lumpenproletariat.

[androcles]

Whilst I regard myself as a Socialist, I sometimes despair whenI see the behaviour of some of the people around my neighbourhood. I believe Marx would label these people as the Lumpen proletariat - organised-criminals, non-productive drug addicts, con-men,petty thieves, parasites etc. I realise that capitalist society is largely?/partly? responsible for these people. But given the fact that Marx described this sub-class as a historical and social entity back in the 19th Century, where to socialists stand on the potential of these people to facilitate social change. What is the potential for class solidarity? Would a Socialist society still have this underclass?

[Vargha Poralli]

I realise that capitalist society is largely?/partly? responsible for these people.

Yes. I would say largely responsible.



But given the fact that Marx described this sub-class as a historical and social entity back in the 19th Century, where to socialists stand on the potential of these people to facilitate social change.

Lumpen elements of the society do not have any potential to facilitate social change in a progressive way. They woould probably play the regressive role and would probably act as a strike breakers.

[Floyce White]

Please scroll down and read several recent threads on this topic.

[The-Spark]

I know the mafia has been used to threaten strike leaders and stop strikes before. The bosses pay them to do it. Organized crime is all about control, these people may be bad news in a revolution. Sociopaths, who would protect their way of life.

[RedHal]

Organized criminals are no different than capitalists, both are trying to get as much as possible, just that cappies do it "legally". Both are hyper anti-communist, no wonder they are so popular in capitalists media. They cannot be reformed. Drug addicts and petty criminals can be reformed since they are products of inequality in the capitialists system.

[redarmyleader]

Marxist are not Moralist, or rather, we do not have the morals of capitalist society. The whole "its your fault your poor" or "you should get a job instead of stealing, doing drug's, etc" comes from the capitalist because they have to make it seem that the problems they create are the faults of the oppressed.

Lumpen-proletarians are people who are from the working-class, but who spend most of their time being unemployed; they are what Marx referred to as the capitalist's reserved army of labor, for the capitalist use them "as a reminder"to the working-class why they should be glad they work and could easily be replaced.

Lumpen-proletarians partake in illegal activities not because they are bad people, but because they are humans and therefore must consume food and have shelter. Because of the harsh conditions experienced by the lumpen-proletarians they are mostly overwhelmed in despair, and therefore have no problem in being a part of the underground economy that is dangerous to them, and usually depending on the activity does not lead to living a long life. You could say that they should just fight against it, not choose to live so terrible, but that would be useless, and you would be sounding more like a capitalist than a Marxist.

The conditions of the lumpen-proletarian are the direct result of capitalism, as it is responsible and maintains the horrible and despairing conditions. So we must always say that, and never put the blame on the lumpen-proletariat. And it is the working-class's job to fight against such conditions. To the extent that the lumpen-proletarian play a reactionary role and is effective in that role is very much determined by the strength of the movement of the working-class and specially oppressed.

For example, the Flint Sit-down strikes in Flint, MI that established the UAW had to pursue the black workers who were bussed from the South to scab on the mostly white workers that its in their interest to sign onto organized labor. The strength of the strike enabled the workers to convince the black workers not to scab, and the black workers did not scab because they did not want to get into fights with the workers (which would have happen since the strike was militant) but also because they felt the strike could actually win.

This is why Marxist put forward the slogan that every human being has the right to a job, because human beings deserve the right to be able to provide for themselves. In fighting for revolution, Marxist also fight for reforms because they are the reflection of the power of the working-class (each reform won galvanizes the working-class and awakens them to their power) and we are for every way possible to make life under capitalism not completely shitty, or else people would - like the lumpen-proletarian - be in too much despair over basic issues that the struggle for political power would be very difficult for them to fight over. Yes, economic crises are inevitable under capitalism and life under capitalism will always be shitty, which is why we have to overthrow it. But if we are going to turn the proletariat into a class that is concise of itself and fighting for political power, than we must fight for conditions that will better enable them to do that (sorry if that doesn't make complete sense, which if it doesn't just ask).

