this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
145 points (98.0% liked)
Slop.
459 readers
600 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As Marx wrote in the Manifesto about it, "The -dangerous class, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue."
NEETs being mostly very reactionary shouldn't be very surprising with this historical trend and the lack of actual socializing possible with others. Of course this is not always true and there are many exceptions to this but it just reminded me of Marx's comments on the matter.
One thing to point out is that Huey Newton wanted to think of ways to radicalize the lumpenproletariat.
I’ve been lumpenized and I see it as one of porky’s most nuanced devices of social murder. Nothing causes a crash out quite like society explicitly telling you “Fuck off, we neither want nor need you. Go starve on the streets.”
Yes, the Black Panthers were one of the groups I was thinking of the times when it isn’t true. I believe they were one of the earlier movements in the US to see the lumpenproletariat as having revolutionary potential
Which I believe was influenced by Fanon’s arguments on the matter in a more anti-colonial context
Which, critically, was a critique developed outside the norms of British or Euro middle class moralism.
I've always wondered, what are the exact mechanisms that turn the lumpen reactionary?
The total alienation. The condition that gives an organized prole their potential to seize the means, that being the socialization of labor, is by definition something that the lumpenproles are alienated from. Imagine trying to do a socialist revolution based on the ideals of /r/antiwork: it's untenable! You simply must take advantage of the social forces of production and how they organically bring workers together under a common interest; scattered oppressed people by themselves are a hard surface to build a parallel power structure and a dictatorship of the proletariat off of.
jokerfication and nihilism, as well as crime
Lumpen includes criminals, the “classical” sex worker and the homeless. They are very easily bribeable and have internalized classism.
The point here is that there is no banner you can organize these people around. You can perfectly see the truth of the latter part of this statement in how most of the people who voted for Trump voted utterly against their own material interests, but still think they are in the right to have done so because the world will burn while they can watch everyone being dragged down to their level.
Hyperbolically stated, of course. There was in Marxes day no real way to reach people that weren't working with a message about shared ownership of the productive forces and that's not really changed in 2025. It is actually one of the biggest problems facing socialists today.
Though it's interesting how the left has historically been pretty active among students who also haven't been in the workforce.
Education does that. But also, education is always framed in the context of "you're learning this do that it can be applied in the workforce later", which I would say is a pretty direct tie to the workforce
As well as the fact students aren’t isolated in the same way lumpenproletariat are so they may be less reactionary due to social connections and exposure to differing worldviews
Historically it's often been the case that students drank at the same bars as working people and poor tradesmen. Students, whatever their family means, were often cash poor and had to stay wherever they could find cheap lodgings, which often meant in the middle of working class neighborhoods. And there have been plenty of students throughout history who worked until they could afford tuition, went to school until they ran out of money, then went back to work for however long before seeking employment.
Universities are also frequently located in cities that are large, important, or both. So there's a couple of reasons they'd be in close communication with working people.
True, but you can reach students en masse at the place they are learning.
I'm not sure if you're joking, but either way there's a lot that could be said here.
It's not that Marx hates the poors, which is a bit absurd to accuse him of, but I do think his class analysis of the lumpen is somewhat misguided, and this error is still commonly made by leftists to this day*. Part of the problem is using lumpenproletariat as a catch-all class for people who subsist without participating in productive labor. Within that category there are so many different ways that people might relate to production, meaning there can be huge differences in their class character, hence it being imo problematic to call the lumpenproletariat a class at all. But even if we do, maybe we shouldn't be lumping all NEETs in with the lumpen.
For example, a NEET who chooses to be NEET because they have a rich (bourgeois or labor aristocracy) family that takes care of all of their needs is going to have significantly different class interests compared to say someone who has lived in destitution most of their life and is forced to turn to pickpocketing, prostitution, or selling drugs in order to survive (the latter few being traditional examples of lumpenproletariat). There are other conditions that can produce NEETS who would have class characteristics more like those traditional lumpen examples or even that of regular proletariat, like people who are barely able to subsist on disability, and have little choice but to live like hermits. In other words, NEETs can be all over the place as far as actual class character, but then again, so can any lumpen.
(*In the linked thread, OP @Frank@hexbear.net was correct. When I said there is an error that leftists make to this day, I am referring to many of the responses he got.)
lumpenproles aren't simply "the poors". It's the criminal class, the gamblers, the pimps, the mafia. These people are reactionary, it's a fact. You can just observe it, it's not controversial. These people do more damage to the working poor than almost anyone else, in terms of day-to-day suffering they cause.
I thought things like the disabled, beggars, and sex workers were also included in lumpenproles.
Beggars and sex workers are criminalized, so they are members of the criminal class
This. The "Criminal Class" is a bougie Victorian social construction meant to weaponize Calvinist moralism. It has no place in any modern understanding of the social landscape. There is no criminal class, there are groups of marginalized people whose existence is made criminal by the state. And most of them work for cash wages.
I think I understood what you said. Why are gamblers considered reactionary, though? Arent they more victims of their potential addiction? (I'm not a gambler Ive played slots maybe two or three times, but that's it.) I've always considered most gamblers to be people who suffer from possible addiction. The few who are lucky enough to get out of it with money are so rare that they don’t really change my view on the issue.
I'm very open to changing my mind, though. I haven’t really engaged with gambling culture or its problems at all, to be honest.
Gamblers as in the mafia running gambling games, i.e. those who make money off gambling. No one can really do gambling as their profession unless they own the house.
It's because the whole concept of a "Criminal class" is the result of middle class English Protestants trying to create a framework for understanding society that conformed to their religious worldview ie God loves rich people because God made rich people morally good and hates poor people because he made poor people morally depraved. Communists who still cling to the idea of a "Lumpen" just flipped "God made rich people good" for "God made working people good" while retaining the morality and moralizing of British middle class white society of the 1890s.
It has no basis in sociology, anthropology, medicine, or science generally.