57
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
57 points (88.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13551 readers
738 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Can anyone give me a sensible definition of lumpenprole?
I thought they were an impoverished poor people, kept in a similar, if not worse position to that of the proletariat, who happens to not include themselves in, as regular, sanctioned working wage labor of capitalism e.t.c, such as people of no houses and its resulting petty criminals and prostitutes?
Now it includes the mafia and opera singers?
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
Don't take seriously people who refuse to read theory and instead reinvent new definitions for terms based on posting and vibes. English language social media is not actually the bleeding edge of development for proletarian revolutionary theory.
From the Mao link on that page:
This is more optimistic about their revolutionary potential than Marx, but it still has significant reservations ("but apt to be destructive"). A footnote from the editor adds:
Homeless people, sex workers, unemployed people, petty drug dealers, and disabled people are a passively rotting mass with no class consciousness and no revolutionary potential.
Listen to yourself. Read your own definition out loud and listen to yourself.
It's the twenty first century. Falling back on the form of a scientific theory as it existed over a century ago and either dismissing or never even considering the vast amount of additional data we have avilable and the drastically different nature of the experiment is silly. The whole point of marxism as a scientific discipline is that if available evidence changes the theory can be brought up to date to better model the observable world. The social sciences have undergone enormous development since the 1960s and that development has given us tools to better understand the economic relationship of traditionally dismissed and reviled groups within the working class to capital. Marx was writing in a period where the tools of the social sciences were very crude to the point of near uselessness and his theory, and personal beliefs, reflect that. Dogmatically throwing up a definition of class developed in the 1860s using the very crudest tools of sociology and anthropology, in the face of 160 years of further development that has completely overthrown the notion of a depoliticized mess of dirty, icky undesirables, is the height of sillyness. Dalits are organizing. Burakumin are organizing. The role of unemployed tramps given ax handles and a shot of whisky and told to go crush a strike has been replaced by professional police, military, and intelligence agencies. Drug cartels and such organized crime as still exists are deeply integrated in to the state and often constitute quasi-states in their own right.
Where is this passively rotting mass in 2024? Show me this class of people who do not relate to productive capital, who are cast out from the proletariat, who have no revolutionary potential? I demand to see proof of their existence.
Listen dude, you can't just make up your own words, tell me they're my words, then ask me to read them to myself. It's fine if you're having trouble understanding Marx. You wouldn't be the first. You could adopt the smallest measure of humility, then read and study more to try to understand the context in which the words were written. You could also stop at the first challenging excerpt of an entry-level Marxist text and substitute your own alternative theoretical economic and political system that you've cobbled together from vibes and social media posts. You'd certainly have plenty of company/competition in the imperial Anglophone "left" doing the latter.
Cool story.