Lumpenproletariat

[A.J.]

http://www.mltranslations.org/US/Rpo/classes/classes4.htm

There remains to be discussed one more stratum in capitalist society: the lumpen proletariat. The lumpen proletariat is that sector of the population that, having been denied a legitimate way to make a living, resorts to the illegitimate: i.e. thieves, fences, drug pushers, numbers men, gamblers, pimps, prostitutes, loan sharks, beggars, thugs, etc. The general crisis of capitalism swells the ranks of this stratum because it displaces more and more proletarians and small proprietors from the productive process and prevents large numbers of youth from entering it. Of course, by the lumpen proletariat we do not mean all of those who are unemployed, and not even all of those who, out of desperation, dip into illegitimate means of living while out of work. The lumpen proletariat is that stratum of people who have made those illegitimate means their regular livelihood, their "profession." It is impossible to determine the exact size of this stratum, or even make a close estimate, but it surely numbers several million.

For several years the idea was current among certain sectors of the revolutionary movement that the lumpen proletariat had become the "new vanguard" of the revolution. According to the Black Panther Party, Franz Fanon and others, the lumpen proletariat, among whom they incorrectly included all of the unemployed, were the most impoverished and oppressed and were, therefore, the most revolutionary section of the population. This view is fundamentally anti-Marxist and served to spread confusion about the forces of revolution and counterrevolution.

Despite the fact that most lumpen proletarians are drawn from the ranks of the displaced proletariat, the way in which they make their living is completely different from that of the proletariat, and they therefore have a very different, and in many ways opposite, world view. The lumpen lives off the proletariat, which serves as the primary prey for its thievery and a market for its illicit trade. Thus, the lumpen proletariat shares with the bourgeoisie the common trait of being a parasitic class which lives off the labor of the others. Many lumpens dream of becoming rich and a small number of them actually do, becoming capitalist merchants in the criminal world. Most of the lumpen proletariat, of course, cannot realize any such dreams and are among the most destitute and victimized people in society (i.e., impoverished alcoholics, junkies, prostitutes). But the destitution of those people does not, in itself, make them revolutionary and in fact the lumpen proletariat, as a whole, plays a reactionary role. This stratum, wrote Marx and Engels, "may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue." Members of this class have consistently been used as anti-union gun thugs, police informants, agent provocateurs, assassins, Klansmen, mercenaries, etc.

The revolutionary proletariat must exercise great caution toward those members of the lumpen proletariat who are able to join the revolutionary movement because they often tend to be unstable and advocate adventurism and anarchism, harming the disciplined character of the movement.

The reactionary role of the lumpen proletariat is institutionalized through organized crime. Organized crime dominates every aspect of the criminal world like the monopoly corporations dominate every aspect of the legal economy. The most wealthy and powerful of the criminal "bosses" are completely tied in with the capitalist class and the capitalist state; they. must be considered capitalists themselves. A whole sector of the bourgeoisie, the most seedy side of this class, is involved in organized criminal activities as well as "legitimate" businesses. It hardly needs to be said that these criminal capitalists are among the most reactionary, ruthless and fascist members of the bourgeoisie. Organized crime has acted as butchers for reaction, combating the revolutions in China, Algeria, Cuba and many other countries. In the U.S., organized crime has a close working relationship with the CIA, and has been among the most ruthless opponents of communism in the trade union movement, beating and assassinating communists and revolutionary trade unionists.

[apathy maybe]

Gah! My eyes! Oh why the fuck is that all bold! Ah!


I got three things out of that,


For several years the idea was current among certain sectors of the revolutionary movement that the lumpen proletariat had become the "new vanguard" of the revolution. According to the Black Panther Party, Franz Fanon and others, the lumpen proletariat, among whom they incorrectly included all of the unemployed, were the most impoverished and oppressed and were, therefore, the most revolutionary section of the population. This view is fundamentally anti-Marxist and served to spread confusion about the forces of revolution and counterrevolution.Who says that they are the "new vanguard"? And who says that Marx is correct?


The revolutionary proletariat must exercise great caution toward those members of the lumpen proletariat who are able to join the revolutionary movement because they often tend to be unstable and advocate adventurism and anarchism, harming the disciplined character of the movement.Oh noes! Anarchism! Holy shit, they might not listen to us batman! Etc. I'm sure any person with a stable mind can see the other flaws in this paragraph. (A hint, the word "unstable" has something to do with it.)