I come from a lumpen-proletarian family. At one point, my mom had a stable job, my family and I lived in a suburb of Detroit, and my life was very much stable. But my family had to leave the suburban house we lived in because the man who bought it for my grandmother and stayed their with us was crazy as hell, and very abusive. We had to move back to Detroit where it is very hard to find a job. Again, you got to eat somehow. But I am a revolutionary, and not some reactionary tool for the capitalist.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Wouldn't it be best to organize the lumpenproletariat; vast sections of the chronically unemployed, beggars, and slum dwellers, to ensure an alliance between them and the proletariat during the course of a socialist revolution?

[midnight marauder]

Writing off millions of people based on an outdated economist interpretation of marxian class analysis is not only wrong, but a fatal mistake for progressives to make.

See: redarmyleader's post who put it better than I ever could, or alternatively, the entire history of the Black Panther Party.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Lumpen-proletarians are people who are from the working-class, but who spend most of their time being unemployed; they are what Marx referred to as the capitalist's reserved army of labor, for the capitalist use them "as a reminder"to the working-class why they should be glad they work and could easily be replaced.

You think that is a conscious decision from the capitalists, a conspiracy?

Or do you simply see it as mechanics in this socio-economic system?

[Vargha Poralli]

Lumpen-proletarians are people who are from the working-class, but who spend most of their time being unemployed; they are what Marx referred to as the capitalist's reserved army of labor, for the capitalist use them "as a reminder"to the working-class why they should be glad they work and could easily be replaced.

No the reserve army of Labour is not lumpen proletarians. At least according to Marx. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm#S2)

Lumpen proletariat according to Marx in 18th Brumaire constitutes refugees of all classes not working class alone.

And this class has historically played a regressive role. It broke the Paris Commune. It contributed to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler.

And capitalist system does perpututates this class. And only destroying capitalism will put an end to this class. But this class acnnot destroy capitalism. Onle the wprking class will.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by midnight [email protected] 16, 2007 10:23 am
the entire history of the Black Panther Party.
Unfortunately the ENTIRE history of the Black Panther Party illustrates the point perfectly.

[midnight marauder]

Yes, because clearly the failure of the Black Panther Party had everything to do with their lumpenproletariat class makeup and nothing to do with the material conditions of America during the 1970s or the millions upon millions of government dollars spent trying to eradicate them. ;)

The BPP included a large number of lumpenproletarian revolutionaries and was instrumental in radicalizing disenfranchised unemployed or otherwise "criminal" individuals in communities across the united states.

That alone disproves the entirety of your argument of the lumpenproletariat being parasitic leeches attached unwaveringly to the heels of class society.

Let me ask you: have you ever met someone who was a member of the lumpenproletariat?

Did they enjoy their position on the bottom rung of the ladder class hierarchy?

Was that situation cause by capitalism?

Would a change in economic base constitute a change in their behavior?

Because let me tell you -- after growing up in a largely lumpenproletarian neighborhood, I can tell you with full confidence that anyone from such a background would jump at the chance to change their circumstances. It's downright classist in practice to write them off writ large as being counterrevolutionaries.

It's also a really, really poor decision for any pragmatic revolutionary to make.

The world isn't stuck in 19th century Germany. Why is your ideology still there?

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:24 am
Wouldn't it be best to organize the lumpenproletariat; vast sections of the chronically unemployed, beggars, and slum dwellers, to ensure an alliance between them and the proletariat during the course of a socialist revolution?
This would be seen as a viable option and it is true that lumpenproletariats might hold revolutionary potential but this is true of any association or group of people. Under the current system and the knowledge of the lumpenproletariats forces that they only act to serve their immediate needs. That is why they have turned to a life of crime and such. It is because they have grown up surrounded by it, and with no viable option out of the ghetto and the needs of their family they must look for the immediate dollar. They are out for their own money. This is not their fault but rather the mindset and conditions capitalism puts them in. Until this is reverse, it will be hard pressed for a gang to suddenly embrace taking up arms to fight for the equality for all.

