Jump to content

Talk:Lumpenproletariat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chav

[edit]

Why is there a link to "chav" on this page? Chav is just a way of acting, lifestyle, you can have three jobs and dress and act silly. If someone agrees, could you remove that link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.63.139 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say because a chav is in Germany a Prol . the above term is a bit ancient not used by anybody.82.83.121.72 (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless

[edit]

One statement in the article is that the homeless are not included in the traditional Marxist use of the term. However, Marx clearly included beggars in the category of the lumpenproletariat, and indeed they were part of the Bonapartist demographic. Granted, homelessness as a category is far broader than what we might think of as the street-dwelling homeless (and, in fact, includes many working people.) At the same time, there is a significant intersection between the street-dwelling homeless and the lumpenproletariat. Should we clarify this? Excluding homeless people from the lumpenproletariat - mostly in the interest, I think, of preserving their dignity - strikes me as misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.159.13 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Marxist terminology, social classes are defined by their relationship to means of production, not by their access to consumption goods. Of course, many homeless people are lumpen proletarians, but not having a home is not what makes them lumpen. Indeed, homeless people who have regular jobs are not lumpen proletarians. Ninguém (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

common usage

[edit]

Perhaps it should be added that in common academic usage today, 'lumpenproletariat' normally refers to the undifferentiated masses -- as Marx puts it in his description of peasant nations, they are (or have become) “homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sackful of potatoes.” 82.111.242.154 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC) R.E.D.[reply]

I've made a little change

[edit]

talin's brutal purge i changed to Stalin's great purge. I think it goes without saying that the Great Purge was brutal, we shouldn't treat the readers as idiots plus they can read up through the link and make out for themselves if it was brutal or not. --193.190.253.149 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpen proletariat, lumpen-proletariat, or lumpenproletariat?

[edit]

Don't know if Lumpenproletariat should be moved to lumpen ploletariat. Need help from whatever that language is (German?).--Maio 22:22, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

While the words *can* be split into 'Lumpen' + 'Proletariat', I'd advise against it. The term should be used as one word, as Marx and Engels used it. Jor 22:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It´s, as you said, Lumpenproletariat. - 80.185.218.227 22:37, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the anon and Jor--I can't think of a time when a German would split the two words, given the Marxist context. Jwrosenzweig 22:45, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input, lumpen proletariat and lumpen-proletariat redirect to lumpenproletariat now. --Maio 00:57, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Jor is correct that both parts are German nouns, but wrong in thinking they can be used in German with a space in between: German uses compound nouns like Lumpenproletariat where English would use an attributive noun followed by the noun it modifies.
But the relevant matter is that few English-speaking Marxists speak German or understand German usage. The word "lumpen" has become a legitimate English word, and the proper English translation of "Lumpenproletariat" is the English phrase "lumpen proletariat" (by far the most common use of "lumpen").
This situation is an righly a source of distress to German/English bilinguals (presumably those of both mother tongues), but it is a fact. I for one, had no lasting problem accepting the barbaric expression "leit motif", which is not only a lower-cased and separated version of the German "Leitmotiv" (coined by a native German-speaker) but also substitutes the French spelling for Motiv: i asserted either (use of the unmodified German word) "Leitmotiv" or of (a loanword modified only by the change of case,) "leitmotiv" (don't recall which) in a Wagner article, but i assent to our English barbarism in its place, bcz that's the way its done in English; my acquaintance with German merely handicaps my perception of what the proper English is.
(And someone will no doubt eventually fix this change.) --Jerzy 01:37, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
Do people who argue about such things make up the Splittenproletariat? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gang; Jim Yaraskavitch here. I have just updated the definition of lumpenproletariat a bit more today (April 02/2004). If you wish to read more on why I see the concept lumpenproletariat as I do, please contact Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, for a copy of my 1996 M.A. Thesis entitled "On The 'Scientific' Use Of The Concept Lumpenproletariat". ... Cheers ...

As a note I do not think people should confuse the term lumpenproletariat and Underclass. They are two very different things!

