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

Ask Lemmygrad

1316 readers
42 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
[–] rentasintorn@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I've skimmed, but I haven't seen this mentioned yet:

My understanding is that the lumpen aren't a revolutionary class because they're morally bad or whatever, but because they don't have power.

The proletariat are revolutionary because of their relationship to the means of production - if they want the machine of capital to stop, it stops.

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

That is an excellent remark.

yeah NEETs can't go on strike