this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1316 readers
34 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Seriously, I am unable to really find much about them outside of short lines from Marx and Mao about their potential destructiveness among other things, but I still do not really know what that "class" is. It seems to refer to the poorest members of society that includes unemployed, criminals, homeless, etc.. And are they really so incapable of being utilized in revolutionary activities as they are portrayed?

Edit: By "destructiveness", I refer to how Marx and Mao portrayed them as people that are not considered reliable allies in any proletarian revolution (though even this understanding might be wrong because I think the explanations about them are vague).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

You are correct. I can't speak much for Mao's writings, but Marx and Engels consider them useless and even dangerous to the revolution, based on their own experiences at the time.

As the name suggests, they are proletarians. However, they lack any sort of class consciousness, and for various reasons, they argue that it would be extremely hard to reform them. Furthermore, they are very susceptible to becoming tools for reactionaries. Marx and Engels had observed this first and third hand in many occasions.

They've kept the term very vague, but they do define it somewhat sometimes

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.

The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

Alongside ruined roués 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 bohème.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Marx

So these are the main groups of lumpenproletariat, and why they can't be trusted:

  1. The criminals: They are self-serving and greedy to the extreme, and their activities usually involve exploiting other proletarians through threats, violence or deception. If placed inside a movement, they would have no qualms about betraying it by acting as spies, informants or sabboteurs.

  2. Prostitutes, drunkards, beggars, addicts: Poverty or addiction has turned these extremely desperate. Their desperation can be exploited and made to also turn into informants.

  3. On-and-off workers: Meaning workers who work here and there at various jobs without having a steady salary. Very common thing in the 19th century, where people would gather at a particular street, and then bosses would come by, shout they need these many workers for this work and this pay, and then these people would rush to sign up. Extremely exploited, as they would outcompete each other over who will do the most work for the least pay. Due to their desperation, they are often utilized as strikebreakers.

  4. Other people: Who for whatever reason will always be loyal to reactionary forces. In today's terms, that would mean for example an anti-gay Christian conservative in the US, who is dirt poor, but will always support someone like Lindsay Graham, because of his devotion to being anti-gay. If I recall correctly, Marx in a letter referred to retired German soldiers who are conditioned into protecting the upper classes at all costs.

Now, this is a controversial issue, and it's great that you stumbled upon it because, one has to understand that:

a) Marx and Engels lived 200 years ago. Some of their ideas conform more to that time period than to today.

b) You don't have to agree on everything with Marx, as long as you agree with the basics.

Mao, on the other hand, even if he did agree with Marx mostly, he believed it's possible to reform lumpenproletariat, or at least manipulate them, into serving the purposes of the revolution without betraying it.

The important bit:

As you yourself experienced, discussions on the lumpenproletariat usually devolve into arguments about whether or not one should empathize with the lumpenproletariat. This makes people tend to forget whether they should heed Marx's and Engels' warning. I believe 20th century history is rife with examples of why the Lumpenproletariat should not be trusted. Notably:

  • All fascists had a base core of supporters from the lumpenproletariat, who became the most devoted foot soldiers for those regimes.

  • During the cold war, the most anti-communist segment of the western populace was the lumpenproletariat. To the extend where criminal gangs openly colluded with government organizations like the CIA to destroy socialist movements (e.g. The Mafia collaborating with the CIA in Italy and the US).

  • The lumpenproletariat was used extensively to infiltrate leftist parties and break them apart from within. They've also been used as the primary strikebreaking force.

[–] znsh@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

So this is where I do disagree with Marx & Engels. I won't deny the historical significance of what the lumpenproletariat have done. However if people have become lumpenproletariat due to the current social system forcing them to (prostitutes, addicts, homeless people) it starts to seem like we are almost invoking individualism when we say that they are not to be trusted, saying "they lack class conciousness". These people are mostly just trying to survive, they don't care about class conciousness tbh.

