Category Archives: Social Theory

“The Slippery Concept of ‘Lumpenproletariat'” by Dr. Joshua Moufawad-Paul

17 Thu Nov 2016

Posted by in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Imperialism, Critical Theory, Dr. Karl Marx (1818-1883), Free Speech, History of Economic Theory, Marxian Theory (Marxism), Philosophy, Political Economy, Political Science, Social Theory, Sociology, Underclass Debate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

lumpenproletariat_material_hat-p148784260820553134z8rrm_210LUMPENPROLETARIAT—GONZO:  They used to say, if the shoe fits…  Do you possess class consciousness?  I guess, if one has no interest whatever in revolutionary struggle, well, then…

The people’s free/collaborative encyclopedia offers us the following useful definition:

Lumpenproletariat is a term, which was originally coined by Dr. Karl Marx to describe the layer of the working class, which is unlikely ever to achieve class consciousness and is, therefore, lost to socially useful production, of no use to the revolutionary struggle, and, perhaps, even an impediment to the realisation of a classless society.[1] 

Imagine.  How tragic is it to think that any layer of the working class, that any one of us, may be so hopelessly ignorant as to be unlikely ever to achieve class consciousness?  Depending on one’s disposition, perhaps, it’s disappointing enough when one has a measure of class consciousness, but given to political inertia.  With or without class consciousness, we do not lead revolutionary lives.  This seems inevitable in the USA, given our largely uncritical educational standards and hedonistic culture. [1]  So, we draw attention to the lumpenproletariat precisely because of the contentiousness of the debate over its meaning and role for revolutionary struggle and emancipatory transformation.  We need to shake up complacent liberals and uncritical progressives and reactionary proletarians.  Is one revolutionary or counter-revolutionary?  [2]  Is one’s political agency and/or conduct conducive to human emancipation?  Helping us make sense of these philosophical questions, from an MLM perspective, of course, the excellent M-L-M Mayhem! archives offer us some clarity in an article originally published for a popular audience, entitled “The Slippery Concept of ‘Lumpenproletariat’“, by Dr. Joshua Moufawad-Paul (or JMP, as he signs his blog posts). [3]

I may have decided against naming this website Lumpenproletariat had my favourite Marxian theorist, thinker, and colleague (and friend), someone I respect, not given it favourable feedback.  Lumpenproletariat is, indeed, a slippery concept.  It seems Dr. Marx has not written very much about, nor defined very sharply, this socioeconomic class he coined as the lumpenproletariat.  But, as Dr. David Harvey has said, there are things Marx helps us understand; and, then, there are things we’ll have to figure out for ourselves.  At the time, back at the University of Missouri-Kansas City at their heterodox economics department, I had concluded that the lumpenproletariat represented the greatest untapped potential for revolutionary transformation.  This lumpenproletarian seemed best exemplified by the street personality known as Detroit Red, but after expanding his consciousness in prison under the influence of the Nation of Islam, he came to be known as Malcolm X.  This was, to me, a perfect example of the revolutionary potential of the lumpenproletariat.  As Malcolm X evolved and matured beyond the limitations of The Nation of Islam, he came to be known as el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz.  JMP cites “Ali La Pointe“,

the protagonist of Battle of Algiers, who began as a street hustler, was politicized in prison when he realized that the main reason for his imprisonment was his status as colonized, and who eventually became a disciplined cadre because, once given the opportunity, he abandoned his criminal behaviour.

This is not unlike Malcolm X.  Perhaps, we may think of Ernesto “Che” Guevara as a lumpenbourgeoisie turned revolutionary.  But the lumpen are a slippery lot, indeed.

