[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


File: 1746741967766.png (168.83 KB, 890x538, ClipboardImage.png)

 

What is a lumpen (how is it defined), and what is it good for (what can they do to help).

>From whore to pope, there is a mass of such rabble. But the honest and ‘working’ lumpenproletariat belongs here as well; e.g. the great mob of porters etc. who render service in seaport cities etc.

>People who have passed the normal age of the labourer; the victims of industry.
>Pauperism is the hospital of the active labour-army and the dead weight of the industrial reserve army.
>In short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème
<Think its roughly anyone not "integrated" or marginally "integrated" into the mode of production, this includes the precarious: old, broken, beggars (including beggar children), but also criminals, and bohemians.
<The lumpenproletariat also seems to include precarious contract-workers, as being sufficiently marginal.
<This is just by having the notion of 'working' lumpenproletariate and identifying them with porters.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch05.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch05.htm

Lumpe today is called "underclass", usually low I.Q, have drug problems, high impulsivity, highly promiscuous, have plenty of tattoos on the body, don't have much education(Rule 12 - low-quality reactionary content)

Lumpen == Chuds
Face it.
It's true and it's over.

>>2259383
>>2259401
Brutal, some of the quotes mentioned seem to draw out a picture of lumpens as a much more diverse group ranging from wealthy bohemians (maybe grifters today), to the broken, old, and sick, to the itinerant-worker, and yes, of course the criminal too. It seems there's an over emphasis on the criminal for whatever reason however, even in the works of Marx.

>>2259401
>>2259401
Chuds usually don't have plenty of sex and aren't that low I.Q, they aren't genius, more like classic midwits, the classic Lump has plenty of sex and pump out 10 kids with 10 different women or man

I'll bite
What's a Ltsmryeiryaolyetdyaidt

>>2259409
Chuds are lumpen. There is no point denying this fundamental truth. Also, plenty of chuds I know have sex. The girls may be autistic, but hey. Sex is sex.

>>2259447
How a chud lumpem? Unless you count a NEET basement dweller 30 something chud as lumpen, then you're right, I don't see a dude having sex and working as a Chud, those type are terminally online and don't have a actual lived experience life.

>>2259401
chuds can be employed into wage labor
>>2259409
what does this have to do with what is outlined in the OP?

>>2259409
>>2259473
>right wing people don't have sex or go outside
this is cope

>>2259544
Agreed.

>>2259473
The characterization of "chuds" as lumpenproletariat (lumpen) can be examined through a multifaceted lens that incorporates Marxist theory, cultural analysis of online communities like 4chan, and conspiracy theories surrounding "glowie" operations and deep state psyops aimed at maintaining capitalism. In Marxist theory, the lumpenproletariat refers to the marginalized, often destitute segments of society who are disconnected from productive labor and revolutionary potential. These individuals are seen as socially excluded, economically disenfranchised, and prone to reactionary or anti-establishment behavior. The term "chud" — a slang pejorative often used to describe certain reactionary or anti-elite figures online — can be viewed as a modern manifestation of lumpen characteristics, especially when considering their social positioning, ideological stance, and cultural behaviors.

>Marxist Theory of Alienation and the Lumpenproletariat


Marx's theory of alienation posits that workers in a capitalist system become estranged from their labor, the products they produce, themselves, and their fellow humans. This alienation results from the commodification of labor, where human activity is reduced to mere exchange value. The lumpenproletariat, in this framework, often exists on the fringes of this system, either because they are excluded from formal employment or because their labor is devalued and marginalized. They may be engaged in informal or illicit economies, making them more susceptible to manipulation by ruling class interests. Examples of activities that chuds involve themselves with include crypto-scams, money laundering, call center scams, assassinations for hire, biological weapons development, nuclear weapons proliferation and worst of all - memetic warfare of mass destruction.

Chuds, as perceived in some online narratives, often embody this alienated condition. They may be disconnected from productive labor, instead engaging in fringe online communities, conspiracy theories, and reactionary politics. Their alienation manifests in a sense of disconnection from mainstream social, political, and economic narratives, which they often challenge or reject. This alienation can lead to a sense of helplessness or resentment, fueling their identification with radical or reactionary ideologies that oppose the perceived decadence or corruption of elite institutions.

