Reading through Huey newtons, βTO DIE FOR THE PEOPLE,β it is evident that the Black Panther Party for Self-defense were interested in mobilizing the lumpenproletariat, or the lower, working class that lacks class consciousness, if I am understanding correctly, although from reading this sub I can tell itβs a little debated what it truly is. They claimed that the revolution would come through this group of people, as Lenin thought in Russia, I was wondering what people thought of this, do you think that the education of class consciousness will lead to this uprising or do you think it will be the treatment of the lumpenproletariat, or both? Does this ideology still hold true today, and is this strategy of revolution possible to apply to the world-wide struggle? is it possible in the United States?
I have recently started learning about and reading Marxist literature. I came across the term lumpenproletariat as a category for the "chronically unemployed", the homeless and criminal elements of the society. I felt a bit weird when I read that because it came off a bit judgemental towards people who have probably been dealt a bad hand in life. I don't know if I misunderstood the meaning or there is more to it. Can someone please enlighten me?
https://preview.redd.it/5wcxa1nj0ox71.jpg?width=563&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f9a67a4c3611daf6bcc49f05129cd840903018f
Though it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one, there is a vast difference between the βcommonβ conception of socialism (most commonly encountered in countries with no history of socialism) and what socialism actually is. I am not writing this to explain fundamental theory or even ridicule and/or criticize western βββleftistsβββ as I often do, but this is simply an observation that everyone serious about Marxism or scientific socialism has made shortly after developing an interest. In countries within the imperial core, the utterly idiotic and evidently liberal practice of pointing out the most shallow correlations possible and then expanding greatly upon these pretenses is widespread. To them, socialism is some blindly altruistic kind of idealism with the goal of helping βthe poorβ.
Though scientific socialism has proven time and again that its practice does lift whole nations out of poverty and distribute wealth far more evenly through the abolition of private property, this misconception is still just that. Communism does not represent altruism or some idealistic kindness. It represents pragmatism and fairness with the central principle of the productive forces being entitled to consume in proportion to how much they produce. We do not inherently represent those in poverty nor relative poverty (ie. poorer labor aristocrats in the imperial core), we represent the proletariat who are greatly undercompensated despite being the foundation of the economy and the reason for any wealth in the first place. The naive and misguided have often conflated poverty with revolutionary potential. For a historical example, I will direct you to Anarchism or Socialism [1]
>For example. In the eighties of the last century a great controversy flared up among the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia. The Narodniks asserted that the main force that could undertake the task of "emancipating Russia" was the petty bourgeoisie, rural and urban. Why? β the Marxists asked them. Because, answered the Narodniks, the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie now constitute the majority and, moreover, they are poor, they live in poverty. To this the Marxists replied: It is true that the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie now constitute the majority and are really poor, but is that the point? The petty bourgeoisie has long constituted the majority,
... keep reading on reddit β‘I understand that lumpens are the proletariat that doesn't have a class consciousness (not sure if that's how you say it in English) and they are basically much more excluded from society (i.e. criminals, homeless people) and that the communist lecture sees it as a social group that can harm the revolution. Now, I understood that Bakunin's stance on this is different from Marx, but I need didn't fully understand it.
This one is pretty straightforward.
If you live in a large urban area you see human misery that can be pretty disturbing. The people walking the streets donβt just make it difficult to reconcile with Victorian narratives about The Deserving Poor and Fallen Women, they also make a joke out of contemporary positive, affirmative language surrounding Sex Work.
Itβs also pretty grim seeing their physical deterioration, and I canβt help but feel that once started on that trajectory, reintegration into society is not just a matter of being clothed and housed, but almost requires resocialization.
So, once someone is out of the workforce, separated from family, using narcotics and engaging in street level prostitution, what can be done?
Can the Lumpen be organized and mobilized, or is that a distraction from The Work of Socialism?