Messina

***

marx_and_engels

Dr. Karl Marx and Mr. Friedrich Engels

M-L-M MAYHEM!—[3 JUN 2012]  Marx and Engels‘ categorization of the lumpenproletariat as a counter-revolutionary class is well-known by those familiar with the term.  In The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx refers to the lumpenproletariat as “the refuse of all classes” and points out how they were connected to reactionary, counter-revolutionary forces in France.  And then there is the famous passage by Engels, in The German Revolutions, that is clear about the class consciousness of the lumpen:

The lumpenproletariat, this scum of the decaying elements of all classes, which establishes headquarters in all the big cities, is the worst of all popular allies.  It is an absolutely venal, an absolutely brazen crew.  If the French workers, in the course of the Revolution, inscribed on the houses: Mort aux voleurs! (Death to the thieves!) and even shot down many, they did it, not out of enthusiasm for property, but because they rightly considered it necessary to hold that band at arm’s length.  Every leader of the workers who utilises these gutter-proletarians as guards or supports, proves himself by this action alone a traitor to the movement.

Aside from these historical assessments and the odd throwaway quote, Marx and Engels did not spend very much time trying to establish a scientific assessement of lumpenproletariat as a class category, as they do with proletariat and bourgeoisie for example, using the concept only in their analysis of historical moments, as a classification for an underclass that consisted of swindlers, gangsters, thieves, and criminal elements in general.  Their “gutter-proletariat” was not in itself a precise class positionality because, at the same time, it was also composed of “the refuse of all classes” or “the decaying elements of all classes.”

If the class categories that Marx and Engels spent a lot of time trying to establish scientifically (proletariat and bourgeois) have led to innumerable confusions and debates, often being reified into essential identities, then the categories they did not spend very much time theorizing, such as lumpenproletariat, are even more historically slippery.  The term is often misapplied, or taken as a universal class category, just as often as it is clumsily reclaimed.

Reclaimed and celebrated with hats even!

I would imagine that Marx, when he was speaking of this disparate underclass, was thinking of the character “Thenardier” in Victor Hugo‘s Les Miserables: a gangster who controlled a band of impoverished thieves––a vicious counter-revolutionary.  Clearly, this type of criminal does exist as a counter-revolutionary force; we only need to think of drug traffickers who have infiltrated and ruined revolutionary movements, sexual predators who lurk around movement circles, thieves who only want to get rich at the expense of other poor victims of capitalism, pimps who profit from the oppression of women.

At the same time, however, we cannot claim that, if we were to define lumpenproletariat as “criminal underclass”, it would be universally counter-revolutionary.  Take, for example, Frantz Fanon‘s discussion of this class in The Wretched of the Earth.  Although Fanon agrees that the criminal underclass composed by the colonized in a settler-colonial society can be counter-revolutionary (and we must remember that the FLN, the group Fanon supported, went to great lengths to stamp out criminal behaviour amongst the colonized), he also argued that they possessed great revolutionary potential.  If they are condemned to an underclass only because colonialism has excluded them from society, Fanon argued, then the colonized criminals possess some conscious understanding of their oppression, marginalization, exclusion––a consciousness that is possibly revolutionary.  Here, we only have to think of the “Ali La Pointe“, the protagonist of Battle of Algiers, who began as a street hustler, was politicized in prison when he realized that the main reason for his imprisonment was his status as colonized, and who eventually became a disciplined cadre because, once given the opportunity, he abandoned his criminal behaviour.

Of course, Fanon never argued that engaging in the sort of “lumpen” activity critiqued by Marx and Engels was universally revolutionary.  While it might not be counter-revolutionary to rob and cheat the colonizer, it was not automatically revolutionary to do so… and it was clearly counter-revolutionary to turn this behaviour upon other colonized peoples.  Unfortunately, however, there have been various attempts to argue that this sort of criminal behaviour, since the very concept of “crime” in capitalism is based on bourgeois law and because cops are pigs, that such lumpen activity is essentially revolutionary.  Assuming that this sort of behaviour is revolutionary, when it is so often performed out of selfishness and at the expense of the proletarian in general, is extremely utopian: the Thenardier-style gang chooses the easiest targets, the already-existing victims of bourgeois society rather than bourgeois society itself, and thrives through its parasitism.  Gangsters, the mob, pimps, street hustlers: these illegal vocations, though themselves symptoms of bourgeois law, are not revolutionary.