>4chan Culture and the Formation of Chuds as Lumpen


4chan, an anonymous imageboard founded in 2003, has become a hub for internet subcultures, memes, and sometimes toxic communities. Its culture is characterized by irreverence, hostility towards authority, and a penchant for trolling and shock value. Many of the individuals who participate in 4chan's more reactionary or conspiracy-oriented boards develop a distinct worldview that emphasizes anti-establishment sentiment, often rooted in a nihilistic or dystopian outlook.

Within this environment, chud figures often emerge as archetypes representing reactionary, anti-elite sentiment, and sometimes racist, sexist, or xenophobic attitudes. Their behaviors and attitudes reflect a sense of alienation from mainstream society, which they view as corrupt, degenerate, or controlled by unseen elites. The culture fosters a sense of camaraderie among those who feel marginalized or alienated, often reinforcing conspiracy theories about government, global elites, or deep state operations which as we all know as good obedient cuckolds, do not exist. These communities serve as echo chambers where disaffected individuals reinforce their outsider status and adopt an adversarial stance towards societal norms, further entrenching their status as lumpen elements disconnected from productive societal roles.

>Glowops, the Deep State, and Psyops


Operations utilizing glowies (informants or government agents embedded within online communities) and psychological operations suggest that certain online groups, including chuds, are targeted or manipulated by covert agencies aiming to destabilize or demoralize the population. The deep state employs psychological operations (psyops) to sow discord, spread disinformation, and prevent social or political revolution by dividing and confusing the populace.

From this perspective, chuds may be viewed as unwitting or conscious pawns in these operations, serving as tools to perpetuate chaos, reinforce division, and demoralize those who might oppose capitalism or the existing social order. The proliferation of conspiracy theories about government infiltration, mass mind control, and cultural engineering aligns with the idea that some online communities are targeted by covert operations designed to deepen alienation and foster reactionary sentiments. The goal of such psyops is to maintain the status quo by diverting disaffected individuals away from revolutionary organizing and into nihilistic or reactionary online subcultures—precisely where chuds are often found.

>The Capitalist Demoralization and Maintenance of Power


The overarching aim of these operations, is to support the capitalist system by demoralizing individuals, undermining collective action, and promoting individual nihilism. This aligns with the Marxian view that capitalism relies on the suppression of revolutionary consciousness. By fostering a culture of alienation, disinformation, and reactionary ideology, ruling elites can prevent the emergence of a unified working class capable of challenging capitalist hegemony.

Chuds, as lumpen elements, exemplify this phenomenon. Their alienation from productive labor, coupled with exposure to conspiracy narratives and reactionary ideology, makes them susceptible to manipulation. They often embrace anti-elite sentiments but lack the organization or consciousness necessary for revolutionary change. Instead, they become pawns in a larger game designed to perpetuate division and prevent collective action that could threaten capitalism's dominance.

>Tldr Conclusion


In sum, the classification of chuds as lumpenproletariat is rooted in their social marginalization, alienation, and engagement with reactionary, conspiracy-driven online cultures. They embody the alienated, disconnected segments of society that are vulnerable to manipulation and serve as a buffer against revolutionary change. The influence of 4chan culture, glowops and psyops further reinforce their role as pawns in a broader strategy to demoralize and divide the working class, thereby maintaining the capitalist system. These elements create a complex web where marginalized, alienated individuals are weaponized—consciously or unconsciously—by ruling interests to sustain the dominance of financial capital and the primacy of private property, thus mitigating revolutionary potential.

Lumpens are layers that fall outside the main class antagonism between capital and labor; they often function as a socially unstable reserve force that can be drawn in either toward revolution or reaction, depending on the leadership and conditions.

>>2259578
what about all of the chuds in various employee, management, and ownership positions?
also stop using chat gpt

>>2259597
>can be drawn either toward revolution or reaction, depending on the leadership and conditions.
Couldn't this be equally true for the proletariat and even sections of the petty-bourgeoisie?

Guess judging by the fun-posting this is all pretty old news.

>>2259383
>>2259401
Proles who don't participate in production are mostly kids and elderly. Bums and thieves are tiny minority of this class.

>>2259630
I didnt use ChatGpt but the first thing that came up when i typed
"Text chat ai free no royalties no virus"
Surprisingly it answered the way I would answer.

>>2259383
what does any of that have to do with their relation to the means of production?

>>2259371
Its important to consider why the distinction, for Marx lumpen couldn't be trusted to be revolutionary because they would sell out the cause for their immediate self interest, but to the Black Panther Party the lumpen were the revolutionary subject in imperial America.

