Lumpenproletariat: expanded definition?

[Die Neue Zeit]

In Marx's basic definition, lumpenproles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat#Issues) are the "refuse of all classes" (Brumaire), and then went on to list "swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ-grinders, beggars, and other flotsam of society."

Today, one can include the welfare cheats, but that raises a whole new set of questions. I included policemen in this category, but they exist within a wage-labor system, while the cheatsters neither exist in such nor wish to exist in such (the second one being key, because honest welfare recipients are NOT lumpenproles).

I'm sorta thinking in my head, with all the recent talk of the "coordinator class" (bureaucrats, corporate managers, etc.) relative to the traditional petit-bourgeoisie (including peasants), whether certain segments of that petit-bourgeoisie should now be relegated to the lumpenprole section.



So far, I've come up with three key features (add more if you so wish), while keeping in mind the basic phrase above (such that not every single feature has to be met), of a lumpenprole:

1) Existing outside a wage-labor system (and this ties in to the historical process of "developing society's labor power and its capabilities" - per the wiki and per below);

[Traditional stuff, including army mutineers, although soldiers can "advance" productive forces by conducting imperialist war on behalf of the capitalist state]

2) Not advancing the productive forces, but rather merely protecting the capitalist state (per Lenin, although he wasn't explicit in his "classification" of the czarist police);

[This would include policemen of certain sorts (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69723&st=0) ("Are cops and security guards workers?"), differentiating between the riot policemen and the traffic controller out on the streets when the traffic lights are out, while excluding government office workers who maintain but not protect the capitalist state machinery. However, the thing is that policemen aren't perceived as "refuse," other than the fact that they hold guns.]

3) Expired historical usefulness in developing society's labor power and its capabilities

This last one is important, because not every single occupation can be progressive for all eternity. Handicraftsmen, for example, were classified by Marx himself as being part of the petit-bourgeoisie, but nobody here finds manual bow-and-arrow handicraftsmen still taking part in doing the above (I even watched a few months ago a show on someone who still handicrafts feudal stuff, saying that industrial production is nothing compared to the "perfection" of feudal-era manual labor in making his particular stuff).

I've received a bit of flak recently for calling out the peasantry as a class (petit-bourgeois as they are, anyways), but what about differentiating between Third-World peasants (who form the core labour of food production there) and First-World "small farmers" who receive subsidies for continuing their inefficient work (when industrial farming has now taken over as developing society's labor power and capabilities in the area of food production)? [I don't think they can be compared with honest welfare recipients who work and get partial welfare, mind you.]

[And thus the petit-bourgeois class "umbrella" is now ever more dominated by the coordinator "class," even while petit-bourgeois self-employment grows in other areas, like sales, consulting, etc.]

[ComradeRed]

If memory serves, the lumpen proletariat included organized crime in the manifesto; I can't be certain it explicitly states it in some translations ;)


2) Not advancing the productive forces, but rather merely protecting the capitalist state (per Lenin, although he wasn't explicit in his "classification" of the czarist police); Would this be as seen by the agent herself or as perceived by others?

Because a lot of times crime is justified as "attacking the capitalist state" (and yeah, I am talking about things like shop lifting, or confidence tricks, etc.).

If one defrauds, e.g., social security and sees it as ripping off the capitalist state, that does not really "protect" the capitalist state...nor does it challenge it.

I don't think this conditions is really necessary; it should either be eliminated or generalized considerably.


3) Developing society's labor power and its capabilities A lumpen prole does that? :huh:

I'm not sure that "swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ-grinders, beggars, and other flotsam of society" really develop society's labor power any.


I've received a bit of flak recently for calling out the peasantry as a class (petit-bourgeois as they are, anyways), but what about differentiating between Third-World peasants (who form the core labour of food production there) and First-World "small farmers" who receive subsidies for continuing their inefficient work (when industrial farming has now taken over as developing society's labor power and capabilities in the area of food production)? The relation to the means of production and labor remain the same in both cases, so its the same class as far as I'm concerned.

The argument about "welfare" vs "real hard work" appears to be little more than emotional rhetoric.

It ignores the material circumstances of those in the agricultural industry.

Or should we completely toss aside materialism for emotional rhetoric? :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:57 pm
If memory serves, the lumpen proletariat included organized crime in the manifesto; I can't be certain it explicitly states it in some translations ;)
^^^ That too. :)


Would this be as seen by the agent herself or as perceived by others?

Because a lot of times crime is justified as "attacking the capitalist state" (and yeah, I am talking about things like shop lifting, or confidence tricks, etc.).

