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

I think considering the immiseration of people at the time and the utter lack of social mobility/class rigidity it would be a lot harder and far more difficult to convince people of "lumpen" character towards class consciousness even if they are educated. People made a significant living exploiting people especially in America if you take a look at the medicine industry at the time of Marx & Engel's writing. Engel describes the working class in England; putting myself in the shoes of a prole at that time, why would I not want to consider crime especially if it puts food on my table compared to a life of slaving away for pennies in a warehouse or mill somewhere where I'd be exposed to socialist thought? Further more, people had far different ideals on morality and criminal nature then. In general, the kind of life you lived and occupation you had very, very much so determined the circle around you. People weren't as alienated yet.

Things to think about in that regard, these are the first thoughts in my mind when I read the post.