I don't think this is true for criminals, but it's definetly not true for prostitutes (who might be part of human trafficking or were pushed into doing it because there is no other way to survive) and homeless people (who might have became homeless because of capitalism or some other exploitation). I think it's important to separate what kind of lumpenproletariat a person is and why they are doing what they are doing in the first place instead of just putting them in the same basket.

[–] burlemarx@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The problem of lumpenproletariat is that it is not a class but basically a very diverse social strata that are among the most victimized in society. So creating an all around solution for the lumpen will always fail, because their needs are diverse, depending on their activity.

So, here is my very shallow analysis of their situation. I think there are many comrades who have actually dealt with lumpen groups have more experience on the actual harms and ways to deal with them. But here it is:

  • Criminals are the easiest to antagonize the working class. They usually control areas where workers live, and usually band together to form groups that act like a usual capitalist business but with the twist that they have absolutely no rules. So, if a worker does not want to subscribe to their internet service, then this worker will be killed and serve to the others as an example. They also introduce narcotics and constant violence in areas where workers live. They also feed their gains into the financial system, as their organization grow and become funders of politicians and fiscal havens.

  • Unemployed and informal workers: these are the people with great potential of breaking strikes of lower skilled workers. Employers will always use the unemployed to fill out the vacant workers roles. However I think the best way to deal with them is to actually provide a safety network for them and maybe create job opportunities for them so they join back the workforce.

  • Drug addicts: these would be part of the unemployed workers, but with the twist that they are usually in the hands of criminals. The problem is that they can be easily manipulated by criminals or reactionary aid networks into betraying the working class. I see no effective way to deal with them unless creating policies and aid networks to take them away from their addiction and re-habilitate them into working class.

  • Sex workers: They could be seen as just other workers which should be organised, with the problem that their bosses are usually criminals. I wouldn't worry much with their potential to directly harm the working class. Their actual issue is that they contribute to increasing capital of criminal factions, which then use their power to coerce and terrorize the working class.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 week ago

I would imagine time spent in current conditions is probably also a weighty factor.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 week ago

💡🗡️That's why USA creates and exploits trauma patterns, including addiction, rather than heal them! 🗡️💡

[–] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Another useful comment!

Now that you defined the different groups of lumpenproletariat, I do wonder how useful they can truly be for revolutionary activities (their desperation could be used by the bourgeoisie more easily due to simply having more capital to pay them to fight the proletariat or have their running-dogs, also known as police, go after them). If it were possible, it would be better to proletarianize them, but I am unsure how that could happen.

Thanks for saying that "it's great that you stumbled across it", because I was not sure if it was a question people would care enough to answer. Honestly, I think that they are a pretty dangerous element of the proletarian population due to the examples you gave, but if only they could be allied with the proletariat ...

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, I'm really glad you asked this question. Living in the hood, I had a nebulous idea I couldn't trust the dboyz and their stables. Now I know to save my breath so I can plant seeds in more fertile soil!

Thank you! 🫡

[–] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"dboyz" and their "stables"? Slang terms I do not know about :0 Also, you are welcome! I hope you are in a better situation right now.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dope boys (drug dealers https://rapdictionary.com/meaning/d-boy/) stables (prostitutes ["fillies," https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/filly but tbh some are 60+, so "nags" https://petreader.net/why-are-horses-called-nags/])

Sorry for so many edits. If you hear any of these terms, above or below, you may be unknowingly witnessing human trafficking.

https://sharedhope.org/the-problem/trafficking-terms/

[–] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well I never heard of these terms before (it is not like I want to research that topic) but thanks for telling me.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, it's not like I knew and planned on finding out. All I can say is, the woo phrase, "rejection is [G-d's] protection," is the honest truth!

Edit: in a way I'm in a better situation. I know what terms actually mean, as opposed to what I thought I knew them to mean.

Learn the terms. The life you save may be your own. And don't say it can't happen to you. All it takes is say, a husband leaving you, while unbeknownst to you, two months behind on rent, so you rent the first place that happens to be available.