Its worth considering if contract and gig workers might be more revolutionary than regular proles in certain contexts, if you are organizing in San Fransisco would you target union efforts at UberEats or FAANG employees?

>>2259371
>What is a lumpen (how is it defined),
Non-owning class not participating in production of commodities.
> and what is it good for (what can they do to help).
They have time and energy to read theory and participate in orgs. At least in my country all of our communist parties are full of stalinist pensioners. There are young people too but not too many middle aged as they have work and kids to take care of.

>>2259383
Not sure if /pol/ with idpol brainrot about deg.enerates.

Lots of vulgar materialism in this thread.

>>2259371
>What is a lumpen (how is it defined), and what is it good for
Anyone who gains their livelihood through neither gainful employment nor through bourgeois ownership of capital. Basically a criminal, although not always imo. I think a neet qualifies, as does a beggar, or a sugar baby or etc. Neither prole nor bourgeois.

>>2260040
> but to the Black Panther Party the lumpen were the revolutionary subject in imperial America
And they were wrong and they shoulda read Marx LMAO. He warned them about the fucking stairs bro.

>>2260162
Its mostly kids, neets and elderly who live on handouts. This focus on criminals is not constructive when analyzing this class as they are so tiny minority compared to groups I mentioned.

>>2260165
Well that is mostly what Marx was referring to because gibs weren't so plentiful in his time.

>>2260166
Completely agree on this one. Welfare wasnt a thing in the 19th century outside of church charity.

>>2260165
And who gives a fuck about retirment home dwellers, they are irellevant to all discussions about the future because they have none lol.

>>2260170
Old people have experience and millions of pages read theory they can share with younger comrades. Their stake is their grandchildren and what world they will leave to them. Its also funny when old people are more radical than younger generation.

was wondering why this thread is so shit then I realized that it was glowanon's idea

I have to be honest and say that I wish to stay lumpen as long as possible

>>2260040
>they would sell out the cause for their immediate self interest

WAIT A MINUTE.
ARE YOU SEEING WHAT I'M SEEING???
FORGET CHUDS

THE REAL LUMPEN ARE

incels

I mean think about it, if you satisfy their desires, they would just settle down and stop being revolutionary.

Holy shit

WE NEED TO RECRUIT INCELS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT FIGURES OUT HOW TO PACIFY OUR DEAR LUMPEN INCELS!!!

>>2260049
Nice infographic. I wish it would show all that but in relation to socially necessary labor time.

>>2260190
Agreed, Oldfags need to be hired as advisors.
>If youth had the experience
>If old age had energy
Why not both? One struggle.

>The lumpenproletariat also seems to include precarious contract-workers, as being sufficiently marginal.
>This is just by having the notion of 'working' lumpenproletariate and identifying them with porters.
So what is the key separation from this into industrial proletariat? A wage?
And from industrial proletariat to labor aristocracy? Benefits from labor union bureaucrat-reformism?

>>2260040
>to the Black Panther Party the lumpen were the revolutionary subject in imperial America.
Am surprised no one has mentioned Fred Hampton yet.

>>2260049
>They have time and energy to read theory and participate in orgs. At least in my country all of our communist parties are full of stalinist pensioners. There are young people too but not too many middle aged as they have work and kids to take care of.
Good!

>>2260373
This seems to be the case. Lumpen seem to be defined simply by the fact that they haven't a consistent relation to the means of production. Am not sure that labor-aristocracy is actually a class, actually a relation to the means of production at all. Think rather the labor-aristocracy is simply part of the proletariat.

Lumpenproletariat is something of a variable category, but it generally refers to those who don’t own the means of production who are nevertheless allied against the proletariat. This can range from criminal scum, homeless dregs, queers who have splurged all their money, and others whose existence is sustained by leeching off the productive members of society. They are the first opposition the proletariat faces to reclaiming dignity, and are frequently the frontline storm troopers used by terroristic manifestations of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which today largely consists of “antifa” and other assorted thugs

>>2260428
>actually a relation to the means of production at all. Think rather the labor-aristocracy is simply part of the proletariat.
Aren't they all simply stratas of the working class?

>>2260441
>Aren't they all simply stratas of the working class?
Am not sure the exact definition of working class. It seems that at minimum large parts of every other class but the proletariat are not working, and especially not working as wage-laborers without ownership of their own means of production. So certainly wouldn't consider them to have the same relation to the means of production, and almost certainly not to all to be stratas of the working class.