[redarmyleader]

Hmm....where to start. First I must say that not all lumpen-proletarians are drug dealers and gangsters; people have all sorts of hustles, from selling clothes, performing credit card fraud, doing hair at their house, etc. etc. Besides, to be characterized as a lumpen-proletarian does not mean that who will or must commit a crime. Lumpen-proletarian is a scientific category describing a group of people's relationship to the capitalist mode of production, just like proletariat, petty-bourgeois and bourgeoisie. And the lumpen-proletarian can just as easily be found in a trailer park as they can in the ghetto. It is very much true that black, Latino/a, and other racial minorities - because of racism - make up a disporportionate amount of the lumpen-proletariat, but lumpen-proletarians are not exclusively racial minorities.

g.ram. Marx referred to the unemployed paupers as the reserved army of labor. This is true. But you are forgetting that the lumpen-proletarian is part of that unemployed pauper population. Again, lumpen-proletarians are members of the proletariat (see how the word proletariat is in the phrase) who cannot consistently hold employment on a regular basis and therefore generally partake in the underground economy, and can generally be reactionary because their desperate situation makes them easier to exploit. At times they are part of the employed section of society, and others part of the unemployed. Don't forget that it is quite easy to go from employed to unemployed. Lumpen-proletarians are generally not lumpen by choice.

Saying this, I believe NWOG that the phenonemon of unemployment is a mechanical by-product of capitalism, whose problem is over-production. The technology of capitalism allows more products to be created using less labor. Therefore, unemployment is a inevitable by-product. The lumpen-proletarians exist because demand is not always constant; sometimes there is more demand for products (like PS3's for example), and sometimes less demand (like checkbooks because of credit and debit cards). Or one year there is more of a demand of SUV's, while the following year their is less demand for SUV's. When there is more demand, you hire more people and speed up production, and when there is less you just layoff labor you no longer need. However, while it is not a concise creation of the capitalist, they do indeed consciously exploit the by-product of unemployment.

I wonder gilhyle what u meant by your comment because it is very confusing. Can you explain? There are political lessons to be learned from the BPP, for they certainly made a lot of mistakes, and in my opinion did not represent what was needed to bring the struggle forward. At the same time, I am in very much in agreement with midnight marauder's statement because its against the blanket categorization of the lumpen-proletarian - and in this case mostly poor, black people - as some backward mass that must always play a reactionary role.

I would recommend reading two things, the first being Lenin's )What Is To Be Done? (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm), and the second is a document by the Revolutionary Workers League (RWL) called the Specially Oppressed and Proletarian Vanguard (http://www.myspace.com/internationaltrotskyist).

The working-class is the only consistently revolutionary class capable of leading and fight for a socialist revolution. The lumpen-proletarian cannot replace them. But in order for a socialist revolution to be successful, the working-class must win the leadership of all the oppressed sectors and classes under capitalism, which it can only do so by fighting for the interest and demands of these different sections. Ex: for the lumpen-proletariat access to jobs (for creation of public works that can create more jobs to be had), for equal access to education, health care, opportunities for black, Latino/a and other minorities (aka the specially oppressed - includes women, LGBT, immigrants, etc.). The specially oppressed make up a very important and vital section of the working-class and must be the particular focus of the proletarian vanguard. Again, how much of a reactionary the lumpen-proletariat can and will play depends on the strength the working-class and its vanguard to fight for political power in a way that can win.

Oh, and ( R )evolution, does not the auto or transit worker, or teacher who goes to work do so because of their immediate interest in sustaining themselves by working to receive a pay check every other week? When workers decide not to strike for better wages, it is not only against their future interest, but their immediate ones as well, but does that stop workers from refusing to strike? Leadership is what is needed for the oppressed in this society to act within their interest, both immediate and near-future. (and I did not mean to sound like a total ass, but that just expresses what I am trying to get at in the best way)

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by redarmyleader+--> (redarmyleader)g.ram. Marx referred to the unemployed paupers as the reserved army of labor. This is true. But you are forgetting that the lumpen-proletarian is part of that unemployed pauper population. Again, lumpen-proletarians are members of the proletariat (see how the word proletariat is in the phrase) who cannot consistently hold employment on a regular basis and therefore generally partake in the underground economy, and can generally be reactionary because their desperate situation makes them easier to exploit. At times they are part of the employed section of society, and others part of the unemployed. Don't forget that it is quite easy to go from employed to unemployed. Lumpen-proletarians are generally not lumpen by choice.
[/b]

Well it seems to me that you are confused by the classification of unemployed and homeless people under this category by Sociologists after Marx.

I certainly disagree with classifying the unemployed,welfare receipents and homeless under the same category as drug dealers,prostitute brokers,thiefs,arms dealers,police informers etc.