Came across a term recently that sort of led me down a road of research... ending up with very few answers but a lot of questions (and some frustration). Of course this is the Lumpenproletariat. It took a while before I ended up with a somewhat clear definition of the word: [see here](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/u.htm)
What baffles me however is how these lumpenproletariat are looked at by many communists. Seen as anti-revolutionary and a waste of time by most communists I've seen talking about them. The reason why I am baffled by this is because from my interpretation, they are also victims of capitalist society.
" beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables "
Why do comrades look down on them? I'd love to be granted some clarity on the matter, thank you in advance.
This is an interesting book excerpt I found that was first published in 2002 that y'all should read. It argues that fascism isn't a tool of the bourgeoisie anymore. Modern fascism is "rooted in populist nationalist anti-capitalism and [has] an intransigent hostility to various state and supra-state institutions." It's anti-capitalism is virulently against the bourgeoisie, but will not rid the world of capitalism. The fascist's goal is to dethrone the bourgeoisie and take their position in society, while retaining the class system and maintaining it with brutal repression.
>Fascism is not a paper tiger or a symbolic target but a real and immediate danger both in this country and around the world. However, the nature of this danger is not self-evident. It requires clear explanation and it requires the rejection of some conventional wisdom. Fascism is not a danger because it is ruling class policy or is about to be adopted as policy. Not even because it could have major influences on this policy. Nor is it a danger because of the βrahowaβ, racial holy war, that is advocated by some fascist factions. The policies of official capitalism carried out through the schools and the criminal justice and welfare systems are both a far greater and a more immediate threat to the health and welfare of people of color than fascist instigated racial attacks and their promotion of racialist genocide. The real danger presented by the emerging fascist movements and organizations is that they might gain a mass following among potentially insurgent workers and declassed strata through an historic default of the left. This default is more than a possibility, it is a probability, and if it happens it will cause massive damage to the potential for a liberatory anti-capitalist insurgency.
βlumpenproletariatβ can be loosely translated to: βsocial scum,β βdangerous class,β βunderclass,β βragamuffin,β βriff-raff,β βragged-proletariat,β etc.
>βThe lumpenproletariat is passive decaying matter of the lowest layers of the old society, is here and there thrust into the [progressive] movement by a proletarian revolution; [however,] in accordance with its whole way of life, it is more likely to sell out to reactionary intrigues. β The Communist Manifesto
>
>
>
> βThey belonged for the most part to the lumpenproletariat, which forms a mass clearly distinguished from the industrial proletariat in all large cities, a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds, living on the refuse of society, people without a fixed line of work.β β The Class Struggles in France 1848β1850
>
>
>
> Marx writes the βChief of theΒ Lumpenproletariatβ (Napoleon III) bought votes from the lumpenproletariat with βgifts and loans, these were the limits of the financial science of the lumpenproletariat, both the low and the exalted. Never had a President speculated more stupidly on the stupidity of the masses.β β βThe Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon,β 1852
>
>
>
>Marx describes the lumpenproletariat in the following manner: βAlongside ruined rouΓ©s with questionable means of support and of dubious origin, degenerate and adventurous scions of the bourgeoisie, there were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged convicts, runaway galley slaves, swindlers, charlatans, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, procurers, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, rag-pickers, knife-grinders, tinkers, beggars; in short, the entirely undefined, disintegrating mass, thrown hither and yon, which the French call la bohΓ¨me.β β βThe Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon,β 1852
I very interested in what Ε½iΕΎek thinks of the lumpenproletariat and their role in society.
I am new to Marxism and when I discovered what Marx wrote about the lumpenproletariat I was shocked and bitterly disappointed. I didn't know whether to read into this in an ironic way where Marx's description might have several means, or if he really is just horrible. From what I've researched so far it really does seem as though it might be the latter.
On the other hand I'm a fan of Ε½iΕΎek, and I think he has an interesting take on some things. I'd like to know if he ever addressed the topic of lumpenproletariat and what he said about it. Thanks for any help or links!!
Let's say USA goes communist tomorrow. What role does the lumpen play? Surely they can't be marginalized even more, most of them are as oppressed as the working class right?
What the title says.
