Marx on the lumpen proletariat

[nvm]

I hear how a lot of people believe that the lumpen proletariat is a revolutionary "class". It is ok for me if this comes from anarchists because i aknowledge that we have a different theoretical basis.
But when it comes from Marxists,Maoists etc. i get really outraged!
Here is what Marx said about the lumpen proletariat.


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.

And if we use our logic we will find that to be truth even if we are not marxists. A beggar , a person who chooses to be homeless etc will be most likely be bribed by the capitalists in order to serve their interests. For example in Greece last year with the student movement there were cases where the police BRIBED drug addicts and scum and they made them attack the police in order for the police to find an excuse to dissolve with a use of chemicals and arrests HUGE protests of hundreds of thousands of students. Marx is as modern as he ever was.

[Marsella]

The biggest problem I have is the disdainful attitude Trotskyists have to the poorest of the poor, they go about holding their heads high enough so as not to breath in the stench of that 'passively rotting mass'. <_<

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Um, they are another class, though, Menshie.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html

[nvm]

The biggest problem I have is the disdainful attitude Trotskyists have to the poorest of the poor, they go about holding their heads high enough so as not to breath in the stench of that 'passively rotting mass'. <_<

It isn't about the poorest of the poor. It is about that scum who CHOSES to live that way. And that scum will BETRAY the working class. Venezuelans are poor, they might live in worse conditions than the lumpen proletariat in Canada but the Trotskyists that supposedly have this "disdainful attitude to the poorest of the poor" were one of the first to support the Bolivarian Revolution (see HoV created by the IMT) , while we support poor people in poor countries who often belong to our international (Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil etc).
It is not about being poor . IT is about your role in society. And the role of the lumpen proletariat is a role of treason by being bribed by the capitalists and the bourgeois state.

[Marsella]

It isn't about the poorest of the poor. It is about that scum who CHOSES to live that way. And that scum will BETRAY the working class. Venezuelans are poor, they might live in worse conditions than the lumpen proletariat in Canada but the Trotskyists that supposedly have this "disdainful attitude to the poorest of the poor" were one of the first to support the Bolivarian Revolution (see HoV created by the IMT) , while we support poor people in poor countries who often belong to our international (Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil etc).
It is not about being poor . IT is about your role in society. And the role of the lumpen proletariat is a role of treason by being bribed by the capitalists and the bourgeois state.

Being poor is not a lifestyle choice fuck wit. Even Marx recognised such.


^^^ Um, they are another class, though, Menshie.

No shit Einstein.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I was under the impression that you saw them as being merely a "layer" within the proletariat. Sheesh!

[AGITprop]

The fact of the matter is, these people exist. Whether they choose to or not, they exist. They are a bi-product of the bankruptcy of capitalism.

Pitying some of these people is one thing, as many of them do not choose to live on the streets, or choose to 'whore' themselves out to society, but were forced too. But to call them a revolutionary class is inaccurate. Lumpen-proletariat are not revolutionary as a class, but may be on an individual basis, but never altogether, as many of them are opportunist and will side with the counter-revolution if they see it as an advantage to themselves.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing that the lumpen-proletariat are the dregs of society, it is just the fact of the matter.

[Aurora]

Thanks to MTLYOUTH for posting that.I often see people saying that the lumpen will be revolutionary etc which is clearly not the case, as GG said they may be, but the reality is that the class will be split into both revolutionary and counter-revolutionary camps.

The biggest problem I have is the disdainful attitude Trotskyists have to the poorest of the poor, they go about holding their heads high enough so as not to breath in the stench of that 'passively rotting mass'. <_<
I always hear this bullshit from anarchists,stalinists maoists etc in my time as a trotskyist ive never seen anything like that from any group of leftists. While you may have seen trotskyists do this, do not hold it against the majority of us, just like we wouldnt to you.

[Marsella]

And if we use our logic we will find that to be truth even if we are not marxists. A beggar , a person who chooses to be homeless etc will be most likely be bribed by the capitalists in order to serve their interests. For example in Greece last year with the student movement there were cases where the police BRIBED drug addicts and scum and they made them attack the police in order for the police to find an excuse to dissolve with a use of chemicals and arrests HUGE protests of hundreds of thousands of students. Marx is as modern as he ever was.

And where do the police come from, may I ask?