90% of the Lumpenelements works outside the wage system and earns its living primarily through preying on the working class-bourgeoisie are well protected by the State in the form of Police. At the time of crisis it is the tools that the ruling classes use to crush the working class movement and organistaions(SA!!).

When it comes to a revolutionary situation the Lumpenproletariat by the classification of Marx will play a negative role. They have a lot to loose without the existing class structure.

****************************

And from a old thread specifically about Balck Panthers



Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 12:59 pm
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)

Thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46396&hl=Lumpenproletariat)

******************************************

The same member put excellently about the unemployed workers(reserve labour army) relatioships with the employed workers

Severian

Briefly: Lumpen are not unemployed workers. They are the scum of all classes, those who live by crime and preying on others.

Unemployed workers are part of our class. This is often forgotten, since the division between employed and unemployed is the deepest of divisions in the working class.

It doesn't help overcome that division to start counterposing the unemployed to the supposedly fat and happy employed workers.

And there are certain practical problems with the organization of the unemployed; it's easy to become isolated and demoralized, plus the unemployed have less social leverage since they aren't presently engaged in production.

Organizations of unemployed workers have a hard time getting going; when they do get going, they're often unstable. They're strongest when allied with unions of the employed.

(Bolds are mine here)

Thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52687&hl=Lumpenproletariat)

[gilhyle]

Firstly, I should say I have a HUGE respect for the Balck Panther Party. I think they achieved amazing things and displayed often extrordinary individual heroism. Secondly I dont think the Marxist analysis of the character of the lumpenproletariat means that they are necessarily reactionary.

I do think that the analysis means that their best elements are necessarily ancillary to any successful proletarian struggle, at best. This is not a matter of individual character, it is a matter of having the place within the social structure from which to act. The point about the working class, is that it mans the process of production; this empowers it, informs it and gives it an objectively common collective character to its interests that is simply not the case for the lumpenproletariat.

In the face of its social conditions the lumpenproletariat will necessarily display an erratic and higly variable political character, a capacity for the transformation of political action into crime that is dangerous and a tendency to draw narrowly sectional or geographical (local) conclusions about political issues to a greater degree than the core working class.

[The-Spark]

The only way lumpenproletariat i see joining the revolutionary side would be those who are fed up, those who are fed up with having to steal, fight and sometimes (or many) kill to eat, those who wanted a better life but we're pulled into crime. Those who want a better life i think would become revolutionary, those crinimals whos number one goal is money, would not. And of course the crinimally insane would do w.e they think is best. Because no matter what system, their will always be the crinimally insane.

[Janus]

What is the potential for class solidarity?
It's possible in certain areas but as a whole it's doubtful since the lumpenproletariat as a class is disinterested in revolution.


These threads include further discussion on the lumpenproletariat and their potential:
lumpenproletariat (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66588&hl=lumpenproletariat)
lumpenproletariat (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46396&hl=lumpenproletariat)


Marx referred to the unemployed paupers as the reserved army of labor. This is true. But you are forgetting that the lumpen-proletarian is part of that unemployed pauper population.
Not within Marx's definition, the active and reserve army were the two sections that constituted the working class which by definition excludes the lumpenproletariat.
As the others have said, the lumpenproletariat are those who exist outside the wage labor system; they do not include all homeless and unemployed people.



Would a Socialist society still have this underclass?
No.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:01 am
Not within Marx's definition, the active and reserve army were the two sections that constituted the working class which by definition excludes the lumpenproletariat.

I wouldnt have thought the matter was quite that clear.....and undialectical. Maybe on some of the threads you have linked to there is an answer to my question, but do you have some sources as examples of Marx adopting this approach ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Some people here think that every welfare recipient is a lumpenprole. I will say, however, that only a minute minority (the welfare cheats) can be lumped with the gangsters, drug dealers, etc.

Everyone else, however, isn't - and that is because they do their utmost to re-enter wage relations to earn a living normally.

[gilhyle]

Whiel the definition of a worker is quite clear, I would agree that the definition of the lumpenproletarit has to do not only with their relationship to production but also with their prospepctive relationship to production.

[Janus]

but do you have some sources as examples of Marx adopting this approach ?

Explanation here: relative surplus population and industrial reserve army (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm#S3)

[gilhyle]

OK you might have to help me here....I dont see the term lumpen proletariat in that chapter.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by gilhyle+August 19, 2007 06:37 pm--> (gilhyle @ August 19, 2007 06:37 pm)OK you might have to help me here....I dont see the term lumpen proletariat in that chapter.[/b]

I think that is the point.