>>2259404
> It seems there's an over emphasis on the criminal for whatever reason however
That's because "Lumpen" can mean "rags" and "clothes with a lot of holes" but also "vile person", "liar", "cutthroat", "gangster" etc. in German. When you'd say "du Lump" to a person you would do it because he lied to you or about you, betrayed or took advantage of you, intentionally hurt or did something very bad to you, insulted you or your loved ones in a particularly vile, vulgar or obscene manner.

>>2260507
This is good to know. The conventional meaning is just overpowering the technical jargon.

Lumpen means "rag" in German. If you translate it literally, it means "the proletariat in rags". It's that easy. It never had a clear-cut definition AFAIK, but it basically means people like criminals and beggars, people who aren't bourgeois but not part of the respectable civil society.
When I see hot takes like "incels are lumpen", I want to take you for a ride in the hood to buy drugs, and you nerds might finally understand what is a "proletariat in rags" (the men mostly wear cheap sportswear these days, and the women have counterfeit Gucci bags, they aren't always literally in rags)

>>2260507
I didn't see this post before I posted, but that's exactly it. Basically the kind of person who will steal your car stereo.
The thread can stop here.

>>2260507
Would be fine with the thread stopping but ignoring the old, sick, and beggars or even the bohemians (to the extent to which they still exist) hardly seems fair.

>>2260553
The problem is that people then want to include everyone they don't like and their mothers into the lumpenproletariat, sometimes including people who are bourgeois or normal workers.
For example, someone in the thread said chuds are lumpenproles, but chuds can have a normal respectable job, or even be rich and be part of the bourgeoisie while still being unlikeable people.
Marx tried to do serious sociology before sociology was even a thing (>inb4 we start debating about the meaning of Wissenschaft, another thing I hate), not just say "these people are le bad!!!".
I don't think Marx and Engels ever gave a serious definition of "Lumpenproletariat", for them, the use of "Lump" in the German sense was evident, because they were Germans. Words have a meaning, and it's better to not stray away too far from their original meaning, otherwise you better have a very spicy take to back that up.

In a sense, it's funny people are doing this "what is a lumpen?" thing while they are never doing it with "nouveau riche" for example.
Everybody has a clear idea of what is a "nouveau riche": that obnoxious rich guy with shit tastes who can't help but flaunt their wealth while the old bourgeois families look down on them, but somehow for "lumpenproletariat", people love to debate endlessly about what is a "Lump" and what isn't.

>>2260428
>Am surprised no one has mentioned Fred Hampton yet
I did just above you
>>2260163
That's who The Black Messiah is in the movie

>>2260190
>Old people have experience and millions of pages read theory they can share with younger comrades. Their stake is their grandchildren and what world they will leave to them. Its also funny when old people are more radical than younger generation.
I guess whatever dedicated commie seniors are still kicking, yeah go pick their brains. All the real uyghas are dead or in prison tho. Most of the "revolutionaries" that lived to old age don't really fuck with that shit anymore tho.

But all that is besides the point because we are concerned with organizing and praxis whi h is beyond their scope mostly .

>>2260588
>That's who The Black Messiah is in the movie
They made a Fred Hampton movie! sick.

>>2260586
People have independently given the same answer in this thread half a dozen times from what I saw. I answered before reading the thread and my definition was almost identical.

>to Marx

Mostly means criminal riff raffle rogues outlaws
>using it as a technical term
Including criminals and anyone not working who is not collecting profit off capital they own.

What Marx said:
>lumpen have little to no revolutionary potential
So even broadening the definition to needs and retirees the advice still stands.

>>2260598
I do agree with you, your definition is accurate and unambiguous.
My point is just that people are never satisfied by it and always say "But what about this category of person? Aren't they lumpenproles too?" and threads like this go on and on forever. It's like Logo Daedalus and Hazoids saying service workers aren't part of proletariat, an opinion purely based on vibes, and people love to do the reserve thing with the lumpenproletariat by including everyone they don't like in it, even after you gave them a simple and accurate definition for some reason.

>>2260598
Wait, actually, I'm sorry but
>anyone not working who is not collecting profit off capital they own.
That's untrue, an unemployed worker can still be considered a normal prole, they are simply part of the reserve army of labour. An unemployed office worker in between two jobs is still part of the proletariat.