And third thing is... A lot of people (including "Marxists" (and I only do that "" thing because I'm guessing you would say that they aren't Marxists...), would class the upper levels of criminal gangs as part of the bourgeois class.

And that bold! It is too much!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm not sure why you posted this (since you didn't give any indication); but all in all, this is a pretty fair assessment of the lumpenproletariat (including its role and makeup).

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

would class the upper levels of criminal gangs as part of the bourgeois class.

No, they are not part of the bourgeois class, because the bourgeois state seeks to stop criminals as it ultimately makes capitalism seem like a less viable society.

If the state protected the boss criminals then you would be right, but i dont think its the case.

[Delirium]

your local drug dealer and the overlord of the operation certainly aren't the same. I don't think the legality changes the fundamental relationships of a business. There are still bosses and workers.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:12 pm

would class the upper levels of criminal gangs as part of the bourgeois class.

No, they are not part of the bourgeois class, because the bourgeois state seeks to stop criminals as it ultimately makes capitalism seem like a less viable society.

If the state protected the boss criminals then you would be right, but i dont think its the case.
Many of the bourgeoisie, who also represent the state, are involved in organized crime and are criminals. They make it seem like the bourgeoisie is morally right in fighting crime and the drug trade, but in reality it's all hypocrisy.

[KC]

No, they are not part of the bourgeois class, because the bourgeois state seeks to stop criminals as it ultimately makes capitalism seem like a less viable society.

First, this sentence shows your poor understanding of Marxian class analysis. The bourgeoisie isn't a homogeneous, united force. Within the bourgeoisie (and every class throughout history - even the proletariat) there are various strata that are in constant conflict with one another. And as for your reference to the "bourgeois state", this is generally a misunderstood term. The bourgeois state isn't a state that always and at all times supports the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole, but is merely a tool used to maintain bourgeois rule. This does not require constant support of all strata within the bourgeoisie at all times; this would in fact be impossible.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I always heard unemployed and homeless where Lumpen-proletariat. I think the term is outdated, I consider prostitutes, small scale drug dealers, petty thieves and homeless, proletarians-- really, they go from time to time having legal jobs.

As for Mafia, large scale dealers and thieves, and pimps, they are certainly bourgeosie. Mafia provides a serive to "protect" legal businesses, and mobsters usually run a store of somesort as a front. Black markets wouldn't exist if rulers of conventional society didn't find use for it. Everyone deviates in one form or another.

In reallity the Lumpenproletariat are just illegal proletarians and bourgeosie,or you can just go as far as to say its a whole illegal class system that almost mirrors the legal class system. And we all agree with bourgeois legallity-- they change the rules whenever they see fit. And so, I believe the Lumpenproletariat doesn't exist.

[Floyce White]

There is no such thing as an "underclass" or "lumpenproletariat." There is only the class of families who claim to own things used by others, and the class of families who do not. Property defines class, not occupation, income, legal status, place of birth, use of narcotics, etc.

Funny how this concept is virtually never raised as a supposed "lumpenbourgeoisie" who exploit on a very small scale. The concept of "less than worker" is used to divide and rule the working class.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 11, 2007 04:17 am
There is no such thing as an "underclass" or "lumpenproletariat." There is only the class of families who claim to own things used by others, and the class of families who do not. Property defines class, not occupation, income, legal status, place of birth, use of narcotics, etc.
That also depends to the extent of the power attatched with property. Owning a small house is different than owning a mult-national business.

[Floyce White]

El Kablamo, I understand your point, but capital isn't any fixed dollar amount. It's a way of treating others. Owning the house you and your kin live in--is not abusing others. Renting out rooms is operating a boarding-house business--and it is a way to abuse others. The exploitation and humilation of the tenant is just as real and just as painful to the renter of a boarding-house room as it is to the renter of a corporate-owned apartment complex.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Zampanò


Do you think that Boss criminals are then part of the bourgeois class? :lol:

[KC]

Do you think that Boss criminals are then part of the bourgeois class?

If they command capital, then of course.

[RedStarOverChina]

Lumpen proletariat is not a class. It is part of proletariat and it is a futile effort to distinguish the two. They are one and the same.

A worker could sell drugs to pay for his rent and a drug addict, if born in the proletariat class, will also be exploited.

[RedStarOverChina]

The big criminals are always either petty-bourgeoisie or full-fledged bourgeoisie.