If one defrauds, e.g., social security and sees it as ripping off the capitalist state, that does not really "protect" the capitalist state...nor does it challenge it.

I don't think this conditions is really necessary; it should either be eliminated or generalized considerably.

Ah, but the welfare cheatster exists outside the wage-labor system.

Like I said, "not every single feature has to be met." In 2), I'm referring to policemen, security guards, etc., who exist in a wage-labor relationship and whose interests lie in the safety of the capitalist state.



3) Developing society's labor power and its capabilities A lumpen prole does that? :huh:

I'm not sure that "swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ-grinders, beggars, and other flotsam of society" really develop society's labor power any.

My boo-boo. I edited the post just now, but even then, the context says the exact opposite of the boo-boo. It implies that certain occupations have expired their usefulness in developing so on and so forth.




I've received a bit of flak recently for calling out the peasantry as a class (petit-bourgeois as they are, anyways), but what about differentiating between Third-World peasants (who form the core labour of food production there) and First-World "small farmers" who receive subsidies for continuing their inefficient work (when industrial farming has now taken over as developing society's labor power and capabilities in the area of food production)? The relation to the means of production and labor remain the same in both cases, so its the same class as far as I'm concerned.

The argument about "welfare" vs "real hard work" appears to be little more than emotional rhetoric.

It ignores the material circumstances of those in the agricultural industry.

Or should we completely toss aside materialism for emotional rhetoric? :lol:

Like the context of the boo-boo says, "not every single occupation can be progressive for all eternity." Peasants are progressive in the historical development of pre-industrial production, but look at the First-World "small farmers" (and no, I'm not appealing to emotional rhetoric at all, but rather to historical materialism).

As for the two criteria you mentioned, you do realize that the rate of profit in the average "small farm" in the developed world is negative now, don't you? Contrast that to the peasants (mainly because of less advanced equipment, which lowers costs), notwithstanding corporate farming intrusions and food dumping from abroad.

[ComradeRed]

I've been thinking about your definition, and something kind of bothers me.

It appears that you have assigned the lumpen proletariat to be the "miscellaneous" class.

Police officers aren't really bourgeois, petit bourgeois, or proletarian, so they get lumped in here. Or so it seems to me, that's how I interpret your definition.

Also the third part of the definition:

3) Expired historical usefulness in developing society's labor power and its capabilities This appears to be incorrect in my opinion.

The petit bourgeoisie includes this. The artisans of old, who has "expired" in "historical usefulness in developing society's labor power and its capabilities", are petit bourgeois.

Perhaps this is because I am thinking of artisans in general; are there any specific roles here that you can think of? Before you answer, I do note that you think the peasantry are perhaps lumpen prole, but I disagree.

I think that the peasantry are petit bourgeois; it goes without saying their landlords, if they have any, are bourgeois.

Out of Marx and Engels, Marx was the more severe on the peasantry. This was in the extraordinarily rare instances where Marx spoke about the peasantry.

By Comparison, Engels notes:
Originally posted by Engels+--> (Engels)Incidentally, the people forget that, apart from the main business with big landed property, there are also various sorts of peasant: (1) the tenant farmer to whom it is immaterial whether the land belongs to the state or to the big landowner; (2) the owner, first the big peasant, against whose reactionary existence the day-labourers and farm-hands should be incited; second the middle peasant, also reactionary and not very numerous; and third, the debt-laden small peasant, who can be got at through his mortgage.[/b] Letter to Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_11_01.htm) by Frederick Engels (1869).

Engels appeared to think that the "middle peasant" (a sadly ambiguous term) as well as the land owning peasant was reactionary, and the landless peasantry ought to "be incited".

(An interesting quote by Engels on the Lumpen proles:
Originally posted by Engels+--> (Engels)The lumpenproletariat, this scum of the decaying elements of all classes, which establishes headquarters in all the big cities, is the worst of all possible allies. It is an absolutely venal, an absolutely brazen crew.[/b] Preface to the Second Edition of The Peasant War In Germany (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/ch0a.htm) by Frederick Engels (1850?))

