this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
57 points (88.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13528 readers
817 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Lumpenproletariat" is exactly the kind of idea an educated German theorist would come up with in the wreckage of the industrial revolution and it's ridiculous to try to carry that notion forward to the age of cell phones and heavily armed maoist prostitutes and if anyone can't understand that you should throw grass at them until they stop being dorks because they're too far gone to touch it themselves.

Like ffs read even one anthro text about black market and grey market economies and stop treating The Man's legal system like anything but a criminal organization.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AlpineSteakHouse@hexbear.net 71 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have no idea where you're getting this from. Saying someone is a Lumpenprole isn't a moral judgement, just an economic one. Someone who grows rice and the bandits that steal it have different relations to the means of production. They are not just proles who break the law.

it's ridiculous to try to carry that notion forward to the age of cell phones and heavily armed maoist prostitutes

Engels was largely revolutionary but he was also bourgeoisie, that does not mean that the bourgeoisie as a class are revolutionary. Also, many ML theorists argue that Lumpenproles do have revolutionary potential while not denying they exist as a class.

berdly-actually the bourgeoisie are a revolutionary class, just a different revolution.

[–] AndJusticeForAll@hexbear.net 54 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lumpen drug runners aren't gunna' help us do communism, dude.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS@hexbear.net 47 points 3 months ago (1 children)

age of cell phones and heavily armed maoist prostitutes

I don't really know that I'd agree we live in an age of Maoist prostitutes, much less heavily armed ones, or what cellphones have to do with the revolutionary potential of the lumpenproletariat

I don't really know what I think about the concept of the lumpenproletariat, but I don't think this is a very compelling critique of it either

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mardoniush@hexbear.net 38 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think the problem is that the LP is a meta class. Like how the working classes are not a monolithic bloc but include the proletariat, the peseantry, the artisans, the lowest strata of the PB etc, all with their own class relations.

The Lumpens are everyone from a beggar to someone who steals to live to the mafia to an opera singer or artist who relies on bourgeois donations rather than wages. Heck, there's an argument to be made that someone who runs an NGO is a kind of "Lumpenbourgoise"

All of these have the sense that the existence of the strata is dependant on the stability of the capitalist system and instability hurts them, but they have wildly different revolutionary potential

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 34 points 3 months ago

Is this a bit?

[–] robinnn@hexbear.net 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You don’t know what you’re talking about + there will be no prostitution under communism + lumpenprole isn’t an insult or moral indictment

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

there will be no prostitution under communism

Unless you have a fairly specific definition of prostitution, some people will always be willing to exchange goods or labour for sex regardless of economic or political system.

[–] porcupine@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Prostitution isn’t the presence of negotiated sexual activity any more than capitalism is the presence of market activity. Exploitation is a defining characteristic of both.

Edit: Alexandra Kollantai already thoroughly explored this topic in 1921.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] robinnn@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

This presupposes private property and an inherent bourgeois philosophy being instilled in the people. Utter nonsense.

Omg under communism small business prostitutes will exchange sex for food vouchers!!

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago (10 children)

This presupposes private property

Personal property still exists under communism, as do scarce commodities. Barter is hardly bourgeois philosophy.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ButtBidet@hexbear.net 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also I thought that the concept of lumpenproletariate was standard ML ideology. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you as I've spend no time looking into this.

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm curious about this.

I'd first heard it in a Burkinabé context. I don't remember coming across it in Marx or Lenin?

What's the history of the concept? We need to get to the bottom of this. (I'm too busy to read right now, maybe in 12 hours.)

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 24 points 3 months ago

It was coined by Marx. See glossary on marxists.org.

There can be a reactionary usage of the word, but there is also theoretical utility in distinguishing proletarians with different relations of production. Based on the glossary here it sounds like Marx used the specific word lumpe satirically against Stirner, but idk the details of that.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 16 points 3 months ago

It's literally in the Manifesto.

[–] Pavlichenko_Fan_Club@hexbear.net 22 points 3 months ago

So you think it's an invalid concept because of a moral judgement of the Bourgeois state's legal system? Does not your invokation of the 'black market' belie your point? That the criminal has an objectively different relation to production than the proletariate?

Also you know what concept could only be thought up by some educated German theorist? That the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. What postmodern nonsense!

Beyond the particulars I think you need to go back to the very basics. What's class? Proletariate? What makes the proletariate a revolutionary class? What's meant by it having 'radical chains'? Finally, what's Marxism? Is it just a perscriptive lens?

Anemia of theory will be the death of us all...

[–] iByteABit@hexbear.net 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Depends, there are piss poor people out there, especially in rural uneducated areas, that are drawn to fascism like moths to light and hate communism without having ever understood what the hell they're talking about.

They usually can't be reasoned with at all, they are proles but will never realize who are their allies and who will betray them as soon as they get in power. They will even actively work for fascists, if that isn't lumpenproletariat I don't know what else to describe them as.

There's a big defining difference between them and the petty bourgeoisie who have actual material benefits from fascism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shitholeislander@hexbear.net 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think if you asked 20 internet Marxists for their definition of "lumpenprole" you would probably get 20 different answers, ngl. Poorly defined term that has been used and misused in many ways historically, and tbh, a lot of people here have never actually come into contact with any parts of the "lumpenproletariat" and would probably feel well out of their comfort zone if they did.

Historically, Marxologists are world champions in saying that some section of society has no potential for revolutionary action before being proven decisively wrong by the course of history, so I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that the "lumpenproletariat" is going to be essential to the coming world socialist revolution too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

hard agree, i've had people insist to me that criminalized peoples, who are usually minorities as any knowledgeable person knows (as capitalism uses bias in order to harm a group and allow for super exploitation), are lumpen and thus non-proles.

while we're on the topic of class, i had some honest to god Kautskyites insist to me that peasants are both inherently reactionary and no longer exist. they insist they are 'agrarian proles' but also when wanting to be mean they're peasants???? is there any veracity to this idea because I honestly don't know how to deal with freaks that identify with the second internationale in the year of our lord 2024

[–] EmoThugInMyPhase@hexbear.net 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I mean who cares if they’re non proles lol. Being one doesn’t make you a good person. Even the revolutionaries who believed in their potential differentiated them as they have different circumstances. It’s just a class distinction.

[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

again agreed

[–] shitholeislander@hexbear.net 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

i had some honest to god Kautskyites

DSA weirdos?

[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

no actually, most of the DSA people ive met are trans stalinists/maoists

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ButtBidet@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago

I'm not disagreeing with you, but J Sakai wrote a book​ on the lumpenproletariate that I really want to read. Tbh, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion either way.

[–] heartheartbreak@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Oh yea i love this contradiction cuz its never really drawn upon in the common communist discourse but it represents something interesting to me.

So im not a scholar and have only done my best, but i am not sure ive found an instance where Marx actually calls prostitutes lumpen proletariat. Marx at one point refers to Stirner's idealist conception of lumpen proletariat in the German Ideology but is clearly making fun of Stirner's vibes based analysis of class. Marx even cites pimps in particular as lumpenproletariat but not prostitutes in the 18th Brumaire.

As lumpe means rag the lumpen is supposed to be on an aesthetic external and superficial analysis that section of the working class so undignified under the capitalist system that they are now the outcasts of society.

Marxist classes are definitionally useful for the sole reason that they play a definite and objective role in class struggle in a historical materialist framework. Classes can therefore be defined through the lens of dialectical materialism as a definite mass of people in society who share a means of life, psychological character, and collective interest. The lumpenproletariat therefore in what i can tell are the fraction of the working class so debased as to then possess a material interest distinct from the proletariat and can even come into conflict with the proletariat. Petty thieves, robbers, beggars, drug dealers, and pimps sustain themselves on economic exploitation of other classes, which can include the proletariat.

The class interest of the lumpen pretariat can only ever politically manifest itself in what is essentially gangs. During times of revolutionary crises, the lumpenproletariat heavily benefits from the crisis of legitimacy of the state and can then more freely extort the other classes which has historically been represented in gangs that are either paid off by the bourgeois against other classes or independently of the bourgeois extort other classes whether by exacting tolls and taxes or other means. You can see the exact same thing playing out in Haiti today as Marx noted in the 18th Brumaire. Simply put, you can not "unionize" the lumpenproletariat - as a lumpenproletariat union is essentially manifest in gangs which even on a superficial level clearly represent their political interests as a class.