What I find more troubling than these utopian attempts to reclaim lumpenproletariat are the hasty generalizations of this concept across entire sectors of the population that are used to dismiss those who might not easily fit into a neat definition of proletariat.  For there are those who, by defining the proletariat as only the “industrial working class”, will imagine that this working class’ underclass must be the lumpenproletariat despised by Marx and Engels.  According to this slipshod definition of lumpenproletariat, impoverished colonized people, migrant workers, contingent labour, sex workers, the entire jobless and desperate poor––basically any worker or out-of-work worker who is not a member of some Platonic industrial working class––is part of the lumpen.  Thus, anyone who seeks to organize this supposed “underclass” is a lumpen organization.

Such a definition of the concept, however, is little more than a mindless dogmatic adherence to one of Marx and Engels least theorized class categories––as the regular reader will be aware, I have little patience for this religious form of marxism.  It also ignores, especially when it categorizes contingent workers and homeless populations as lumpenproletariat, much of what Marx said about the proletariat in Capital that contradicts this spurious definition of “lumpen politics”.  Take, for example, Marx’s concept of the “reserve army of labour” that is a key component for the composition of the proletariat as an exploited class:

The labouring population therefore produces, along with the accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by which it itself is made relatively superfluous, is turned into a relatively surplus-population; and it does this to an always increasing extent… But if a surplus labouring population is a necessary product of accumulation or of the development of wealth on a capitalist basis, this surplus-population becomes, conversely, the lever of capitalist accumulation, nay a condition of existence of the capitalist mode of production. It forms a disposable industrial reserve army, that belongs to capital quite as absolutely as if the latter had bred it at its own cost.  Independently of the limits of the actual increase of population, it creates, for the changing needs of the self-expansion of capital, a mass of human material always ready for exploitation. (Marx, Capital vol. 1, chapter xxv, section 3, emphasis added)

And it is not difficult to recognize that a large portion of this reserve army will dabble in supposedly lumpen activities––petty theft to get more money and things, drug abuse because it’s shitty to be jobless––just as exploited workers have engaged in similar activities due to their frustration and exploitation.  Indeed, it would make no sense to claim that this disparate population that often engages in criminality is Marx and Engels’ lumpenproletariat considering the current trend of labour casualization at the centres of capitalism where there is an attempt to push every worker back into contingency (a reality for workers everywhere else in the world) and thus more like the working class that Marx had in mind when he was writing Capital and never thought of as the same as his concept of the lumpenproletariat.  That “mass of human material always ready for exploitation” is not at all the same as “gutter-proletarians”; the former is essential to Marx’s concept of the proletarian, the latter is a vague definition belonging to various non-rigorous statements that seems more to be about a class consciousness than a concrete class position.

Moreover, we need to recognize that––along with, and not mutually exclusive to, the reserve army the reserve army of labour––there is a massive working “underclass” upon which the existence of the supposedly “proper” proletariat rests.  The now trade unionized working class, the predominantly white and first world working class, depends on the more exploited labour of this working underclass.  The latter outnumbers the former, both abroad and at home, just as the former’s wages are dependent on the labour of the latter.  And if this is a fact, though it may also be a fact that contingency is becoming more widespread, then this supposed “underclass” has more of a legitimate claim to the title of proletariat than this traditional sector.

What really seems to be the problem with this spurious and rigid definition of lumpenproletariat is the fear, amongst some marxists, of being unrespectable.  That is, it is far better to associate with the respectable members of the “proper” working class (i.e. unionized workers) then this supposed “lumpen” who are sometimes desperate, criminal, and frightening.  These types of “communists” would run screaming from the working class of Marx’s day, then, and probably define them as lumpen as well even though Marx and Engels did not.  Terrified by some supposed lumpen politics, these marxists embrace bourgeois respectability, hiding amongst a petty-bourgeoisified class that they imagine is the proletariat.

Clearly, a certain type of criminality is a problem for any revolutionary organization: stealing from other members of the proletariat, endangering the movement unnecessarily, putting comrades at risk through drug abuse––all these are issues of discipline that any properly revolutionary organization, from the days of Marx and Engels, has had to deal with.  At the same time, though, there is the type of criminality, wrongly called “lumpen” by those marxists who seek respectability, that is actually the proper and militant behaviour required of a communist.  The claim that criminal dissent is lumpen behaviour is becoming less and less tenable now that the sphere of criminality drawn around dissent is widening.