People who hire other thugs to do the dirty work for him and make profit off of it are obviously not proletariat or even lumpen proletariat.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 10, 2007 04:48 pm
And who says that Marx is correct?

History does.

[the-red-under-the-bed]

hmmmmmmmm.

As i see it, the "lumpen-proletariat"refers to just the lower levels of criminal society. The prostitues, the junkies and the local drug dealers are lumpenproletariat because they are forced to sell their labour to a "lumpenbourgeoisie" which are the pimps, mobsters and druglords. Just as every other industry there is the two layers those who provide the labour and those who gain from it.

The lower levels can be revolutionary because they are proletarians, the upper levels though are bourgeois and thus cannot be revolutionary.

[black magick hustla]

I am writing this right now because drug dealing lumpen are killing each other some few kilometers from here.

I have heard people saying that the lumpenproletariat has revolutionary potential. The guys who form the armed wing of the Carteles are not revolutionary nor have revolutionary potential, they are murderous motherfuckers that are in that kind of buisness simply because it is easy money. They are not "revolutionary", they see stuff as a war between Carteles, being completely loyal to their faction of luimpenbourgeosie. They are like cops except they are less scrupulous about the shit they do.

I sometimes think that people that say that the lumpen are revolutionary do it just because it sounds radical.

Sure, if you sniff a line of cocaine somewhere in white america, you don't prescence that kind of shit we mexicans do (especially us living near the border). The cocaine many "rebellious" leftists sniff is brought to you by volence and terror from the mob bosses to the working class.

I don't think drugs are bad or any other of that presumtpuous shit. However, I would be very happy if they are legalized so we wouldn't have to deal with mob vermin.

Maybe some factions of the lumpen can be revolutionary, like the unemployed...

but mafiosi guys? forget that shit.

[Prairie Fire]

Well put.

Yeah, I still have to side with Marx on this one. The lumpenproletariat are not revolutionary, mostly because many of them are too concerned with substance abuse or money.

In a way, many of the more criminal elements of the lumpenproletariat are primitive bourgeosie, in that their exploitation (robbing, theft, pimping) is exploitiation at it's most basic level. This hasn't changed since the time of Marx, and hence it is easy to see why the Lumpen proletariat woul side with the bourgeosie and become reactionary in times of revolution.

[apathy maybe]

I love Marxists who don't understand Marxism. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside (I'm obviously not a Marxist if you didn't notice...).

The criminal bosses aren't lumpen-proletariat, they are "illegal" bourgeois. They own and control "the means of production", in this case illegal drug production.

The lumpen-proletariat are those who don't have any relation to any means of production. They don't work them, they don't own them. Beggars and thieves are included in this 'class', but those who produce and sell drugs should not be.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:56 pm
The guys who form the armed wing of the Carteles are not revolutionary nor have revolutionary potential, they are murderous motherfuckers that are in that kind of buisness simply because it is easy money.
However, having revolutionary potential does not imply that people are not "motherfuckers". The working class is full of individualist, racist, homophobic, reactionary idiots. What makes us revolutionary is our objective position in the productive relationships: we make everything but we have nothing; without us, everything would immediately stop.


I sometimes think that people that say that the lumpen are revolutionary do it just because it sounds radical.

Maybe, or because it fits the bloodthirstiness of some petty bourgeois. Or, perhaps, because it is a Christian view: people are revolutionary in the measure of their suffering, and the lumpen suffers much.


The cocaine many "rebellious" leftists sniff is brought to you by volence and terror from the mob bosses to the working class.

Which could be another cause for the dellusion that the lumpen is revolutionary: to rationalise the consumption of stuff that is produced through the most brutal exploitation and oppression of third world workers.


Maybe some factions of the lumpen can be revolutionary, like the unemployed...

The unemployed are workers. Lumpen are people who manage to make a living circumventing the bourgeois monopoly of means of production. As long as unemployed workers aren't able to do that, and live on legitimate means (social welfare or help from proletarian organisations or individuals), they are not lumpen.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 18, 2007 12:24 pm
I love Marxists who don't understand Marxism.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but you have something in common with them...


It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside (I'm obviously not a Marxist if you didn't notice...).

Why should we notice? Just because you have proclaimed it 37,532 times?


The lumpen-proletariat are those who don't have any relation to any means of production.

And manage to make a living, regardless of that. If not, they are dead, not lumpen.


Beggars and thieves are included in this 'class', but those who produce and sell drugs should not be.

