I'm talking about conventional perspectives on the lumpenproletariat; early marxists clearly ran in different circles than I do.
A contemporary definition from the Communist Party of Texas:
Generally unemployable people who make no positive contribution to an economy. Sometimes described as the bottom layer of a capitalist society. May include criminal and mentally unstable people. Some activists consider them "most radical" because they are "most exploited," but they are un-organizable and more likely to act as paid agents than to have any progressive role in class struggle.
I can just feel the classism dripping out.
The wikipedia article about the phrase basically illustrates the idea of the lumpenproletariat as having been used as a punching bag by Marx, to create a foil to the proletariat in order to glorify the latter's revolutionary potential. From The Communist Manifesto:
The 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.
Anyway, I find this whole line of thinking precisely as deplorable as Marx, and Engels, and those who followed found the lumpenproletariat. Apparently Mao saw more revolutionary potential in the lumpenproletariat, believing they were at least educable.
It seems like the Black Panther Party looked toward the lumpenproletariat with some humanity, and they saw revolutionary potential in "the brother who's pimping, the brother who's hustling, the unemployed, the downtrodden, the brother who's robbing banks, who's not politically conscious," as Bobby Seale, in-part, defined the lumpenproletariat.
This feels much more honest and humane than the classical definitions, which I guess a lot of the major communist orgs in the u.s. still run with.
Finally, I'll just copy and paste the very short 'criticism' section from the wiki article as some food for thought:
Ernesto Laclau argued that Marx's dismissal of the lumpenproletariat showed the limitations of his theory of economic determinism and argued that the group and "its possible integration into the politics of populism as an 'absolute outside' that threatens the coherence of ideological identifications." Mark Cowling argues that the "concept is being used for its political impact rather than because it provides good explanations" and that its political impact is "pernicious" and an "obstacle to clear analysis." Laura Pulido argues that there is a diversity in the lumpen population, especially in terms of consciousness.
Anyway, just one of those 'holy shit' moments. Usually I vibe hard with classical marxism, but they can't all be hits. Wondering other peoples' takes.
But don't go telling me that my lumpen comrades are economically predestined to not be revolutionary socialists, because that analysis would run in direct contradiction to material realities ;)
Can you think of a way you could have said this without sounding super confrontational and rude as fuck
Declaring Maoism a more effective modern Marxism is extremely controversial, not supported by evidence, and not based in reality. I'm fine with people being maoists though I don't think it works, but I'm not fine with maoists making the claim it's generally regarded as more effective or modern as it's simply not true.
This response is the one you should have made, because I understand your point of view. If you open the way you did before, you just sound like a cock.
Yeah sorry, it just gets tiresome seeing differennt tendencies on the site make claims of their general effectiveness and stake as the effective Marxism.
While I'm here, I should also explain why the peasantry is really not lumpenprole. So first, the term is really murky as it's used by Marx. There's both a high and low form, as Marx calls the financial aristocracy of the july monarchy lumpenprole in a bourgeois form. He does the same thing in the 18th brumaire, saying there is a high and low lumpen supported by Napoleon. This high form of the lumpen is called that because it's the worst aspects of the bourgeois acting corruptly, ultimately against the bourgeois class interest by being so nakedly corrupt. This is contrasted to the production focused bourgeois. So the term is really a catchall for the parts of a class which is reactionary and acting against its own interests.
So the peasants in theory can be called lumpen if they are acting against their real interest of solidarity with the working class (or rest of the working class, as the distinction means less and less today). This has not always happened. The US socialist movement in the late 19th and early 20th century was significantly farmer driven in conjunction with industrial workers for example (many radical farmers bought old slave plantations and converted them to collective farms). There's also the tendency for peasants to actually be captured by capital in the same way industrial workers are in the form of debt. This "industrial" small farmer is the most common form of small farming today, and the class relationship to capital is similar to the wage worker in terms of subjugation to capital. Also, there's no reason for Marx anyway that the peasantry cannot act in conjunction with everything else, or that the reactionary urban proletariat, thieves etc, cannot get out the hole they're in, it's just more difficult for them. For example we have letters from Marx late in his life in which he endorses the radical potential of the Russian peasantry.
I see the attacks made by many classical Marxists in the early 20th c. on the peasantry as lumpen as extremely misplaced and based in a bad interpretation of the vague writing on the lumpen by Marx. Rather than acting against the class interest, I think the peasants were acting in a more self-rule republican fashion that was against the form of the centralizing state that dominant Marxist tendencies were trending towards. The attack on them as lumpen is then no more than an insult and disagreement over the right nature of socialism. This is not to say there were not lumpen reactionary peasants, but the class of peasants is not inherently lumpen. The lumpen is a description of a class which cannot be revolutionary without being transformed, that's what Marx is saying, and he's right.
So Mao was right in the revolutionary potential of the peasants, however the form of education he advocated for I think is extremely misplaced. The point of class consciousness is the self development of the working classes, and the emancipation and full development of all people. I don't think that can be done with reeducation camps, and is directly in opposition to the idea of self development.
The whole debate today I think is antiquated and useless. All people are integrated in subjugation to capital and the market. There's no independent peasantry pretty much anywhere. The term lumpen I think may have a place in calling out the reactionary parts of a class, for example I suppose you could call trump voters who were poor and working class lumpen, but I think that's too easy and does not lend anything to teasing out the rationality they had in voting for Trump, and drives a wedge between class sections where there should be none.
That's a useful perspective, thanks.
I get it, and it's frustrating, but remember that we are an ostensibly friendly bunch. The goal should be to try to critique and improve, but let's not attack first. This isn't reddit, there aren't a bunch of dumbass liberals slipping in. We should feel comfortable to critique without attacking (mostly).