Here is the definition Marx gave in the Eighteen Brumaire of the lumpenproletariat of Paris:
>Alongside ruined roués with questionable means of support and of dubious origin, degenerate and adventurous scions of the bourgeoisie, there were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged convicts, runaway galley slaves, swindlers, charlatans, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, procurers, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, rag-pickers, knife-grinders, tinkers, beggars; in short, the entirely undefined, disintegrating mass, thrown hither and yon, which the French call la bohème.
So in short, the riffraff. Really, that's it, there is nothing more to it, it's not a deep concept, like "nouveau riche" isn't particularly deep either.

Find these replies mildly frustrating because they don't agree with me. lol.

>>2260639
>That's untrue, an unemployed worker can still be considered a normal prole, they are simply part of the reserve army of labour. An unemployed office worker in between two jobs is still part of the proletariat.
Well the full word is lumpenproletariat, implying lumpen are professional. I guess you can say any lumpen is in the reserve army. Those two things are independent. If you are living off saved wages that wouldn't make you lumpen. Unemployment insurance is kind of part of your wages so if you want to get pedantic.

These aren't fucking legal definitions. Like what about a guy who loses job, and is just living off friends and family or even begging? How long do they do that before they are officially lumpen? You guys are autistic. It is a general rule of thumb to GENERALIZE complex attributes similar people's have.

>So in short, the riffraff. Really, that's it, there is nothing more to it, it's not a deep concept, like "nouveau riche" isn't particularly deep either.

That's what I said and the definition I gave perfectly lines up. The people whose income comes neither from employment nor from ownership of capital. It doesn't matter if it is legal or illegal. Notice beggars are on that list. A need or a couch surfer also fits in there.

>>2260899
And remember to, peasants are not proles either despite working hard and being productive members of society. It is not about passing judgement, it is about organizing strategy. You guys treat class theory like it is anout determining who is saved and lost, who is a saint and a sinner.

>>2260899
<Like what about a guy who loses job, and is just living off friends and family or even begging? How long do they do that before they are officially lumpen? You guys are autistic. It is a general rule of thumb to GENERALIZE complex attributes similar people's have.
If you dont work full-time doing productive labor then you are not proletariat, but of reserve army of labor. This is in Kapital chapter of general accumulation section 4
The relative surplus population exists in every possible form. Every labourer belongs to it during the time when he is only partially employed or wholly unemployed. Not taking into account the great periodically recurring forms that the changing phases of the industrial cycle impress on it, now an acute form during the crisis, then again a chronic form during dull times — it has always three forms, the floating, the latent, the stagnant.

>>2260543
I don't see why there can't be divisions within the lumpen like any other strata?
Poor autists who get involved in crime live a very different life than wealthier autists who live as NEETs in their parent's basement.
Both are still lumpen IMO.

>>2261256
So when does an unemployed prole officially become lumpen? If you aren't laboring, you are not a laborer. If some boojie gets a summer job once, that makes him a prole for life?

And lumpen are in the reserve army.

>>2261348
<So when does an unemployed prole officially become lumpen?
When they don't work full-time as productive labourer. Full-time clowns, prostitutes, teachers, doctors, etc., are reserve army of labour no matter how hard they work because they are unproductive. The more they work unproductively, the more they are paid, then the more value they destroy due to their parasitic nature.
<If some boojie gets a summer job once, that makes him a prole for life?
They are semi-proletarian petty-bourgeois as long as they work full-time as productive labourer. They are no longer surplus-population because they are producers, but as long as their productivity (from society's view, proletariat not capitalist) outweighs their bourgeois consumption.

>>2261392
>>2261256
I missed the glownonymous name. Of course you are just trying to change the topic to the shit you want to ramble about. We were talking about what is ta lumpen.

Anyways I think the question has been adequately asked and answered at this point.

You can't unionize people who don't have a job. This includes retirees, neets, criminals, prisoners, etc. Etc.

This is why it is a meaningful distinction of lumpen- vs regular prole. Holy fuck y'all.

>>2261392
This stupid shit is why leftists lose.

If youre arguing that teachers will never be worlong class, youre high on your own farts. Academic loserdom. Youre a cornball

>>2261546
There are lots of funposters in this thread.
Guess because its p. obvious that lumpens aren't chuds, aren't necessarily counter-revolutionary.
And also because it's p. obvious that lumpen aren't all criminals, though even some serious posters posited this.