The sons of nobility? :lol:

Making a generalisation on one event is a poor means of arguing, especially when the working class themselves serve as the biggest pawns of capitalism - indeed they are essential to its existence - which is what causes them to be a revolutionary class, contrary to 'lumpen proles.'

But do you therefore label them social scum?

I don't see how homeless people have anything to lose by a proletarian revolution.

[AGITprop]

No one argued they had anything to lose.

And if lumpen-proletariat do join the police, they are no longer lumpen-proletariat.

The fact of the matter is that they have no relation to the means of production and are not a revolutionary class. Recognizing this is not a crime of the left.
Perhaps Marx's words were not appropriate. Regardless, he was right about them not being revolutionary.

As I said, they are the unfortunate bi-product of capitalism. Pity them if you wish, but this won't change reality.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't see how homeless people have anything to lose by a proletarian revolution.

If they enjoy scavenging around, begging or engaging in ordinary criminal activities, they'll "lose" something by having to work for a change.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Marx was indeed right on the subject. Welfare abusers are continuously hounded on by the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie to create friction between different members of the working class, specifically what we deem the poor and "middle." Even after Clinton reformed the module, the myth of a whole family of welfare recipients mooching off of taxpayer money to frequent professional wrestling rallies and buy alcohol continues. The inherit contradiction is overlooked: if welfare allows such a breezy existence, why do so many people choose against going on it? I thought humans were that selfish.

The existence of the lumpen proletariat is a sad reality of contemporary class relations, but we must also recognize that they are not, fundamentally, the revolutionary class, nor are the methods with which they sustain themselves necessarily progressive.

[Marsella]

If they enjoy scavenging around, begging or engaging in ordinary criminal activities, they'll "lose" something by having to work for a change.

I know! How dare they scavenge for food and beg for money to eat! How dare they steal from supermarkets to feed themselves! :rolleyes:

What's even more disgusting of your view is that you think that someone would enjoy this, that is, do it by choice.

You're a useless elitist ****. :)


And if lumpen-proletariat do join the police, they are no longer lumpen-proletariat.

The original moron who posted, argued that since a few drug addicts (zomg evil drugz) had helped police, that therefore they are counter-revolutionary.

That's a very hasty generalisation to say the least.

I could just as well make the comparison that since working class people join the police force, that therefore the working class is counter-revolutionary.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I know! How dare they scavenge for food and beg for money to eat! How dare they steal from supermarkets to feed themselves! :rolleyes:There's a difference between resorting to petty theft and living by theft. Adversely, nobody is attacking all members of the lumpen proletariat. Some, like veterans, simply have mental illnesses that make them undesirable for the work force. Others are stuck in such obtuse conditions that resorting to prostitution or drug cultivation is their only assurance of shelter. These poor folks would probably be on board with the revolution.

Then you have pimps, sex traffickers, welfare abusers, and hit men who are in many ways regressive. They would likely work against the revolution.

[Luís Henrique]

And if we use our logic we will find that to be truth even if we are not marxists. A beggar , a person who chooses to be homeless etc will be most likely be bribed by the capitalists in order to serve their interests.

When you bring the word "choose" into your discourse, you are evidently taking it to idealism. It is not a matter of choice; you do not choose being a lumpen more than you choose being a peasant. It happens to people, according to their personal history, which starts, of course, with the conditions into which they are born. Being a lumpen proletarian is very often a hereditary feature.

Besides, you loose your perspective of what a "revolutionary class" is. Most proletarians, if given a choice, would move up into the bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie; it is what proletarians that win the lottery do. So these subjective elements should be kept out from our definition of what a revolutionary class is.

The only revolutionary class is the proletariat, not because we are a fraternity of saints, and, above all, not because labour, manual labour, collective labour, or material duress invests us with some kind of moral superiority. We are the revolutionary class, first, because the pursuit of our immediate interests puts us always in a position in which we may come to the conclusion that our long term interests include the abolition of wage slavery; and, second, because we can effectively stop the capitalist economical and political machinery, if we collectively so decide.

In my reckoning, the lumpenproletariat is part of the proletariat; its particular conditions of life - those that make it a separate sector of the class, not those that make it part of the class as a whole - usually makes it the proletarian sector most, or one of the most, unlikely to realise their long term interests and act accordingly to this realisation. Put in other words, the lumpen, as a mass, it much more likely to be at the rearguard of our class than at its vanguard.


