Proles, lumpen, and "class of flux": things got more complicated

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/lumpen-proliteriat-most-t73975/index.html

When I was posing the original question, the main purpose was to break apart the traditional petit-bourgeoisie into modern components (with the result of adding two new classes). I feel that I have gone on the right track on that end.

However, given what Hopscotch said exceptionally above as a comment on my chapter (first link) and particularly the portion on the lumpenproletariat, it seems that a new section to Chapter 2 is needed. :(

[And even a major "revision" of the section on the lumpen to break them down into the three underclasses that they are :( ]

Marx remarked about the "reserve army of labour" when writing about unemployment, so what about a modern "'class' of flux" (as I call it, since it isn't a real class)?



In the second thread, I responded to a valid criticism made by Citizen Zero by mentioning seasonal and contract workers. At the moment they are unemployed, they exist outside the wage-labour system. However, it would be incorrect to classify them into the same class as that of "beggars, gangsters and other criminals, prostitutes, unemployables, and all other outcasts and degenerates."

So, what is this "class" of flux? This status, the most important element for class mobility, affects all "lower" classes that exist within the wage-labour system:

1) For the proletariat and the coordinators, as well as security guards (but not so much cops and artisans, and definitely not lawyers and judges), it comes in the form of seasonal unemployment, post-contract unemployment (for those workers who go from contract to contract), and other "temporary" unemployment (temp workers).

2) For the petit-bourgeoisie (active and passive), it comes in the form of having to shut down one's own unprofitable business.

Also in this "class" of flux are most students, since their class status isn't yet determined by anything other than the class background of their parents or by their previous occupation (for the more adult students who are changing careers).



Thoughts?

[Luís Henrique]

Thoughts?

I would stick with considering all those strata as part of the proletariat. Including the actual lumpen. Their position towards the means of production is the same: they don't own them.

How they are employed, or not, by the owners of means of production does not constitute class divides. They are fractions (productive workers vs improductive workers), sectors (industrial workers vs agricultural workers), and layers (highly employable workers vs lowly employable workers) of the proletariat. I would consider the lumpen a particular case, in that it is certainly a layer (the lowest in terms of employability), but they are also somewhat of a sector, in that their activity is different, specifical - but, then, certainly a different kind of sector, in that their activities have a whole different status as illegal or socially unacceptable.

Luís Henrique

[Niccolò Rossi]

I would stick with considering all those strata as part of the proletariat. Including the actual lumpen. Their position towards the means of production is the same: they don't own them.

I would totally agree with this statement. The lumpenproletariat can not be considered a separate class but only a layer within the masses of the proletariat. Likewise the "reserve army of labour", what you call the "class" of flux does not in itself constitute a separate class. Thus the title "class" of flux is misleading. This group is however important to recognise and should be done so by an appropriate term, "The Strata of Flux'?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The hucksters and pimps (who prey on other underclass folks) aren't layers within the proletariat, though.

I edited my chapter discussion. The "reserve army of labour" is in fact part of a larger "class of flux" (because of students), and I only used the word "class" given the structure of the chapter (even though I explicitly said in the chapter portion that it's a strata, as well as used quotation marks). The "class of flux" portion is located between the portion on "active" and "passive" petit-bourgeoisie and the portion on the evolution of the bourgeoisie.

I know this is beyond the orthodox Marxist approach in terms of reducing the number of contending classes under capitalism to two, but capitalism has changed significantly since Marx's death. :(


The continued agreement with the anachronistic view above, as if it applied to the entire duration of the capitalist mode of production, is reductionist thinking... Nevertheless, the foundation behind Marx’s class analysis, production, should be used as the starting point in analyzing modern class relations.

Also (while not mentioning the "class of flux"):


If we were to have only one position per class, we would have:

1) Lumpenproletarians;
2) Lumpen-bourgeoisie;
3) Lumpenproletarians;
4) Lawyers, judges, cops, and security guards;
5) Artisans and expired petit-bourgeois elements;
6) Proles;
7) Coordinators;
8) Active petit-bourgeoisie;
9) Passive petit-bourgeoisie;
10) Business magnates;
11) "Functioning capitalists"; and
12) "Money-capitalists."

[AGITprop]

Here is a question. What would a drug dealer who hires workers to produce drugs on a large scale qualify as. A bourgeois lumpen-proletariat? For example he drug cartel leaders who own the means of production of narcotics. Or would he just be a capitalist? My assumption is not, because drug dealers are lumpen, but this is a special case?

[STI]

I'd question whether drug dealers are lumpen at all... or just illegal versions of petit-bourgeois and bourgeois. Pimps would fall into this category as well

Maybe it's that term, "lumpen"... It's very fuzzy. If we could all agree on a definition, it might be easier to move forward.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The hucksters and pimps (who prey on other underclass folks) aren't layers within the proletariat, though.

You are quite right here and I don't necessarily disagree with your analysison the whole.

The question is: Are the Lumpenbourgeoisie just bourgeoisie who exist outside of the legal wage labour system, making them not a class but a division of the bourgeoisie as they are defined as the owners of the means of production, (whether or not they are legally recognised as such)? Likewise aren't the lumpen and lumpen proletariat just subdivisions of the propertyless proletariat


I know this is beyond the orthodox Marxist approach in terms of reducing the number of contending classes under capitalism to two, but capitalism has changed significantly since Marx's death. :(Indeed and you are doing a noble service to out movement by attempting in your own way to reanalyze and reapply Marx's ideas which have in the past and are today treated as immortal, unquestionable doctrines.