Beggars, thieves, prostitutes, swindlers, parasites of their families or neighbourhoods, people defrauding social insurance, etc. And drug dealers, yes, sir. The means of production required to produce drugs are not part of the bourgeois monopoly of the means of production; their property is not enforced by the bourgeois State. So these people are not bourgeois or proletarians, they are people living in the fringes of society.

Of course, there is a social stratification among them, from the miserable beggar to the "miserable" (in a different acception of the word) drug-cartel boss. But this is something people find difficult to gather: social classes are not homogenous. The guy who owns a brickyard and employs 50 wage workers is a bourgeois the same way Bill Gates, but his living standards are probably closer to ours than to Bill Gates'. The American welder who makes 2,000 dollars a month is a proletarian, just like the Chines sweatshop worker who makes 30 bucks.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

However, having revolutionary potential does not imply that people are not "motherfuckers". The working class is full of individualist, racist, homophobic, reactionary idiots. What makes us revolutionary is our objective position in the productive relationships: we make everything but we have nothing; without us, everything would immediately stop.

Of course I understand this. However, the lumpenproletariat, as a fringe group, doesn't holds this objective conditions, atleast generally. You could argue though, that in some areas the lumpen are crucial for the economy.





Which could be another cause for the dellusion that the lumpen is revolutionary: to rationalise the consumption of stuff that is produced through the most brutal exploitation and oppression of third world workers.

Depends on which faction of the lumpenproletairat though. You could argue that coca farmers working for some huge land owner are lumpen, still they hold revolutionary potential.
The armed wing of the lumpenbourgeosie is equivalent to the cops, for their only reason for existance is to protect the property of the lumpenbourgeosie.


Maybe some factions of the lumpen can be revolutionary, like the unemployed...

The unemployed are workers. Lumpen are people who manage to make a living circumventing the bourgeois monopoly of means of production. As long as unemployed workers aren't able to do that, and live on legitimate means (social welfare or help from proletarian organisations or individuals), they are not lumpen.


Of course, there is a social stratification among them, from the miserable beggar to the "miserable" (in a different acception of the word) drug-cartel boss. But this is something people find difficult to gather: social classes are not homogenous. The guy who owns a brickyard and employs 50 wage workers is a bourgeois the same way Bill Gates, but his living standards are probably closer to ours than to Bill Gates'. The American welder who makes 2,000 dollars a month is a proletarian, just like the Chines sweatshop worker who makes 30 bucks.

I beg to differ.

Cartel bosses are not the same as the lumpenproletariat, for they do hold means of production (land for drugs, legal capital) and, although the official bourgeois state doesn't necessarily endorse them (this is a bit more complex though, because the cartels bribe a huge chunk of the official state to protect them) they have their own defacto state, for they have armed people protecting their interests.

This is why I said that armed gansgers are the equivalent for cops. Their modus operandi is very similar.

[Entrails Konfetti]

To add to the discussion; 'deviant' people wouldn't exist if the legal businesses and political states didn't have uses for them. It is well known amongst us that the CIA finances its opperations by running drugs; some states perpetuate themselves by the drug-trade; on an individual basis people visit brothels; the bourgeosie changes their laws according to circumstance-- what once was considered illegal is now legal; mobsters have business fronts and historically have been employed by the state to defend the states interests. Because legallity can be broken like a piecrust promise by the bourgeosie, from this we can conclude that the lumpen-classes are part of society, not a strata separate from it, or living on the fringes of society.

Further more I only remember Marx talking about the Lumpenproletariat, I've never read anything about the Lumpenbourgeosie, or Lumpen-pette-bourgeosie, so who was it that made new catagories of stratafication.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 19, 2007 02:39 am
To add to the discussion; 'deviant' people wouldn't exist if the legal businesses and political states didn't have uses for them. It is well known amongst us that the CIA finances its opperations by running drugs; some states perpetuate themselves by the drug-trade; on an individual basis people visit brothels; the bourgeosie changes their laws according to circumstance-- what once was considered illegal is now legal; mobsters have business fronts and historically have been employed by the state to defend the states interests. Because legallity can be broken like a piecrust promise by the bourgeosie, from this we can conclude that the lumpen-classes are part of society, not a strata separate from it, or living on the fringes of society.