Those who speak negatively about lumpen behaviour and lumpen organizations, then, do not realize that their anxiety about this supposed counter-revolutionary problem really only exists to mask the actual counter-revolutionary problem: that they themselves, in their pursuit of petty bourgeois respectability (a problem that so many of us, including myself, face), are the ones who are actually courting counter-revolution.  Thus, the danger at the centres of capitalism is not the lumpenization of a movement, or lumpen communist organizations that do not (no matter what some groups might claim) exist, but the very real and existant fact of petty-bourgeois consciousness.

 

View comments

  1. i suggest you read hal draper’s section in vol 2 of karl marx’s theory of revolution. the lumpen is a definite social group, not consciousness, which is reactionary. you are right, however, in saying that many times the concept is used too loosely to describe itinerant or marginalised work.
    the lumpen are actually the ‘refuse of all classes’, those people who have dropped out or fallen out from the social structure and are not longer integral to it, serve no purpose within it except to be parasitic on it. it is not a moral category, and includes certain ‘working’ lumpens such as tinkers, organ grinders, prostitutes, day laborers (the kind of person who works an odd, random job for a meal but doesn’t contribute to the labor process overall or generates value) as well as more parasitic and victimising elements such as tricksters, gamblers, racketeers. It also includes upper class elements (lumpen bourgeos or lumpen aristocracy), such as bohemians, gamblers, certain pimps etc
    Of course, it is not a matter of profession or criminality. a prostitute who works in a giant brothel with many others is functionally working class. a prostitute who roams the streets alone is lumpen. an actor as part of a touring crew or movie set is working class, a street performer working for spare change is lumpen. a drug plantation owner moving thousands of pounds of cocaine is bourgeois, the petty dealer selling out of their car is lumpen.
    the essence of it is they are not part of society functionally speaking. and this is what makes the lumpen counterrevolutionary, for they have no concept of the social, an individualistic life process, and are for that reason easily bought out by reactionary forces. marx provides a wealth of evidence to support this in his writings, suggesting he did think of them as a definite social category.

    ReplyDelete

    0Replies

  2. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I do not find Draper’s analysis convincing or even half-ways scientific––as with most of Draper’s work, it is rather unremarkable and divorced from practice. My point is not that the lumpenproletariat should be defined as a “consciousness” only that it is not a scientific concept and those like Draper who would suggest otherwise is simply an attempt to take the claim “refuse of all classes” to mean something scientific, and load it up with empirical data, aren’t doing a very good job. Take, for example, all of the analyses of the lumpenproletariat that were happening before, during, and after Draper in his social context that he is largely ignorant of. What of the importance placed on this concept, loaded up with much the same categories of people, by black nationalists and the new communist movement? There was something more substantial there even if it also failed to produce a fully scientific concept. What of Fanon’s analysis of the lumpen in the context of colonialism of which Draper was largely ignorant? Or later Gunder Frank’s conceptualization of lumpenbourgeoisie? Why you think I was claiming it was a moral category, though, is strange. An approach to this category, either rightly or wrongly (and always messily), may indeed communicate to an ethical practice, but how this makes it a “moral category” is implicature.

[End of blog post; only the aqua-coloured embedded web-links above were originally included by the author; red-coloured web-links were included by Lumpenproletariat to aid understanding and encourage further reading.]

Learn more at M-L-M MAYHEM!.

***

[1]  Of course, all of this is assuming the validity of the premise of class consciousness, which views the working class as a class for itself, which self-aware of the class dimensions of our lives and orientates its political theory, such that it becomes organised in active pursuit of its own interests.

[2]  Interestingly, the Marxian term lumpenproletariat is being ‘reclaimed’, sometimes clumsily, as Dr. Moufawad-Paul comments, and as exemplified by the ‘Lumpenproletariat material’ hedonist baseball cap.

In Chicago, interestingly, Lumpen.com states that they have been:  “Operating a Front for The Left in the Arts since 1991”.  This apparently Marxian website is a project of the Public Media Institute, a “non-profit 501(c) 3, community based, art & culture organization located in the  neighborhood of Bridgeport in the city of Chicago.  Lumpen.com is to be commended that they emphasise “gentrification, development and revitalization in our communities” through a cultural perspective, which employs a Marxian language.  But it’s uncertain whether their ‘reclaiming’ of the lumpen terminology fully understands the actual concept they are employing.