For example in Greece last year with the student movement there were cases where the police BRIBED drug addicts and scum and they made them attack the police in order for the police to find an excuse to dissolve with a use of chemicals and arrests HUGE protests of hundreds of thousands of students.

Yes, this is a quite likely scenario. Such behaviour, however, can also be found among most classes, even the proletariat (and, yes, even among students themselves).

To the extent that drug addiction is involved (and it is not a disease exclusive of the lumpenproletariat, though it is sometimes the cause people from other social layers descend into the lumpen), it must be said that it is a disease that is likely to affect the moral judgement of individuals, often making them behave in ways they would reject as disgusting if they were in their perfect health.


Marx is as modern as he ever was.

Marx has described the contradictions of capitalist societies, and those contradictions haven't been solved or otherwise removed. This, and only this, is what makes for Marx's actuality.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

The only revolutionary class is the proletariat, not because we are a fraternity of saints, and, above all, not because labour, manual labour, collective labour, or material duress invests us with some kind of moral superiority. We are the revolutionary class, first, because the pursuit of our immediate interests puts us always in a position in which we may come to the conclusion that our long term interests include the abolition of wage slavery; and, second, because we can effectively stop the capitalist economical and political machinery, if we collectively so decide.

In my reckoning, the lumpenproletariat is part of the proletariat; its particular conditions of life - those that make it a separate sector of the class, not those that make it part of the class as a whole - usually makes it the proletarian sector most, or one of the most, unlikely to realise their long term interests and act accordingly to this realisation. Put in other words, the lumpen, as a mass, it much more likely to be at the rearguard of our class than at its vanguard.

The above expresses the correct Marxist attitude to this question in a nutshell.

Thank you Luis :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's a difference between resorting to petty theft and living by theft. Adversely, nobody is attacking all members of the lumpen proletariat. Some, like veterans, simply have mental illnesses that make them undesirable for the work force. Others are stuck in such obtuse conditions that resorting to prostitution or drug cultivation is their only assurance of shelter. These poor folks would probably be on board with the revolution.

Then you have pimps, sex traffickers, welfare abusers, and hit men who are in many ways regressive. They would likely work against the revolution.


Indeed. Marsella didn't read my article on class relations, and she didn't note that I myself separated the traditional lumpenproletariat into three distinct classes. :)

The prostitutes and drug cultivators would be on board, since they're PROPER lumpenproles. The lumpenbourgeoisie (pimps) and lumpen-SCUM (welfare cheats) would have to be forced into the proletariat or liquidated through post-revolutionary "corrective" labour.

[Marsella]

Indeed. Marsella didn't read my article on class relations, and she didn't note that I myself separated the traditional lumpenproletariat into three distinct classes. :)

The prostitutes and drug cultivators would be on board, since they're PROPER lumpenproles. The lumpenbourgeoisie (pimps) and lumpen-SCUM (welfare cheats) would have to be forced into the proletariat or liquidated through post-revolutionary "corrective" labour.

No I didn't read it, because you only edited the link into your post afterwards.

My prophetic skills are not advanced enough to pick up such changes.

Besides, what a ridiculous characterisation anyway.

'Lumpen bourgeoisie!' :lol:

Pimps are not 'lumpen bourgeoisie anyway' - they are actively involved in the management of their 'business' which separates them from the bourgeoisie's role, which is one of pure ownership.

And 'lumpen scum?' :rolleyes:

Your a fucking idiot. I wonder what you think of the working class who actively takes advantage of certain business mechanisms to lower the taxes they have to pay. Are they scum because they do such when they should be rightfully paying their taxes to the state?

Labelling human beings scum merely because they don't want to work (which can be from a variety of legitimate reasons) is very telling of yourself. You need to knock that capitalist out of your head.

And by the way, we already have 'corrective labour' dole schemes.

Big surprise, they don't work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

'Lumpen bourgeoisie!' :lol:

Pimps are not 'lumpen bourgeoisie anyway' - they are actively involved in the management of their 'business' which separates them from the bourgeoisie's role, which is one of pure ownership.

Wrong again, Menshie. Warren Buffett is (or at least was) involved in the management of Berkshire Hathaway. :p Bill Gates was an active manager in the 90s.

Please read my article, which the divides the bourgeois class into three "sub-classes": business magnates, functioning capitalists, and money-capitalists. :)


I wonder what you think of the working class who actively takes advantage of certain business mechanisms to lower the taxes they have to pay. Are they scum because they do such when they should be rightfully paying their taxes to the state?