I think the canonical view on peasantry was laid down in the manifesto and in another place:
Originally posted by Engels
The peasant is an element that is little active politically. In so far as he himself is a proprietor, he is going ever more to ruin because of the unfavourable production conditions of the allotment peasants, who cannot engage in stock-breeding, having been deprived of the old common Mark or community pasture. As a tenant, his position is even worse. Petty peasant production presupposes a predominantly subsistence economy, the money economy seals its doom. Hence the growing indebtedness, the massive expropriation by mortgage creditors, the recourse to domestic industry, so as just not to be evicted from his native soil. Politically, the peasantry is mainly indifferent or reactionary: on the Rhine it is ultramontane because of its old hatred for the Prussians, in other areas it is particularise or protestant-conservative. Religious feeling still serves this class as an expression of social or political interests. Italics are Engels', bold and underlining is mine.

From The Role of Force in History (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/role-force/ch05.htm) by Frederick Engels (1887).

One place where Marx did make note of the peasantry was in relaying Lassalle's (I think it was Lassalle's, I could be wrong, you'll see) assessment of the situation in Poland in a letter to Engels:
[email protected]
In Poland, L. said, it had been necessary de prime abord ["first of all" -CR] to disregard the peasantry, that ‘ultra-reactionary rabble’. But they were now ripe for the fray and would rise at the government’s call for a levée en masse.' ["massive levy" -CR] Italics are Marx's.

From A Letter From Marx to Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/letters/63_09_12.htm) (1863).

This is not a personal view of Marx's but simply telling Engels what Lassalle (who I only assume is "L.") told Marx.

Engels, the man who wrote profusely on the peasantry, writes another passage:
Engels
For 600 years, all progressive movements have issued so exclusively from the towns that the independent democratic movements of country people (Wat Tyler, Jack Cade, the Jacquerie, the Peasants’ War[126]) were firstly always reactionary manifestations and were secondly always crushed.

[...]

Footnotes:
[...]
126 Engels enumerates some major peasant rebellions of the Middle Ages: the rebellions of Wat Tyler (1381) and Jack Cade (1450) in England, the peasant revolt in France in 1358 (Jacqueric) and the peasant war in Germany (1524-25). In later years as a result of studying the history of the peasant struggle against feudalism and drawing on the experience of revolutionary actions of the peasantry during the revolution of 1848-49 Engels changed his estimate of the peasant movements’ character. In The Peasant War in Germany (1850) and other works he showed the revolutionary liberation character of peasant revolts and their role in shaking the foundations of feudalism. Italics are the authors.

From The Communists and Karl Heinzen (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm) by Frederick Engels (1847).

Herein lies the basic idea of Marx and Engels: in capitalism, the peasantry is a reactionary class; in feudalism, it is a revolutionary one.

That's tangential though to the point that the peasantry are petit bourgeois.

Peasants are not industrial workers. Instead, they either own or rent their land, and work it.

They own capital and work with it, that is enough for them to be petit bourgeoisie in my book ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+October 01, 2007 11:46 am--> (ComradeRed @ October 01, 2007 11:46 am) I've been thinking about your definition, and something kind of bothers me.

It appears that you have assigned the lumpen proletariat to be the "miscellaneous" class.

Police officers aren't really bourgeois, petit bourgeois, or proletarian, so they get lumped in here. Or so it seems to me, that's how I interpret your definition. [/b]
Unless you want to add new classes (if so, then by all means, go ahead, because I'm all-ears ;) ). Otherwise, please note this thread, which I did link to earlier (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69723&st=125). I was inspired by the discussions in that thread before speaking out, and Vargha Poralli had an interesting remark right below what I said, which reinforced my position:


Originally posted by Him+--> (Him)In India we generally call them "Criminals in Uniform". So what you says fit the police in India at the very least.[/b]

Then Luis had this to say:


[email protected]
don't think that lumpens, as a whole, "protect" capital. They are rather parasites. But, yes, a considerable part of police, in any capitalist society, is firmly tied into the lumpenproletariat. After all, they exist "to fight against crime"; if crime didn't exist any more, there would be no reason for the existence of police. So it is in the interest of the police, as an institution, that crime is not wiped out.

Marx original had his six classes (initially separating the peasants and landlords from the petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, respectively), as Luis said in that same post of his, and didn't say much about the "state apparatus." All Lenin said was that policemen are part of a reactionary class because they, as you said, "are the defenders of property. They aren't workers." They defend the state.


Also the third part of the definition:

3) Expired historical usefulness in developing society's labor power and its capabilities This appears to be incorrect in my opinion.

The petit bourgeoisie includes this. The artisans of old, who has "expired" in "historical usefulness in developing society's labor power and its capabilities", are petit bourgeois.

Perhaps this is because I am thinking of artisans in general; are there any specific roles here that you can think of?

I think you're generalizing the occupation of "artisan" too much.

