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 ;)
I think many of you are oversimplifying Marx's conception, and obviously not doing it justice. See: "On the pretext of founding a benevolent society, the lumpenproletariat of Paris had been organized into secret sections. . . . Decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, rubbed shoulders with vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux, brothel-keepers, porters, literati, organ-grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars – in short, the whole of the nebulous, disintegrated mass, scattered hither and thither, which the French call la bohème; from this kindred element Bonaparte formed the core of the December 10 Society. A ‘benevolent society’ – in so far as, like Bonaparte, all its members felt the need to benefit themselves at the expense of the labouring nation This Bonaparte who constitutes himself chief of the lumpenproletariat, who here alone rediscovers in mass form the interests which he personally pursues, who recognises in the scum, offal and refuse of all classes the only class upon which he can base himself unconditionally. (Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: 73)"
"The July monarchy was nothing more than a joint-stock company for the exploitation of France’s national wealth. . . . Commerce, industry, agriculture, shipping – the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie were inevitably in permanent peril and at a permanent disadvantage under this system. . . . [T]he same prostitution, the same blatant swindling, the same mania for selfenrich-ment – not from production but by sleight-of-hand with other people’s wealth– was to be found in all spheres of society, from the Court to the Café Borgne [disreputable bars and cafés]. The same unbridled assertion of unhealthy and viscous appetites broke forth, appetites which were in permanent conflict with the bourgeois law itself, and which were to be found particularly in the upper reaches of society, appetites in which the wealth created by financial gambles seeks its natural fulfilment, in which pleasure becomes crapuleux [debauched], in which money, wealth and blood commingle. In the way it acquires wealth and enjoys it the financial aristocracy is nothing but the lumpenproletariat reborn at the pinnacle of bourgeois society."
Quotes from here: https://libcom.org/files/Thoburn%20-%20Difference%20in%20Marx%20The%20Lumpenproletariat%20&%20the%20Proletarian%20Unnamable.pdf
Now, what does this say about Marx? First it says that as a class the lumpen can't be the subject of revolutionary activities, why? It is too disorganised, it does not seek to produce but to steal from others, it seeks to benefit off others, it is 'ruined and without future'. This does not mean that individuals in it couldn't achieve class consciousness, or that they were inherently anti-revolutionary, it is merely the scientific description of a class, not of its elements. After all, isn't Engels a buorgeois? Isn't Kropotkin an aristocrat? Isn't Cafiero a burgeois? Lenin? Now, one can argue against Marx, of course. The central point is: how difficult is it for the lumpen to attain class consciousness? I'd wager almost as difficult as for the buorgeoisies: and to be clear, Marx sees the lumpen as the burgeois, only dispossesed. Now, this take is unnuanced, and it seems like Marx didn't want to bother to describe this further either. And Bakunin criticised him for this, hailing the lumpen as the almost the perfect revolutionary subject: "that eternal 'meat', [...] that great rabble of the people (underdogs, 'dregs of society') ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase lumpenproletariat. I have in mind the 'riffraff', that 'rabble' almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner being and in its aspirations [...] all the seeds of the socialism of the future... " (Dolgoff, Sam, ed. (1972). Bakunin on Anarchy. New York: Vintage Books. p. 294.)
Now, I think Bakunin saw all subjects as possible revolutionary subjects. And I think this stem from the fact that Bakunin was more of an action-man than a scientific one, a more practical man that Marx. That said, I think both have important takes and none are "wrong" or outdated, we can learn from both of these, but mind you, they were talking about their specific societies in the 1860s, too. I tried to describe Marx's position as he would, not that I necessarily agree with everything he says. I think the lumpen can be revolutionary (it would be dumb to exclude a class for no reason), but it can also readily be counter-revolutionary as easily. It also depends what 'lumpen', is it "permanent lumpen" (what was the "permanent lumpen" that Marx described), or are we talking simply about unemployed proletariat that becomes lumpen because of an inability (not of themselves!) to find work, or no access to education, what makes someone "turn lumpen"? And how hard is it to rewire one's brain from propaganda (and this is not exclusive to the lumpen). Of course, Marx couldn't discuss all of this, as the social sciences were barely a thing in his world.
I just want to say that this is a fascinating response, and comprehensive. Good job, comrade :chavez-salute:
Thanks! I just feel like we are being too un-nuanced. Sometimes too idealistic. Since, yes, the lumpen/worker can be revolutionary, but how many of them are? Are we confirming our own bias by our own experiences?
I agree with you, we can’t know if we’re confirming our biases as no one’s done the research on this.
I would charge, though, that if we don’t have the research now, Marx certainly didn’t, and was likely confirming his own biases, informed by his class position and the cultural narratives that were common to the ~1850s ;)
Ah, of course. I meant in the sense that many have argued here that they are lumpen or know revolutionary lumpen, yet that doesn't mean anything, because one could know lumpen and know that they were revolutionary. Or, actually, know workers and know that they weren't revolutionary. Honestly all of this boils down to: 'agitate, educate, organise'.
Ya, and you have a great point about 'people aren't defined by their class position, even if class position influences people'. Really important note that marxist class analysis isn't deterministic, but descriptive.