No - most of their earnings come from labour. This manipulative stuff is just extra.

"Professional" welfare CHEATS, on the other hand, don't bother to work.


And by the way, we already have 'corrective labour' dole schemes.

Big surprise, they don't work.

You obviously have NOT heard of Magnitogorsk:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/capital-punishment-t74456/index3.html

[Marsella]

Wrong again, Menshie. Warren Buffett is (or at least was) involved in the management of Berkshire Hathaway. :p Bill Gates was an active manager in the 90s.

I should have made my distinction clearer.

Bill Gates does not sit in a job in a factory. He commands from the top.

In contrast, a shoe-maker might own his business, employ others, yet still make shoes. Petty bourgeoisie.

I would class pimps in the latter category; their role is pretty intrinsic to their business.

But ffs, I really don't give a flying fuck what role pimps have in society. The hundreds of thousands of homeless, whom so-called revolutionaries just disregard, should be the focus.


"Professional" welfare CHEATS, on the other hand, don't bother to work.

And who really are the professional welfare cheats? Poor people? Homeless people?


You obviously have NOT heard of Magnitogorsk:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/capital-pu...56/index3.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capital-punishment-t74456/index3.html)

You obviously have not heard of Gobbledegookmonkeyland

(Your post explained nothing whatsoever about Mangitogorsk)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I should have made my distinction clearer.

Bill Gates does not sit in a job in a factory. He commands from the top.

In contrast, a shoe-maker might own his business, employ others, yet still make shoes. Petty bourgeoisie.

I would class pimps in the latter category; their role is pretty intrinsic to their business.

I did add "lumpen" to "lumpen-bourgeoisie" for a reason (I'm thinking of Mafia bosses here, but the problem with this is that they, like Capone, have got legit bourgeois businesses, too). ;)

Also, you got me to think of adding just one more "lumpen" class: lumpen-coordinator. :D

[The problem with this is that they're only criminal equivalents of supervisors, who aren't coordinators but proles. :p ]


The hundreds of thousands of homeless, whom so-called revolutionaries just disregard, should be the focus.

No class is homogenous. Personally, I think that the homeless would stay neutral in a revolutionary situation, unlike the professional welfare cheats (against).


And who really are the professional welfare cheats? Poor people? Homeless people?

Since when did the amount of money or having a residence determine class? :confused:

These cheat-scum exist outside the wage-labour system AND do not contribute to the development of society's labour power and its capabilities (however exploitative the bourgeoisie are, they do contribute).


(Your post explained nothing whatsoever about Magnitogorsk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitogorsk

[RNK]

Many of those "cheat-scum" are such because they reject the exploitive wage-labour system under capitalism. Most of them are forced to rely on welfare because for their class, stable employment is next to impossible. This is from my personal experience.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "For their class"? :confused:

Could they not rely on welfare while having temporary employment (I was a temp two or three times, actually :( ), and not necessarily report employment time to the government authorities?

[RNK]

They could, but the government is starting to get their act together to find them out. But the exact situation may differ from province to province.

In any case, having lived around many a "welfare case", it is true that there are some without a revolutionary bone in their body, and some who harbour conservative, archaic values and traditions and have other reactionary tendencies, but by and large most do not like being stuck on welfare any more than the countless Natives who are on it (or the federal equivilent). For most, it's a choice between a stable, "untouchable" income and living in and out of shelters and friends' houses and not knowing where you'll be in a month's time.

[el_chavista]

Let's be realistic. Lumpenproletariats never will form "unions" or the like. It would be like a party made of "Robinson Cruosoes" members. They have fallen apart from society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They could, but the government is starting to get their act together to find them out. But the exact situation may differ from province to province.

In any case, having lived around many a "welfare case", it is true that there are some without a revolutionary bone in their body, and some who harbour conservative, archaic values and traditions and have other reactionary tendencies, but by and large most do not like being stuck on welfare any more than the countless Natives who are on it (or the federal equivilent). For most, it's a choice between a stable, "untouchable" income and living in and out of shelters and friends' houses and not knowing where you'll be in a month's time.

Why didn't you mention First Nations folks before? :crying: I have a question on them in my "National liberation: what is it?" (RevMarx) thread. :crying: