chapotraphouse

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.

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

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

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

Is this a bit?

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Frank channeling BMF something fierce.