Further more I only remember Marx talking about the Lumpenproletariat, I've never read anything about the Lumpenbourgeosie, or Lumpen-pette-bourgeosie, so who was it that made new catagories of stratafication.
lol i made that up.

i just thought the drug cartel bosses shouldnt be considered proles.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 19, 2007 02:39 am
To add to the discussion; 'deviant' people wouldn't exist if the legal businesses and political states didn't have uses for them.
They would; the bourgeoisie has no superpowers. But, yes, the bourgeosie and the bourgeois State take as much advantage from their existence as they can.


It is well known amongst us that the CIA finances its opperations by running drugs; some states perpetuate themselves by the drug-trade;

Perhaps more important than these direct collusions, the "crime economy" provides an ideological justification for the existence (and huge size) of police.


the bourgeosie changes their laws according to circumstance-- what once was considered illegal is now legal;

Again, you run the risk of overestimating the bourgeois power. Of course the bourgeosie's will has an enormous bearing over legislation. But legislation is not just a product of class dominance, it is a product of class struggle. The demands of the proletariat, the peasantry, the landed oligarchy, the petty bourgeoisie, must be taken into account to some extent, as much as they do not directly challenge the system.


mobsters have business fronts and historically have been employed by the state to defend the states interests.

Sure. This is why it is problematic to talk about a "lumpen-bourgeoisie". The legal and illegal endeavours of capital are highly intertwined (which again illustrates how the legislation is not an unilateral decree of the bourgeoisie). To the extent that the money invested in illegal trades is capital, those who control it are part of the bourgeoisie. But there is plenty of petty-bourgeois money (ie, money that does not constitute capital) running in the illegal markets: a group of thieves' "working tools" is generally not capital, as the robbed money is to make part of their consuming fund, not to be expanded as capital.


Because legallity can be broken like a piecrust promise by the bourgeosie, from this we can conclude that the lumpen-classes are part of society, not a strata separate from it, or living on the fringes of society.

They are part of society, but they are marginal, they constitute their outer part.


Further more I only remember Marx talking about the Lumpenproletariat, I've never read anything about the Lumpenbourgeosie, or Lumpen-pette-bourgeosie, so who was it that made new catagories of stratafication.

It seems to be just incorrect.

Luís Henrique

[Floyce White]

Either a family owns things used by others, or a family does not. Either a family is upper class, or it is lower class. There is no such thing as an "underclass" or "lumpenproletariat." It is upper-class propaganda designed to divide and rule the lower class.

Either prove that societal divisions are based on "many, many layers and strata" or stop spamming anti-worker propaganda. (Yes, it's spam. Why else did Marmot make a new thread when "The Lumpenproletariat" thread was active about six ticks beneath it?)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Floyce White+May 19, 2007 04:58 pm--> (Floyce White @ May 19, 2007 04:58 pm) Either a family owns things used by others, or a family does not. Either a family is upper class, or it is lower class. There is no such thing as an "underclass" or "lumpenproletariat." It is upper-class propaganda designed to divide and rule the lower class. [/b]
Marx was an upper-class propagandist according to Floyce White! :o


Marx
The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. It&#39;s from the manifesto, chapter 1. <_<


Either prove that societal divisions are based on "many, many layers and strata" or stop spamming anti-worker propaganda. (Yes, it&#39;s spam. Why else did Marmot make a new thread when "The Lumpenproletariat" thread was active about six ticks beneath it?) Yes Marmot, how could you be so foolish as to think that society were so complex that it required more than two divisions to describe it adequately? As though human societies were complex systems&#33;

Obviously there are only two classes that real revolutionaries in ill fitting suites recognize.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 20, 2007 12:58 am
Either a family owns things used by others, or a family does not. Either a family is upper class, or it is lower class. There is no such thing as an "underclass" or "lumpenproletariat." It is upper-class propaganda designed to divide and rule the lower class.

Either prove that societal divisions are based on "many, many layers and strata" or stop spamming anti-worker propaganda. (Yes, it&#39;s spam. Why else did Marmot make a new thread when "The Lumpenproletariat" thread was active about six ticks beneath it?)
First, I didn&#39;t read that lumpenproletariat thread.

Second, "upper class" and "lower class" are bullshit terms used by bourgeois sociologists. Marxists understand there are more than two classes, although the most significant ones are the bourgeosie and the proletariat-

Third, your essays are shitty as hell.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 19, 2007 03:58 pm
They would; the bourgeoisie has no superpowers. But, yes, the bourgeosie and the bourgeois State take as much advantage from their existence as they can.
How could deviants exist if there were no uses for their illegal activities?