So from this analysis we can see that there is no "inherent revolutionary character" of the lumpenproletariat, rather only a dialectical character represented in its identity and material interest distinct from other classes. Even Marx in his own words says that the lumpenproletariat are capable of the highest forms of heroism, and the most debauched forms of hedonism. Particularly what Mao and the BPP noted is that there is a possibility to in essence develop a mass base in the lumpenproletariat and to cause a revolutionary development by the proletarianization of the people in this mass base.

In any case i hope this provides some clarity, and i hope i can be corrected on points where i am mistaken!

[–] nocturnedragonite@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Classes can therefore be defined through the lens of dialectical materialism as a definite mass of people in society who share a means of life, psychological character, and collective interest.

Kinda off topic but this made me realize why and how China has billionaires but doesn't allow them to become a class. Was reading a paper on them the other day and I read something like that.

[–] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think it's more accurate to think of Chinese billionaires as a class, just not one allowed to control the state.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Everyone's always talking about the Lumpenproletariat, but what about the Lumpy Proletariat? What about those guys huh?

[–] Blockocheese@hexbear.net 14 points 3 months ago

Theyre lumpy because they can't afford to see a dermatologist and get the lumps checked out

[–] EstraDoll@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

wasn't lumpenproletariat the purple cloud girl who talked funny from adventure time?

[–] TheLastHero@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

so "The Man" is a criminal organization but criminal organizations are good, Maoist and based ???

The Three Main Rules of Discipline And Eight Points for Attention for the Red Army

Obey orders in all your actions.(一切行动听指挥)
Do not steal from the workers and peasants.(不拿群众一针一线)
Turn in everything captured.(一切缴获要归公)

Speak politely.(说话和气)
Pay fairly for what you buy.(买卖公平)
Return everything you borrow.(借东西要还)
Pay for anything you damage.(损坏东西要赔)
Do not hit or swear at people.(不打人骂人)
Do not damage crops.(不损坏庄稼)
Do not take liberties with women.(不调戏妇女)
Do not ill-treat captives.(不虐待俘虏)

[–] CommCat@hexbear.net 11 points 3 months ago

criminal organizations like the mafia, yakuza and triad are very reactionary, the USA has always used these orgs to attack the Left. When the PRC was established, the triad were driven out and they fled to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Southeast Asia. During Deng's reforms, the Triad made their way back into the PRC and are thriving again.

[–] m532@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Those who are "criminal" according to the bourgeois state, are completely different from those who are criminal according to the proletarian state

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lil_tank@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Idealistic bourgeois dissidents idealised the proletariat as entirely made of pure, gentle manly men and brave women. When confronted with the reality that capitalist misery + hetero patriarchy created alcoholic domestic abusers they dismissed them as not true proletariat, ~~hence the term lumpen~~.

How can I begin to describe how unserious this is

Edit : Apparently I misunderstood or I had a bad source, turns out the term was actually coined by Marx and Engels. Idealisation of the proletariat is still a real thing but it's not the origin of the lumpen term

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Wasn’t it coined by Marx and Engels on the basis of differing relations of production? The differences in material conditions between working and non-working proletarians has theoretical significance.

The question of revolutionary potential is, I think, the main distinguishing feature between communism and so-called utopian socialism. Communism is a proletarian movement and sees the proletariat as the revolutionary class.

But does that mean that the proletariat is uniformly revolutionary?

Marx and Engels thought the struggle between workers and capitalists was the essential contradiction that would lead to revolution. Later Marxists like Mao and the Black Panthers thought non-working proletarians could be instrumental too. But the basic theoretical question I think is valid.

For feudal society, Marx identified the bourgeoisie as the revolutionary class, not because of its moral standing, but due to the specific contradictions that intensified between the old feudal rulers and a rising merchant/bourgeois class. The peasants were also exploited in feudal society, but that alone didn’t make them the class with most revolutionary potential.