>>2261543
>Of course you are just trying to change the topic to the shit you want to ramble about. We were talking about what is ta lumpen.
Wrong. I respond directly and never change topic.
>We were talking about what is ta lumpen.
Wrong. You bring forth simple questions of class but are confuddled due to erroneously equivocating lumpenproletariat with surplus-population. The surplus population are useless eating exploiters in all forms.
>You can't unionize people who don't have a job. This includes retirees, neets, criminals, prisoners, etc. Etc. This is why it is a meaningful distinction of lumpen- vs regular prole. Holy fuck y'all.
Wrong. Unionization potential is not primary differentiation between lumpens and proletarian. Primary distinction is net production of social aggregate product.
>>2261546
>This stupid shit is why leftists lose.
Wrong. Mao Zedong explains that capitalist teachers are bourgeoisie. Mao Zedong won. Loser western "marxists" still say their teachers are proletarians.

File: 1746842934280.jpeg (116.19 KB, 792x900, GcPxUFhWsAA_xV5.jpeg)

Was Marx himself a lumpenprole? If we define the lumpenproletariat as those that make their subsistence outside of the capitalist mode of production, he would seem to be. He never worked a day of honest labor in his life and survived off of gibsmedats from Engels, who himself got that money from his factory owner father. The very founder of the ideology of proletarian emancipation was a lumpenprole himself.

>>2261799
i need an engels fr

File: 1746846291214-0.jpeg (769.25 KB, 853x1009, never worked.jpeg)

File: 1746846291214-1.png (182.85 KB, 310x642, nice one boss.png)

>>2261799
>He never worked a day of honest labor in his life…
NICE ONE BOSS

>>2261392
>because they are unproductive
thats not how it works. unproductive proles are still proles. they do not destroy value, value can only be created and transferred, and it is not proles who apportion this value, but the bourgeoisie. Also Marx has specifically said that some types of unproductive labor are a necessary part of the supply chain, like how transportation does not in all cases add value but is necessary to bring products to market. Productivity really has nothing to do with it. Also you can't just classify teachers as unproductive Marx also specifies teachers as both unproductive and productive depending on the context giving the example of productive wage earning teachers in a private school as an example of a "teaching factory", because productive is about their relation to capital and whether they create surplus value for the employer and not about making physical objects.
>>2261622
>Mao Zedong explains that capitalist teachers are bourgeoisie.
actually he calls them petty-bourgios and its specifically in the chinese context that he was talking about not a universal declaration, and he says that they are revolutionarily neutral but never in opposition to it, just on the sidelines, and this is in a section distingiushing friends and enemies where he does not call them either while saying the majority are more skeptical towards compradors and colonialism.

>>2261799
No, Marx was not a lumpenprole. That definition is a vulgar misreading of Marxist categories. The lumpenproletariat are not simply anyone who lives outside of wage labor. They are the declassed, criminalized, and politically unstable layers of society: beggars, pimps, mercenaries, and others detached from productive life and often used against the workers' movement.

Marx was a revolutionary intellectual, politically fused with the working class. He was recruited by workers into the First International and spent his life producing use-value for the proletariat through writing, organizing, and education. That is political labor, not parasitism.

Engels remained in his father’s factory in order to financially support Marx's theoretical work—not out of charity, but because he made a conscious political decision to betray his own class and serve the interests of the proletariat. That is revolutionary collaboration, not lumpen behavior.