I think there's a whale of a difference between a painter who sells his paintings and somebody whose living is making and selling, say, Roman helmets (and NOT for Halloween purposes). :huh: The former hasn't "expired in historical usefulness..." - but the latter certainly has.


I do note that you think the peasantry are perhaps lumpen prole, but I disagree.

I think that the peasantry are petit bourgeois; it goes without saying their landlords, if they have any, are bourgeois.

I didn&#39;t say that at all. <_<

Simply put, I was saying that the peasants of the Third World and the "small farmers" of the First World have parted ways from being part of the same class. One group remains petit-bourgeois, given their continued historical usefulness, while the other group is no longer such (for reasons I&#39;ve explained, from my hallmark Kautsky thread on agriculture to my thread on biofuels). Want proof? Go back to that Kautsky thread and read the PDF link on US agriculture: the average "small farmer" is losing money ("operating income"), while only the corporate farms and the modern equivalent of kulaks are making &#036;&#036;&#036;.



[And no, I can&#39;t quote Lenin because he had absolutely nothing to say in regards to today&#39;s circumstances with First-World "small farmers," so my particular stance on peasants vs. "small farmers" is nowhere to be found in the classical works. My only guide, alas, is the historical-materialist "thought process" and analysis. :( ]




By Comparison, Engels notes:
Engels
Incidentally, the people forget that, apart from the main business with big landed property, there are also various sorts of peasant: (1) the tenant farmer to whom it is immaterial whether the land belongs to the state or to the big landowner;

I don&#39;t think sovkhoz workers count as peasants (who occupy kolkhozy). :huh: The whole idea behind proliferating that particular form of food production is to proletarianize as many aspects of food production as possible.


Herein lies the basic idea of Marx and Engels: in capitalism, the peasantry is a reactionary class; in feudalism, it is a revolutionary one.

That&#39;s tangential though to the point that the peasantry are petit bourgeois.

Peasants are not industrial workers. Instead, they either own or rent their land, and work it.

They own capital and work with it, that is enough for them to be petit bourgeoisie in my book ;)

Based on my bolded text above, we&#39;ll agree to disagree for the time being. ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:26 am
Today, one can include the welfare cheats
Why do you think that peoploe who cheat state benefits are "refuse of all classes"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 02, 2007 03:26 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 02, 2007 03:26 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 06:26 am
Today, one can include the welfare cheats
Why do you think that peoploe who cheat state benefits are "refuse of all classes"? [/b]
For the same reason that gangsters are part of that same refuse. In your particular case, the regular welfare cheatsters are "refuse" of the proletariat.

[JC1]

I think the lumpen proletariat is sort of a demi-class anyways, at this point. A worker who sells some dope on the side (or even an umployed worker who fronts small amounts), a full time drug dealer who cheats welfare, and organized crime syndicates with legitimate buisnesses, all have ties to diffrent classes. And I hope there obvious
Another thing is class&#39;s have changed there features over time, but nothing to fundemental. The petty-boregouise in developed country&#39;s are pretty much low level organizers for capital.But they are not Capital because they have little capital (Usualy savings and small stocks) of there own, and its tided to big capital anyways.
Dont fall into rigid categorizations you shape youre world around. Classic Idealism&#092;/.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Hammer+October 03, 2007 02:14 am--> (Hammer @ October 03, 2007 02:14 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 02, 2007 03:26 am

[email protected] 28, 2007 06:26 am
Today, one can include the welfare cheats
Why do you think that peoploe who cheat state benefits are "refuse of all classes"?
For the same reason that gangsters are part of that same refuse. In your particular case, the regular welfare cheatsters are "refuse" of the proletariat. [/b]
That didn&#39;t answer my question. I have no idea how regard gangsters and it is not at all clear why they are similar to people who cheat benefits. I would appreciate a comprehensive explanation please.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 04:39 pm
[QUOTE=Hammer,September 28, 2007 06:26 am
For the same reason that gangsters are part of that same refuse. In your particular case, the regular welfare cheatsters are "refuse" of the proletariat.
That didn&#39;t answer my question. I have no idea how regard gangsters and it is not at all clear why they are similar to people who cheat benefits. I would appreciate a comprehensive explanation please. [/quote]
Gangsters and welfare cheatsters (the pro cheatsters) make their living through criminal means (and by "criminal," I don&#39;t mean political crime, like getting wages to be the editor of an underground newspaper). The bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, and proletariat all are in unison in regarding such means of living as disreputable.


I would appreciate a comprehensive explanation please.