The same chapter has been linked by me some 3 posts before Janus's post , just to prove that Marx did not put the unemployed - in other words Reserve army of Labour in to the Lumpenproletariat category. It is the work of some Sociologists after Marx for this mistake.

I requote Severian's point again to make it clear.


Severain
Unemployed workers are part of our class. This is often forgotten, since the division between employed and unemployed is the deepest of divisions in the working class.


I think that Marx was exactly right in it too as evidenced by that Chapter in Capital.

[gilhyle]

Fine, that much I follow; what I dont follow is the basis for the claim that "the lumpenproletariat are those who exist outside the wage labor system; they do not include all homeless and unemployed people."

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:27 am
Fine, that much I follow; what I dont follow is the basis for the claim that "the lumpenproletariat are those who exist outside the wage labor system; they do not include all homeless and unemployed people."
I would suggest you read 18th Brumaire and Peasant war in Germany. Those two works are the only one I remember Marx and Engels discuss about this section.

As to "living outside wage system" I think their source of income is not legal and accountable within wage labour. Their occupations tend to be the types that is illegalised by the Capitalist society like Drug manufacture and trafficking,smuglling etc. The sectors do not contribute in accumulation of capital(at least legally) and often the prey which fells to this predator class is the working class.

[gilhyle]

From those I get this:

On the pretext of founding a benevolent society, the lumpen proletariat of Paris had been organized into secret sections, each section led by Bonapartist agents, with a Bonapartist general at the head of the whole. Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni,[105] pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème; from this kindred element Bonaparte formed the core of the Society of December 10.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...umaire/ch05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch05.htm)

and this:

The plebeian opposition consisted of ruined members of the middle-class and that mass of the city population which possessed no citizenship rights: the journeymen, the day labourers, and the numerous beginnings of the lumpenproletariat which can be found even in the lowest stages of development of city life. This low-grade proletariat is, generally speaking, a phenomenon which, in a more or less developed form, can be found in all the phases of society hitherto observed. The number of people without a definite occupation and a stable domicile was at that time gradually being augmented by the decay of feudalism in a society in which every occupation, every realm of life, was entrenched behind a number of privileges. In no modern country was the number of vagabonds so great as in Germany, in the first half of the Sixteenth Century. One portion of these tramps joined the army in war-time, another begged its way through the country, a third sought to eke out a meagre living as day-labourers in those branches of work which were not under guild jurisdiction.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ermany/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/ch01.htm)

From which I take the key idea as being not that they are not wage earners, but that they lack 'a definite occupation and a stable domicile'

If that were so, they could indeed by part of the reserve army of labour. I think, in particular, of the 'Hobos' who played such a part in the IWW and who were immortalised in the writings of Jack London

[redflag32]

Would we class the homeless as lumpen aswell? I think an organised homeless persons movement could have very progressive potential.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:37 pm
Would we class the homeless as lumpen aswell? I think an organised homeless persons movement could have very progressive potential.
Could have...I think the key point is it cant sustain itself, it can only be progressive in reliance on the industrial workers, as the IWW was.

[Janus]

what I dont follow is the basis for the claim that "the lumpenproletariat are those who exist outside the wage labor system; they do not include all homeless and unemployed people."


Would we class the homeless as lumpen aswell?
The term homeless does not describe someone's occupation but merely his/her ability to find fixed housing. If someone cannot pay the rent, then s/he becomes homeless; it's as simple as that. It certainly does not mean that s/he is automatically lumpenproletariat. A similar situation exists for those who are unemployed since unemployment is something that many workers are faced with at some point or another. The term lumpenproletariat used properly describes those who exist by preying or cheating others and thus are regarded as "cast outs" by society.

[Vargha Poralli]

The term lumpenproletariat used properly describes those who exist by preying or cheating others and thus are regarded as "cast outs" by society.

That is exactly the point.

Lumpenproletariat cannot be a revolutionary class presciely because of this.

[bootleg42]

I think most of us here are confusing who are the lumpenproletariat today.