>>2261925
>unproductive proles are still proles
Wrong. They are semi-proletarian. Mao identified market workers as semi-proletarian. Marx demonstrates that market workers produce no value.
>they do not destroy value
Wrong. The surplus-population produces no value. The surplus-population consumes commodities therefore they destroy value.
>value can only be created and transferred
Wrong. All value consumed by useless eaters is destroyed.
>it is not proles who apportion this value, but the bourgeoisie.
Correct. Proletarians make commodities that bourgeois teachers steal from them. Police produce no value, but they receive value to enslave proletarians. Police and teachers are bourgeois.
>transportation does not in all cases add value but is necessary to bring products to market.
Wrong. Transportation as necessary part of production produces value. Transportation to capitalist market produces no value.
>Productivity really has nothing to do with it.
Wrong. Production and distribution of value is the essence of class antagonism.
>Also you can't just classify teachers as unproductive Marx also specifies teachers as both unproductive and productive depending on the context giving the example of productive wage earning teachers in a private school as an example of a "teaching factory", because productive is about their relation to capital and whether they create surplus value for the employer and not about making physical objects.
Marx was illustrating the logic of vulgar bourgeois economists. Vulgar bourgeois economics equivocate realization of profit with production of surplus-value. Is any action which afford capitalist profit productive? Are brothel workers productive? Are clowns productive? Are therapists productive? Are capitalist's vulgar notions of productivity correct? Of course not. Capitalist entertainment is utter deduction from net aggregate product, i.e., destruction of value, i.e., squanderance of surplus-value extracted from proletariat. To support single teacher or prostitute, the surplus-value stolen from many full-time proletarians is squandered.
>actually he calls them petty-bourgios and its specifically in the chinese context
The capitalist intelligentsia is bourgeois under any context. The capitalist intelligentsia produces no value under any context.
>>2261943
Wrong. Karl Marx was bourgeois and surplus-population because he didn't work full-time nor contribute to net social aggregate product. This is according to Karl Marx's own definition of surplus-population.

>>2261957
wow good job nearly everything you wrote directly contradicts marx.
>productive labour is a quality of labour which in and for itself has absolutely nothing to do with the particular content of the labour
>Labour with the same content can therefore be both productive and unproductive.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm

idiot

>>2261977
Wrong. You are the idiot. You fail to grasp the entire context and purpose of the text. Purpose of text is illustrating the inane conclusions of vulgar bourgeois economy. You denigrate Karl Marx into vulgar bourgeois economist he exposes in very text you cite.
>It emerges from what has been said so far (by vulgar bourgeois economists) that to be productive labour is a quality of labour which in and for itself has absolutely nothing to do with the particular content of the labour, its particular usefulness or the specific use value in which it is expressed.
Only the narrow-minded bourgeois, who regards the capitalist form of production as its absolute form, hence as the sole natural form of production, can confuse the question of what are productive labour and productive workers from the standpoint of capital with the question of what productive labour is in general, and can therefore be satisfied with the tautological answer that all that labour is productive which produces profit.
>Labour with the same content can therefore be both productive and unproductive.
The teacher, doctor, clown, police, and prostitute are always unproductive, though vulgar bourgeois economists like yourself argue otherwise for centuries.

A homeless beggar on the street is unproductive, yet the beggar who splits his earnings with a capitalist who, like surplus-population twitch streamer beggars, employs him is a productive labourer in the eyes of vulgar bourgeois economist, but proletarian say beggar is unproductive under any context. Text you cite undermines your vulgar bourgeois economic thought. Text you cite unshackles proletarian from nonsense of vulgar bourgeois economy. You fail to understand proletarian political economy and misread Marx to portray the foundations vulgar bourgeois economy he destroyed as truths.

>>2262002
If the prostitute works for a pimp then its productive if self employed then its not. check n mate

>>2262019
How is sex productive you fucking retard
God I hate coomers

>>2262019
brainlet

>>2262027
any work that creates surplus value for the capitalist is productive. that is what the word means

>>2262002
>Text you cite undermines
yes please cite the section you refer to

>>2262038
<any work that creates surplus value for the capitalist is productive. that is what the word means
Wrong. This bourgeoisie's notion of productivity. Our tautological vulgar bourgeois economist say all labor that create profit is productive. Vulgar bourgeois economic wrong. Marx say wage-earning market workers produce no value. Mao say shopkeepers as semi-proletarian. Car dealership employees produce no value.

>>2262808
Wrong.
>Since the direct purpose and the actual product of capitalist production is surplus value, only such labour is productive, and only such an exerter of labour capacity is a productive worker, as directly produces surplus value.

>That worker is productive who performs productive labour, and that labour is productive which directly creates surplus value, i.e. valorises capital.


>Only the narrow-minded bourgeois, who regards the capitalist form of production as its absolute form, hence as the sole natural form of production, can confuse the question of what are productive labour and productive workers from the standpoint of capital with the question of what productive labour is in general, and can therefore be satisfied with the tautological answer that all that labour is productive which produces, which results in a product

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm

>>2261957
>The guy who admitted to never having read Marx's Capital said otherwise
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Turdworldist

>>2260163
>they shoulda read Marx LMAO
They did, he was required reading for membership. Don't get your history from movies.


Unique IPs: 31

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]