Marx did refine this view over time. In 1882, a year before his death, he and Engels wrote this preface to the communist manifesto:

1882 preface to the Russian edition of the manifestoThe Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

[–] lil_tank@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago

Alright sorry I edited

load more comments (1 replies)

your profile says you've been here for years, so clearly you REFUSE to do the actual reading

[–] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It’s a good example that no one - not even Marx - is free from biases. Marx still has some of his middle class sensibilities around him when he talks about the lumpenproletariat. And I do not buy the argument some make that when Marx calls them “the dangerous classes”, he means they are dangerous to capital; I think he just means he thinks they are dangerous.

And that’s ok. Not every word Marx wrote should be taken as gospel. Nor does that mean the concept of a lumpenproletariat doesn’t have any analytic value.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago
[–] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

lots of great comments here already. I think it's true that some of the old masters were very dismissive of the lumpenproletariat and its potential revolutionary role, and a lot of the time it was essentially deployed as a moral judgement. it was often rooted in misogyny (even Connolly called women in the Magdalene laundries "lost women").

that said, I think it's a fairly standard part of the modern ML line that it's not a useless category as it does delineate distinct relationships to production, but we obviously recognise that the moral judgement and dismissiveness was regressive and can now be discarded. also I don't think the "criminal" aspect is inherent, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I think any disabled person claiming welfare essentially is in the category? along with masses of sex workers? which today encompasses a fuckload of queer people who obviously have a revolutionary role to play.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 11 points 3 months ago
  1. I think there's a meaningful distinction between workers who earn their wages in the formal economy and workers who earn their wages in the informal economy. It sure is more substantial than the so-called PMC^TM^, where the original authors lumped teachers, accountants, and nurses together with middle managers.

  2. Lumpenbourgeoisie are definitely a thing. What else would you call a mob boss or a drug lord? They aren't really bourgeois because they lack legal legitimacy. If nothing else, the lumpenbourgeoisie is a strata of the bourgeoisie that the bourgeois state is at least nominally opposed to.

[–] gay_king_prince_charles@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The home of cell phones and heavily armed maoist prostitutes should be a tagline

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Can anyone give me a sensible definition of lumpenprole?

I thought they were an impoverished poor people, kept in a similar, if not worse position to that of the proletariat, who happens to not include themselves in, as regular, sanctioned working wage labor of capitalism e.t.c, such as people of no houses and its resulting petty criminals and prostitutes?

Now it includes the mafia and opera singers?

[–] porcupine@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 months ago (4 children)

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

Don't take seriously people who refuse to read theory and instead reinvent new definitions for terms based on posting and vibes. English language social media is not actually the bleeding edge of development for proletarian revolutionary theory.

[–] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 months ago

From the Mao link on that page:

Apart from all these, there is the fairly large lumpen-proletariat, made up of peasants who have lost their land and handicraftsmen who cannot get work. They lead the most precarious existence of all. In every part of the country they have their secret societies, which were originally their mutual-aid organizations for political and economic struggle, for instance, the Triad Society in Fukien and Kwangtung, the Society of Brothers in Hunan, Hupeh, Kweichow and Szechuan, the Big Sword Society in Anhwei, Honan and Shantung, the Rational Life Society in Chihli and the three northeastern provinces, and the Green Band in Shanghai and elsewhere. One of China's difficult problems is how to handle these people. Brave fighters but apt to be destructive, they can become a revolutionary force if given proper guidance.

This is more optimistic about their revolutionary potential than Marx, but it still has significant reservations ("but apt to be destructive"). A footnote from the editor adds:

Through these organizations the lumpen-proletarians sought to help each other socially and economically, and sometimes fought the bureaucrats and landlords who oppressed them. Of course, such backward organizations could not provide a way out for the peasants and handicraftsmen. Furthermore, they could easily be controlled and utilized by the landlords and local tyrants and, because of this and of their blind destructiveness, come turned into reactionary forces. In his counter-revolutionary coup d'etat of 1927 Chiang Kai-shek made use of them to disrupt the unity of the labouring people and destroy the revolution.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ratboy@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

Hmm, already seeing some classism rear it's ugly head. Gonna keep an eye on this post to see how mask-off people go with that

[–] m532@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

Absolutely

In the west, the working proletariat are labor aristocrats and have no revolutionary potential and are our enemies

Those who want to exclude the "undesireables" from the revolution are nazis and should be thrown in a pit

[–] D61@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

Frank channeling BMF something fierce. black-mold-futures

load more comments
view more: next ›