Lets take my area:

Almost all my friends (i live in inner city NYC) and all the kids here do heavy drugs and are what you'd THINK in lumpenproletarian activities but they are all victims of capitalism. When I try to awaken them, they just say things like, "nigga dat shit is corny" and "wtf yo, fuck dat shit, its all bout green nigga, makin dat dough".

It was capitalism that created that sense of hopelessness and the idea that they "got to make dough" was born from that. But all of them who are involved in drug trade are all working for a few drug bosses here who have plenty of money but are not part of the bourgeoisie. The drug bosses use the kids here to maintain their drug territories.

I don't think my friends are lumpenproletarian. I think their crime bosses are. If my friends woke up to class consciousness, then the drug kings here would be the potential reactionaries and they would want to preserve the old ways and they are the real lumpenproletariat. They are equivalent to the mafia bosses in Colombia or Italy who destroy worker movements. Those drug bosses are the ones that are the "parasites of society".

So the point I wish to make is that some of you here are confusing who are the real lumpenproletariat with other oppressed peoples. Take my example.

[praxicoide]

We're all products of capitalism, proletarians and capitalists. Class analysis is not to determine good vs. bad, but useful or not useful for our class struggle.

Lumpen, petit-bourgeois, or even bourgeois might come over to our side, which might be considered good, depending on who you ask (I think it's fine, personally) but that doesn't mean that we should actively seek their support.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:37 pm
Would we class the homeless as lumpen aswell? I think an organised homeless persons movement could have very progressive potential.
This is a good idea. Not to be biased, but most of the homeless people in my town aren't exactly playing with a full deck, though. Most of them drink alot.

[redarmyleader]

Sorry guys. I know some wondered what happened to me, while others don't give a fuck at all. I have not posted cause internet touch and go for a sec and had some other things to deal with.

First, I think gilhlye makes a great point, one that can be understood only with dialectics, a key component of scientific socialism. Dialectics is the thought which understands that contradictions exist not only among each other, by within and all around. Example, while human beings are products of our society we are too conscious mammals able to determine the direction human civilization takes. Hence the need for a revolutionary party (agreed upon by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky) and the possibility in the achievement of socialism and communism.

Here is the point. Someone could be both a member of the homeless or unemployed and the lumpenproletariat, just in the way that people who are unemployed can also be members of the working-class. If u can't find work you are part of the unemployed, and when you do you are part of the working-class. But if your laid off? Well, your unemployed again, but that does not take away your experience as part of the working-class does it? No. Bootleg42 makes a good point about Distinction; there is a difference between a prostitute and a pimp, and crime boss and a small time street hustler. Prostitutes and small time street hustlers have no reason whatsoever to desire and defend capitalism, because they get fucked by it on a regular basis, while pimps and crime bosses do.

I do have to mention again the disturbing moralism of some on this topic. One can tell that some members of this list come from relatively privileged and educated backgrounds that has afforded them opportunities in this society. There is just no way a revolutionary can actually be that if they cannot understand and take seriously the disadvantage of some sections of capitalism like black people, Latino/a people, women, LGBT youth, or in other words members of the specially oppressed. These people tend to be part of the lumpenproletariat for a reason. But to think that they should forever written off as reactionary because of their "immoral" behavior is bullshit. Bullshit comments about people who cheat the welfare system and shit like that are racist comments, period. Their is far more reaction is the position of some people on this list than can ever be found in some lumpenproletariats.

Again, I am not saying that major attention should be give to drug dealers and prostitutes. But what I am saying is that attention must be given to the specially oppressed, like black people, Latino/a people, women, etc, because these people have the least illusions in capitalism and usually are the most militant fighters against capitalism. Only a mass movement can convince people like bootleg42's friends to fight. The Civil Rights Movement is an example of that; many of the "undesirables" were people who were prepared to defend protestors against police threat and attack.

And for people wanting to know more about the specially oppressed, read The Specially Oppressed and Proletarian Vanguard (http://www.bamn.com/misc/specially_oppressed.pdf)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since there's a "heated discussion" in another thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69723&view=findpost&p=1292375039) regarding another unique "theoretical contribution" of mine (rolls eyes at self for humorous attempt at faux arrogance :D ), let's go back to what the lumpenproletariat do.

They do not enhance capital through labour (proles, petit-bs), nor do they profit from it (bs and petit-bs).

A certain group in that thread merely protects the capital status quo, without enhancing it or profiting from it.

Comments?