[3]  Coming soon to Lumpenproletariat, we’ll discuss the concept behind the neologism[1] lumpenbourgeoisie, which is a term often attributed to Andre Gunder Frank in 1972[1][2] [a] (although the term is already present in Paul Baran‘s The Political Economy of Growth from 1957) to describe a type of a middle class[1] and upper class[3] (merchants, lawyers, industrialists, etc.);[4] one who has little collective self-awareness or economic base[1] and who supports the colonial masters.[1][3] The term is most often used in the context of Latin America.[2][4]

***

[Image entitled “Marx and Engels” by the original uploader Σ at English Wikipedia – Transferred from Wikipedia to Commons (Public Domain). 

[17 NOV 2016]

[Last modified at 19:18 PDT on 19 NOV 2016]

Save

The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966) by Dr. Peter L. Berger and Dr. Thomas Luckmann

09 Sun Oct 2016

Posted by in History of Economic Theory, Political Economy, Science, Social Theory, Sociology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

the_social_construction_of_reality_first_editionLUMPENPROLETARIAT—Within the realm of social science, economics, and the discipline of economic theory, there are those economists of the institutionalist variety.  They are an interesting lot.  Veblen is one our favourites, as are others who came afterward.

The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966) by Dr. Peter L. Berger and Dr. Thomas Luckmann, is one contribution, which deserves our attention.  Read on. [1]

Messina

***

[1]  The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966) by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, Anchor (11 JUL 1967) ISBN-10: 0385058985  ISBN-13: 978-0385058988

Amazon [accessed 9 OCT 2016]:  This book reformulates the sociological subdiscipline known as the sociology of knowledge.  Knowledge is presented as more than ideology, including as well false consciousness, propaganda, science, and art.

Wikipedia [accessed 11 OCT 2016]:  The sociology of knowledge is the study of the relationship between human thought and the social context within which it arises, and of the effects, which prevailing ideas have on societies.  It is not a specialised area of sociology but, instead, deals with broad fundamental questions about the extent and limits of social influences on individuals’ lives and the social-cultural basics of our knowledge about the world.[1]  Complementary to the sociology of knowledge is the sociology of ignorance,[2] including the study of nescience, ignorance, knowledge gaps, or non-knowledge as inherent features of knowledge making.[3][4][5]

The sociology of knowledge was pioneered primarily by the sociologist Émile Durkheim at the beginning of the 20th century.  His work deals directly with how conceptual thought, language, and logic could be influenced by the sociological milieu out of which they arise.  In an early work co-written with Marcel Mauss, Primitive Classification, Durkheim and Mauss take a study of “primitive” group mythology to argue that systems of classification are collectively based, and that the divisions [among] these systems are derived from social categories.[6]  Later, Durkheim in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life would elaborate his theory of knowledge, examining how language and the concepts and categories (such as space and time) used in logical thought have a sociological origin.  While neither Durkheim, nor Mauss, specifically coined nor used the term ‘sociology of knowledge‘, their work is an important first contribution to the field.

The specific term ‘sociology of knowledge‘ is said to have been in widespread use since the 1920s, when a number of German-speaking sociologists, most notably Max Scheler and Karl Mannheim, wrote extensively on sociological aspects of knowledge.[7]  With the dominance of functionalism through the middle years of the 20th century, the sociology of knowledge tended to remain on the periphery of mainstream sociological thought.  It was largely reinvented and applied much more closely to everyday life in the 1960s, particularly by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann in The Social Construction of Reality (1966) and is still central for methods dealing with qualitative understanding of human society (compare socially constructed reality).  The ‘genealogical’ and ‘archaeological’ studies of Michel Foucault are of considerable contemporary influence.

Learn more at THE PEOPLE’S FREE SPEECH ENCYCLOPEDIA.

***

[9 OCT 2016]

[Last modified  09:36 PDT  11 OCT 2016]

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save