Perhaps more important than these direct collusions, the "crime economy" provides an ideological justification for the existence (and huge size) of police.

And the police at fundraisers for their fallen comrades can accept mob money no questions asked, and be expected to hide bodies for the mob, launder money, overlook evidence, ect.


Again, you run the risk of overestimating the bourgeois power. Of course the bourgeosie&#39;s will has an enormous bearing over legislation. But legislation is not just a product of class dominance, it is a product of class struggle.

Okay, but the bourgeosie can still twist legislation to their advantage.


But there is plenty of petty-bourgeois money (ie, money that does not constitute capital) running in the illegal markets: a group of thieves&#39; "working tools" is generally not capital, as the robbed money is to make part of their consuming fund, not to be expanded as capital.

In the sphere of organized crime thievery isn&#39;t the only source of gaining money illegally, otherwize the crime unit would eventually collapse.


They are part of society, but they are marginal, they constitute their outer part.

How can you say where society ends or begins?
The criminal element is intertwined within society, always has been-- for instance in the USA the international slave-trade was abolished, but slavery wasn&#39;t, but pirates captured Africans and by missing the eyes of the Coast Guard, or bribery they made it to US shores. The new slaves helped plantation owners gain revenue-- the raw products were traded around the globe.

[Janus]

Merged.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 20, 2007 02:29 am
How could deviants exist if there were no uses for their illegal activities?
Use for whom?

Criminal activities are useful to criminals - that&#39;s why they exist. The bourgeoisie takes advantage of their existence, but being useful to the bourgeoisie isn&#39;t the criterium for existence: is a message board called "revleft" useful to the bourgeoisie? Why does it exist?

The bourgeoisie are not the Elders of Zion, and are not omnipotent...

Luís Henrique

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+May 18, 2007 12:47 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ May 18, 2007 12:47 pm)
apathy [email protected] 18, 2007 12:24 pm
I love Marxists who don&#39;t understand Marxism.
Maybe you haven&#39;t noticed, but you have something in common with them...


It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside (I&#39;m obviously not a Marxist if you didn&#39;t notice...).

Why should we notice? Just because you have proclaimed it 37,532 times?


The lumpen-proletariat are those who don&#39;t have any relation to any means of production.

And manage to make a living, regardless of that. If not, they are dead, not lumpen.


Beggars and thieves are included in this &#39;class&#39;, but those who produce and sell drugs should not be.

Beggars, thieves, prostitutes, swindlers, parasites of their families or neighbourhoods, people defrauding social insurance, etc. And drug dealers, yes, sir. The means of production required to produce drugs are not part of the bourgeois monopoly of the means of production; their property is not enforced by the bourgeois State. So these people are not bourgeois or proletarians, they are people living in the fringes of society.

Of course, there is a social stratification among them, from the miserable beggar to the "miserable" (in a different acception of the word) drug-cartel boss. But this is something people find difficult to gather: social classes are not homogenous. The guy who owns a brickyard and employs 50 wage workers is a bourgeois the same way Bill Gates, but his living standards are probably closer to ours than to Bill Gates&#39;. The American welder who makes 2,000 dollars a month is a proletarian, just like the Chines sweatshop worker who makes 30 bucks.

Luís Henrique [/b]
I know what you mean...It&#39;s hard for Canadian workers to know what&#39;s what when Buzz Hargrove is making at least 2 to 3 times what their low-level bosses are making?...If the bourgeois unions had been willing to choose worker occupation and control over outsourcing and union busting in the past, then maybe I&#39;d bother starting a union drive where I work.

[Hit The North]

Cheung Mo:

know what you mean...It&#39;s hard for Canadian workers to know what&#39;s what when Buzz Hargrove is making at least 2 to 3 times what their low-level bosses are making?...If the bourgeois unions had been willing to choose worker occupation and control over outsourcing and union busting in the past, then maybe I&#39;d bother starting a union drive where I work.
Luís Henrique Posted on Today at 01:54 pm

Who&#39;s Buzz Hargrove?

What&#39;s a bourgeois union?

And you definitely should be starting a union drive where you work.

:)

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 20, 2007 12:54 pm
Use for whom?
In capitalist society every individual deviates one way or another, hence this is where deviants come in-- organized crime, prostitution, black market. If no one needed organized crime, prostitution, or black market, the deviants wouldn&#39;t exist.

Also fighting of deviants legitimizes the role of the political state.


