeois and the bourgeoisie. People aren't contracted into their classes; classes don't have "party line" and it's a foolish misinterpretation of Marx and the world to assume they do. Classes are made up first and foremost of individuals, which are just as diverse as the students you go on to speak of. What we're discussing here is revolutionary potential, and in that matter, the lumpenproletariat knows first hand perhaps better than others the injustice of capitalist hierarchy, after all, they're the ones who have been rejected by it. The world is no longer Germany, 1848, and the lumpenproletariat of his this time is completely different thatn it is now. Here's a quick check on yourself: how many people do you know in gangs? Do they inheret some type of counter revolutionary nature because of their relation to the means of production? Or are they just people who have been wronged by the same system we hope to abolish, with no inherent place on the spectrum?


Student themselves are as diverse as the economic classes, they, or rather we I suppose I should say, are fledling, we may fall to fascism, reactionism, or even more common Apathy, to count us as a revolutionary class is a mistake.

This arguement is at best nonunique. It's applicable to every class. People aren't defined by their class. Classes are defined by their people. Their potential, however, if anything, seems to be proportional to how the degree to which they are victimized by capitalism.

I notice you include yourself here. Why are you selling yourself out?

[Raúl Duke]

I notice you include yourself here. Why are you selling yourself out?

I don't think he's selling himself out, he's just selling out the "class of students" which he considers himself to belong in.


in fact, no one, of any class is necessarily anything! There are thousands of reactionary workers, just like there are revolutionary members of the petit bourgeois and the bourgeoisie. People aren't contracted into their classes; classes don't have "party line" and it's a foolish misinterpretation of Marx and the world to assume they do. Classes are made up first and foremost of individuals, which are just as diverse as the students you go on to speak of.

By this than, its normal to consider your class to be filled with reaction yet to be one of the few in the class to be revolutionary.
He knows it is just as diverse, except...


What we're discussing here is revolutionary potential

He doesn't feel that they have revolutionary potential


I think Marxists have already adressed the second problem. I think new theories consider the 1rst world workers proletarian yet they enjoy some of the "super-profits" gained from the exploitation of the 3rd world workers. The idea is so they would be more in line and not rebel in the "capitalist center" (the 3rd world is considered the "periphery"). Certain groups, like MIM, consider the first world workers a "labor aristorcracy" and considers them reactionary unless they are part of a racially discriminated group/nation; an example of taking the idea to farther extremes.

RedStar2k says that while 3rd world revolutions might not reach communism, it hurts the imperialist system (lowering super-profits, and other factors. Also lost imperialist wars hurt the system too) which might increase the chances of a 1st world revolution.

[Question everything]

I don't think he's selling himself out, he's just selling out the "class of students" which he considers himself to belong in.

No I meant that there is revolutionary potential in students but there are alot of reactionary students, who have abosolutly no revolutionary potential.

By the way I don't think that I belong to a Student "class" but I am a student so I presume I'd be part of this class


He doesn't feel that they have revolutionary potential

They have revolutionary potential but They could join either side, they could be soldiers or revolutionarys. The Lumpen Proles in the Army, and many in Gangs are reactionary or at least counter-revolutionary.


Classes are made up first and foremost of individuals, which are just as diverse as the students you go on to speak of.

I was refering to during a revolution, there are rich students who would be apathetic or reactionary, then there is a Nazi demographic (not that many of them would really get that far in education), I understand classes are diverse but they are also united by status, students have little in common.

PS. Thanks for defending me Johnny Darko.

PPS. sorry for the double post.

[Question everything]

New comment.

''Our culture divides people into two classes: civilized men, a title bestowed on the persons who do the classifying; and others, who have only the human form, who may perish or go to the dogs for all the "civilized men" care."-Albert Schwieter

Perhaps all Marx did was divide the "civilized men" in philosophy, while only giving vague mention to "Barbarians" as he refers to them (pointing out european colonialism more than cultural superiority I would presume) but could I be on to some thing here? thoughts?

[Whitten]

1. the people starving in Africa and other poor regions

Lumpen Proles, Peasents or proletariat, depending on individual case.


2. the people who entirely exploited, like The people working for Nike who are getting paid about 4.00$ a week for 50 hours of work

Proletariat, how would they not qualify as such?


3.those who are getting layed off by larger companies (and losing their jobs to those mentioned perviously), but continue to try and get jobs

Lumper Proles.