[–] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Of course, I will keep what you said in mind. Hope you stay safe!

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 week ago

I'm as safe as it gets. And I'm not trafficked, nor have I been as I'm my own adult (I'm not ready to talk about childhood yet, and don't touch it, ~~in~~ I'm currently on a seven day work week; I've discussed it with my therapist ~~even~~ when I had one). I refused to go into agreement and "keep to the code." Some say it's more dangerous that way. I don't think so.

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Well, the important bit to focus on is that lumpenproletariats lack any sort of class conscioussness, and they can't acquire it due to their experiences and character. That doesn't mean all criminals are lumpenproletariats.

Like another person said, the Black Panthers showed that people typically considered lumpenproletariats by Marx and Engels, could be reformed and made revolutionary. But that's a topic that requires study and discussion.

[–] rentasintorn@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

the Black Panthers showed that people typically considered lumpenproletariats by Marx and Engels.

I don't mean this as a huge criticism of the Black Panthers, but couldn't they be taken as proof that this doesn't work as a strategy? They seem to have had a big issue with infiltrators/informants, which seems to be the expected weakness of organizing within a class that isn't class conscious.

It'd be nice to have a real critical analysis of the BPP. I feel like they had one of the better understandings of conditions in the U$, but I think if their theory was perfect they'd have been successful.

[–] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Hmm, I read about their history on Marxists.org (though I have not read any of the supporting documents) and I think a major problem with the idea of them potentially becoming a general Marxist-Leninist party with a vanguard (if the FBI did not murder each member twice over) was that they did not support the idea of white members of the party; this paints them as a Black liberation group that was reinforced by Marxism-Leninism (alongside Maoism and Juche) rather than a Marxist-Leninist party fighting for all proletarians with Black liberation as one of the issues they were to tackle; the issue here is that a Black liberation party with a Marxist-Leninist spine ends up not focusing on White workers (who I know are beneficiaries of White supremacy, but they are still proletarians) and they suffer the fate of not being able to form a vanguard capable of leading the masses (though their achievements and goals were nothing to scoff at or insult).

It also begs the question of whether or not they allowed bourgeois Black people into the party: if they did permit such people to join, then their argument about white people should have been applied to the bourgeoisie here, so their action would come across as hypocritical; and if they did not, then that means they uphold bizarre purism that skipped practicality (having bourgeoisie means access to resources that would be difficult or impossible to acquire otherwise) for theoretical emphases in more aspects than one, which further proves the point that they were not going to become an all-proletariat Marxist-Leninist party (and they did not seem like they were trying to, which is why I do not blame them for it).

An all-proletarian Marxist-Leninist party would need to represent the proletariat in general (including Whites, but there will definitely be more of color because of how Whites still benefit from White supremacy), and should not exclude pro-communist bourgeoisie from joining (this might be controversial) both due to the practical benefits of having a member of the ruling class with communist goals in mind, though the party should always have the proletariat as their ideological focus.

Though I am still somewhat ignorant of their history, so please correct me if I am wrong please. :>

Edit: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/ is the source.

[–] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

True, being a criminal does not necessarily make you a lumpenproletarian (otherwise the wealthy bourgeoisie committing tax evasion would be lumpenproletarian... if they were actually persecuted). It seems like it specifically includes those at the bottom of society.

[–] demeritum@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Well I mean the black panthers didn't succeed and got destroyed, I wouldn't hold them up as the exemplarities non-ultra.

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Would they consider the lumpenproles the so called reserve army of labor? I’ve always felt that I’ve identified more with being a lumpenprole, seeing as how my employment history has been fraught with random jobs and periods of unemployment.

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Yes, but don't focus on who is in the group. It doesn't matter. The main characteristic is that a lumpenproletariat lacks any sort of class conscioussness.

[–] tamagotchicowboy@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

They can be, generally the reserve army of labor falls under the category of paupers.