Criminal activities are useful to criminals - that&#39;s why they exist. The bourgeoisie takes advantage of their existence,

Capitalism couldn&#39;t have developed if it weren&#39;t for illegal activities or deviance, and it wouldn&#39;t function without deviance and its agents. Deviance and deviants didn&#39;t arise after the fact, they&#39;ve always existed. Petty thievery can be a result of someone trying to supplement their income in order to survive, and white collar crime is an extension of gaining revenue for the businesses.

How can you take the laws of the bourgeoisie so seriously, afterall theres a law for the rich, and laws for the rest of us.

We&#39;re not supposed to do what the rich do, and we can&#39;t, unless we take illegal measures. Thus if we were to steal enough money, and with the money raise drug crops, and around the crops, paramilitants-- at some point the legal capitalists would want their fingers in the pie, maybe to help them crush organized workers with our paramilitants, or maybe they help us gain revenue so they can have a piece for secret operations. Thus, the criminal element is not a society outside of civil-society.


but being useful to the bourgeoisie isn&#39;t the criterium for existence: is a message board called "revleft" useful to the bourgeoisie? Why does it exist?

Simply, revleft is useful for the bourgeoisie because we are customers of the world wide web by renting this space, aswell as to give the apolitical masses the illusion that theres free speech because heres a message board site full of Communists.


The bourgeoisie are not the Elders of Zion, and are not omnipotent...
But you can&#39;t avoid living in a Capitalist society or the effects of one, unless you overthrow it. You can try forming a hippy commune within society, but eventually you&#39;ll have produce a product to keep the commune going like Zendik farms or the Kabutz.

[Floyce White]

Thank you Janus.

Marmot, in the thick of war hysteria after 911, I passed out thousands of leaflets for communism, that I wrote myself and signed with my real name. Did you? I don&#39;t know. I do know that you enjoy citing the words of others while hiding behind Internet anonymity. We already know what Marx said. We don&#39;t know your ideas until you say them.

BTW, potty-mouthing isn&#39;t criticism. It&#39;s cheap debate trickery.

And next time, try to spend some time reading and considering the words of others BEFORE starting a new thread.

[Rawthentic]

Floyce, who cares if you sign them with your real name or not?

Would you consider it "hiding" if I did the same with leaflets from my organization?

[Floyce White]

Some communists will be a public face for the movement. Others will be underground. Most will be known as activists to their co-workers, but will not try to attract a lot of attention to their names and faces. All of these roles are necessary, and can&#39;t exist without the others. That&#39;s not the issue.

Criticism should be offered in a comradely, constructive way. "Your ideas are poo poo" is neither comradely nor constructive. It leaves no context for discussion. So I offered a context. Marmot may respond by posting the text of leaflets he passed out at the time. Marmot may show a similar way that he and other comrades took a publicly-visible stand against warmongering. Marmot may choose to make a thoughtful criticism of some specifics of the articles. In any case, he knows who wrote the Antiproperty series and why, and that&#39;s in sharp contrast with "Marx said" as a here-and-now response.

[A.J.]

Further more I only remember Marx talking about the Lumpenproletariat, I&#39;ve never read anything about the Lumpenbourgeosie, or Lumpen-pette-bourgeosie, so who was it that made new catagories of stratafication.


I suppose the term lumpenproletariat is a bit misleading as a person who is lumpen may be from any class.
For instance, in The Civil War in France Marx referred to the lumpenproletariat as the "refuse of all classes"

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 21, 2007 01:39 am
Thank you Janus.


BTW, potty-mouthing isn&#39;t criticism. It&#39;s cheap debate trickery.

And next time, try to spend some time reading and considering the words of others BEFORE starting a new thread.


Marmot, in the thick of war hysteria after 911, I passed out thousands of leaflets for communism, that I wrote myself and signed with my real name. Did you? I don&#39;t know. I do know that you enjoy citing the words of others while hiding behind Internet anonymity. We already know what Marx said. We don&#39;t know your ideas until you say them.

Lol, what has that anything to do with.

You have done what any average communist militant has done, pass leaflets. It doesn&#39;t means shit.

Do you want me to praise your courageous endeavour of signing your leaflets with your own name? Oh Boy, how dangerous&#33;




Marmot, in the thick of war hysteria after 911, I passed out thousands of leaflets for communism, that I wrote myself and signed with my real name. Did you? I don&#39;t know. I do know that you enjoy citing the words of others while hiding behind Internet anonymity. We already know what Marx said. We don&#39;t know your ideas until you say them.