That&#39;s the best I can give you, alas. :(

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:57 am

I&#39;ve received a bit of flak recently for calling out the peasantry as a class (petit-bourgeois as they are, anyways), but what about differentiating between Third-World peasants (who form the core labour of food production there) and First-World "small farmers" who receive subsidies for continuing their inefficient work (when industrial farming has now taken over as developing society&#39;s labor power and capabilities in the area of food production)? The relation to the means of production and labor remain the same in both cases, so its the same class as far as I&#39;m concerned.
Except,

1. the core labour of food production in the Third World are rural wage workers, not peasants;

2. the core of the Third World peasantry are not small land proprietors, but tenants; and

3. the core of the Third World small land proprietors are in fact brutally exploited by bourgeois monopsonies and/or banks, so their "property" is rather delusional.

So their relation to the means of production seems rather different from First World small farmers&#39;, unless the condition of the latter is much more degraded than we deprehend from the quote above.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 03, 2007 07:57 pm
1. the core labour of food production in the Third World are rural wage workers, not peasants
To which I must say: Huh? :huh:

Are you implying the reverse of what I said (I said that peasants exist in the Third World and that "small farmers" exist in the developed countries)?

[If so, I&#39;ve gotta go back to my Kautsky thread stuff, because ironically, if you&#39;re correct, then the Third World is a more suitable place for the complete "sovkhoz"-ization of food production.]

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:06 am
Gangsters and welfare cheatsters (the pro cheatsters) make their living through criminal means (and by "criminal," I don&#39;t mean political crime, like getting wages to be the editor of an underground newspaper). The bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, and proletariat all are in unison in regarding such means of living as disreputable.

I think there is a fundamental distinction to be made here. You have to understand that many benefit "cheats" are working class people who use benefits to supplement their wages. Clearly there is a profound difference between being a professional criminal who uses violence to make money and a working class person cheating the state to supplement their wages.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 03:38 am
I think there is a fundamental distinction to be made here. You have to understand that many benefit "cheats" are working class people who use benefits to supplement their wages. Clearly there is a profound difference between being a professional criminal who uses violence to make money and a working class person cheating the state to supplement their wages.
I do make that distinction, though (maybe I wasn&#39;t clear :( ). :huh: The emphasis in what you said is the word "supplement." The moment someone cheats the system repeatedly in order to derive welfare income as his primary source of income is the moment he becomes a lumpenprole.

This happened a lot in the 70s and 80s, when welfare benefits were generous and requirements not so stringent.

Likewise, the corporate exec who defrauds his company usually isn&#39;t deriving his primary source of income from his fraudulent activities, so he is still petit-bourgeois or bourgeois (depending on how close or distant he is to capital ownership).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Am I a lumpenprole, too? (http://www.metamute.org/en/Fictitious-Capital-For-Beginners)


Vol. I and most of vol. II of Marx’s Capital are a phenomenology of a closed capitalist system in which there are only capitalists and wage labourers, and most of the focus is on the single firm. When, in the last section of vol. II, Marx shifts to the ‘total social capital’ and expanded reproduction, he is moving beyond that heuristic model.

That demarcation of the interaction of the ‘pure system’ (capitalists and wage labourers) with, on one hand, the vast modern population of unproductive consumers who live off surplus value and do not produce it, i.e. the FIRE (Finance-Insurance-Real Estate) sector, state civil servants, managerial strata, the military sector, the law enforcement/prison sector, and, on the other hand, with nature and with petty producers (today found primarily in the Third World), is fundamental for clarity. These strata in the advanced sector are dominated today by the same ‘creative classes’ mentioned above. None of the latter populations are present in vols. I and II of Marx’s Capital, except for some interesting asides and the important chapters in the middle of vol. II dealing with insurance, bookkeeping and other ‘faux frais’ (false costs) of production (the latter having today burgeoned beyond belief relative to Marx’s time). Capital is a circuit, (in vols. I and II), with simple reproduction, (i.e. an abstract assumption of ‘zero growth’) and is a spiral in expanded reproduction. A commodity, whether from Dept. I (what Marx designated as the production of machines) or II (consumer goods) which does not complete the circuit, i.e. is not productively consumed in Dept. I (new means of production) or Dept. II (new labour power) ceases to be capital. These definitions, which have been laughed out of the mainstream theories of ‘economics’ and which get surprisingly little attention even from some self-styled Marxists, allow us to reconceptualise the contemporary world economy and make clear distinctions between real wealth and costs that are merely costs of maintaining the status quo.