What would a drug dealer who hires workers to produce drugs on a large scale qualify as. A bourgeois lumpen-proletariat?

According to Jacob Richter's system of classes a large scale drug manufacturer would be considered a lumpen-bourgeoisie as he owns the means to produce the drugs but is not a legal employer of wage labour.

[Hit The North]

The term "lumpen" originally means "rags" or "ragged". Here we seem to be in danger of using it as a substitute for the word "criminal" or illegal".

The case of the narcotics industry is a good one for illustrating the similarities and connections between illegal capital (organised crime) and legal capital. The class structure is replicated in organised crime. We have producers, owners of capital, traffickers, dealers and consumers, all linked by a specific commodity, just like in any other capitalist chain of interaction.

The divide between the institutional structure of crime cartels and legal capital is also often blurred and legal capital is not shy of employing criminal means in enforcing its rule.

In fact from a revolutionary proletarian perspective, capital is nothing more than institutionalised crime anyway.

The distinction between the dealer of narcotics and the seller of cigarettes, is probably a bourgeois distinction.

[Luís Henrique]

The distinction between the dealer of narcotics and the seller of cigarettes, is probably a bourgeois distinction.

It is, in any case, a juridical distinction, on which a moral distinction is built.

There is no such thing as a "lumpen bourgeoisie" - those guys are owners of means of production, period. What is different is their life story; crime is still a route for social ascension (in some cases, this is possibly the precise reason why it is considered a crime), and many, if not most, organised crime bosses come from the lower layers of society. But they are bourgeois, or, more probably, petty bourgeois.

The issue of the lumpenproletariat is more complicated, because some of its components do not share some features of the proletariat. Most don't work in collective environments like most proletarians, and many don't have bosses or employers. But still, this is not what characterises a class. A class is characterised by its relationship to means of production. Lumpenproletarians, like proletarians in general, do not own any means of production except their own labour force. So they should be considered a part of that class. Unlike "normal" proletarians, they have found a "trick" to survive without selling their labour force; this makes them a very distinct sector, which usually responds politically in a different way - but not a class of themselves.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

You are quite right here and I don't necessarily disagree with your analysison the whole.

The question is: Are the Lumpenbourgeoisie just bourgeoisie who exist outside of the legal wage labour system, making them not a class but a division of the bourgeoisie as they are defined as the owners of the means of production, (whether or not they are legally recognised as such)?

Comrade, thanks for pointing this out. The problem with the lumpenbourgeoisie is that they, unlike their regular counterparts, do NOT enable the development of society's labour power and its capabilities. Narcotics production doesn't really develop society's production processes, does it?

Even the small-business petit-bourgeois folks, through their usage of credit, enable the development of such. Narcotics folks don't have access to this credit for obvious reasons.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Comrade, thanks for pointing this out. The problem with the lumpenbourgeoisie is that they, unlike their regular counterparts, do NOT enable the development of society's labour power and its capabilities. Narcotics production doesn't really develop society's production processes, does it?

I understand the difference between the "lumpenbourgeoisie" and "their regular counterparts", but there is still a problem. If we define a class under the "Marxist" definition as: a group of people defined by their relations to the means of production, it is obvious that whether or not society's labour power and capabilities are developed by the "lumpenbourgeoisie" they are still a section of the bourgeoisie because they are the owners of the means of production.

The question I pose to you is: How do you define a social class?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ In regards to your first paragraph, you are quite correct. That is the anachronistic (and nowadays reductionist) definition, which I am attacking. In my chapter article, I said that a possible revolutionary Marxist re-definition (there could be others, if other comrades are up to the challenge that I've tackled) is: a group of people defined by their relations to production itself.


Nevertheless, the foundation behind Marx’s class analysis, production, should be used as the starting point in analyzing modern class relations.

This "production itself" has three aspects, in descending order (from "outside" to "inside," if you think of Venn diagrams in logical mathematics): the wage-labour system, the development of society's labour power and its capabilities, and the means of production.

Within the "means of production," then, there are three relationships (not just one): "significant-influence" ownership, factual control, and the scale of the means of production relative to society at large.



[As implied in the article itself, within the first two aspects of "production itself," there are inner relationships that define "class." In the first aspect, there are three underclasses. In the second, there are those who protect the capitalist state machinery or equivalent in the private sector (security guards), and then there are obsolete "occupations" within the wage-labour system, such as most artisans (like handicraftsmen of Japanese samurai weapons :lol: ).]

[More Fire for the People]

Here is a question. What would a drug dealer who hires workers to produce drugs on a large scale qualify as. A bourgeois lumpen-proletariat? For example he drug cartel leaders who own the means of production of narcotics. Or would he just be a capitalist? My assumption is not, because drug dealers are lumpen, but this is a special case?
The drug dealer would be a member of the lumpen-bourgeoisie. His workers would be lumpenproletarians. Sometimes the interests of the lumpen-bourgeoisie and the "official" bourgeoisie coalesce in such instances where they are opposed by revolutionary working classes. For instance, the joint work of the Colombian state and the narco-bourgeoisie to slaughter peasant organizers, unionists, FARCistas, etc. However, most of the time the bourgeoisie demands conformity to its one-dimensional order and hence wages war on the lumpen-bourgeoisie. Hence the 'war on drugs'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Sorry for the belated comments, but here goes:

Indeed. This isn't merely just typical business competition between various bourgeois enterprises wherein the full weight of the bourgeois state is on the sidelines. On the other hand, legalization hasn't yet turned the relevant lumpen-bourgeoisie into petit-bourgeoisie (because of government monopoly over "drug" distribution).