No.

You said shit like "this is anti-worker propaganda", dismissing everything I said as a lump of shit. You started, I merely replied.

[Floyce White]

"You started it" is not valid reasoning. Your criticism is invalid.

Clearly, you didn&#39;t know that the term "lumpenproletariat" or "underclass" is widely used to assert that the underemployed are the enemies of the employed. Don&#39;t look for excuses to defend a mistake.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 23, 2007 02:28 am
"You started it" is not valid reasoning. Your criticism is invalid.

Clearly, you didn&#39;t know that the term "lumpenproletariat" or "underclass" is widely used to assert that the underemployed are the enemies of the employed. Don&#39;t look for excuses to defend a mistake.
Of course I know that, silly.

However I have seen many anarchists saying the lumpenproletariat are capable of being revolutionary, so I am trying to refute that with some concrete examples.

However you just come here and BOOM

[Spike]

The lumpen proletariat is a declassed strata in an antagonistic society including vagrants, beggars, and criminal elements. The lumpen proletariat has become widespread under capitalism. It is recruited from various classes and is incapable of political struggle. It constitutes, along with the petit bourgeois strata, the basis of anarchism. The bourgeoisie makes use of the lumpen proletariat as strikebreakers, as participants in fascist pogrom bands, and in other ways. The lumpen proletariat dissapears with the abolition of the capitalist system.

[Floyce White]

Spike: "The lumpen proletariat is a declassed strata..."

Can you prove that social divisions are "strata" or "layers" that can become more or less independent of class? No. Nobody can. It&#39;s only too easy to show that familial property inheritance is the basis of class. The lower class is dispossessed of things they use. They don&#39;t stop being dispossessed by begging, becoming homeless, stealing, etc. In fact, such activities are evidence that beggars, vagrants, and thieves lack basic necessities and are extremely dispossessed in the absolute. If you actually knew any beggars, vagrants, or thieves, you might know that this is almost always the case.

Again, the point is that the very term "lumpenproletariat" is a "flame." It&#39;s a red herring designed to start a pointless round of accusations and defenses. It&#39;s like saying "race." There is no such thing as a "race." The definition of "racism" is the mere assertion that someone has "race."

That&#39;s why anyone can make any assertion--positive or negative, academic or scandalous--about the nature and interaction of "lumpenproletariat," but it will always be anti-worker propaganda.

[A.J.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:36 pm
The lumpen proletariat is a declassed strata in an antagonistic society including vagrants, beggars, and criminal elements. The lumpen proletariat has become widespread under capitalism. It is recruited from various classes and is incapable of political struggle. It constitutes, along with the petit bourgeois strata, the basis of anarchism
and also, may I add, trotskyism.

[Rawthentic]

and also, may I add, trotskyism.
I am by no means a trot, but Stalin was such a proletarian&#33;

Seriously, how can a counter-revolutionary force like Stalinism be called proletarian?

Get serious&#33;

[A.J.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:35 pm

and also, may I add, trotskyism.
I am by no means a trot, but Stalin was such a proletarian&#33;

Seriously, how can a counter-revolutionary force like Stalinism be called proletarian?

Get serious&#33;

I am by no means a trot

How can you not be a trotskyite and use the word "stalinism" since the term is a trotskyite invention?.


Seriously, how can a counter-revolutionary force like Stalinism be called proletarian?

Can you please tell me what you call "stalinism" to be counter-revolutionary or not has to do with the fact trotskyites largely consist largely of white-coller petty-bourgeois occupations(school-teachers etc) and lumpens?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:55 pm
How can you not be a trotskyite and use the word "stalinism" since the term is a trotskyite invention?.
By infringing copyright legislation.

How can you use the word "invention" without being a slaveholder, since it was invented by a slaveholder?

Luís Henrique

[rebelworker]

Just because someone may join in a revolutionary uprising dose not make their class revolutionary.

The working class is capable of stopping capitalist production and re statring it in a new democratic fashon.

The working class is also more stable, thus more capable of long term struggle and organising.

The working class is a revolutionary class.

Not bad for a petty buroise lumpen anarchist :D

Stalin + Mao = :lol:

It never seasen to amaze me how many petty burgoise kiddies try and tell me Im petty Burgoise.

[Lark]

Well I think that a lumpen proletariat, or underclass, not a fan of fancy words, is a social problem, just like crime or child abuse.

The only people who win votes about it are usually conservatives though.