Jim: The term "sub-proletariat" is what Marx used to refer to those who were poor/struggling, but were not necessarilly lumpen-ish. As for talk of welfare people et cetera, they are the glorious product of "Civil Society," i.e. Bismarkianism. Marx also said that lumpen were capable of great things, but are usually "the bribed tools of intrigue." Example would be those who looted and burned in the inner cities during the 1960s, '70s, and beyond. What came of that? Nothing but "urban renewal." JBDay 16:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some important changes. First, the content of the 18th Brummaire was heavily distorted; Marx never claimed that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat were both progressive, as opposed to a reactionary lumpenproletariat. On the contrary, it is clear from reading the book that he thought that the bourgeoisie was very much reactionary at that time, and that it was such reactionarism that led, ultima ratio, to Bonaparte's dictatorship. What Marx argues is that there was some kind of equilibrium between the forces of "past" (bourgeoisie) and "future" (proletariat), that allowed for a "tertius" personified in Bonaparte. Second, Marx could have not been influenced by the Fabians, who only thrived after his death; so I removed the reference to them. Third, the paragraph about the Russian Revolution was convoluted with reasonings that don't belong here. Whether it failed or not, it certainly wasn't due to the role of military mutinies in its initial success. Fourth, I have separated the idea - that is completely opposed to anything Marx actually wrote - that people on unemployment welfare are members of the lumpenproletariat. Ninguém (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

The infobox contains both an entry for "Lumpenproletariat" and one for "underclass". Yet, "underclass" redirects to "lumpenproletariat", and I'm unsure of whether the terms should be considered synonymous. 惑乱 分からん 14:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term lumpenproletariat and Underclass are two very different things! [Beenfishinglately 24-05-06]

Thank you for your contribution, Beenfishinglately! It does seem that as of now, that hasn't quite been realized on this entry. I also do remember when "underclass" (which I would call myself) redirected here. That has been fixed, nonetheless, a clearer distinction should be employed - if, and only if, the misunderstanding that you explain above is true. best wishes,

~The Underclass~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.194.102 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq military paragraph

[edit]

I removed the following paragraph from the article, as I could not understand it's relevance. Please do re-add it along with clarifications of it's connection to the rest of the article. I can expand on why it does not seem to fit on request. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The miltary employs and has an economic impact on a sizable proportion of the working population in industrialized countries In Iraq, in 2006 for example, alone there are over 140,000 US troops and nearly 9000 British. These figures do not include the innumerable mercenaries and private security contractors and the tens of thousands of Iraqi army and security employees. There have been many incidents of resistance on the part of soldiers serving there. In October 2004 members of the US Army’s 343rd Quartermaster Company refused orders in Iraq http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1710/.


Yes I was considering taking that bit out... but i have sourced for Engels and Marx's inclusion of soldiers as lumpen proles. --maxrspct in the mud 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, those sources would certainly be interesting to add to the article - please do! JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

i already have --maxrspct in the mud 12:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Any chance we could have a redirectory from lumpenprole to lumpenproletariat? I found it hard to find a definition of lumpenprole using search engines.

68.50.233.253 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subproletariat

[edit]

Why does it redirect here? It's not the same as lumpen, but instead refers to those who do work when they can and try to avoid descention into same.JBDay 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Organ Donors, huh?

[edit]

"In Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852), the term refers to the 'refuse of all classes,' including 'swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ donors, beggars, and other flotsam of society.'"

Why are organ donors lumped in with the refuse of society? I thought organ donation was a noble, not shady, affair. Jasonc65 10:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems a quite comical anachronism, as there certainly weren't organ transplants at Marx's time. Or perhaps the intention was this: [1]? 189.27.2.56 (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge: "What a big organ!" 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting into a dark place. To distinguish one of those as not belonging to the "lumpen" group on moral grounds, is to say that you support the others being there. There is nothing "wrong" with being poor, for example -which beggars are- in fact, it seems there is everything wrong with Karl Marx and Engels themselves. I can only imagine what he would have done with the Underclass if he was Russia's leader! The fact that this is a Wikipedia article does not exonerate its subject.

~The Underclass~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.194.102 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist as a category

[edit]

All who support left revolution,socialism,etc. are in some sense Marxists. It's not however correct that there's uniformity in regarding the underclass as useless or a negative factor within Marxist currents. My impression is that the anarchist perception/reception of the role of this class is closer to one held by most "Marxists" today. Lycurgus (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"raggedy proletariat" vs "rogue proletariat"

[edit]

It's a perfect double meaning and intentional: He meant BOTH 'rag' as "der Lumpen" and 'knave / miscreant' "der Lump". Rogue in contemporary english (US or British) has come to mean something slightly different with an emphasis on an 'off the wall' unpredictability and is thus less useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.12.130 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpen in German is a homonym and can mean rag (der Lumpen, singular), rags (die Lumpen, plural) or rogues (die Lumpen, plural of der Lump, a somewhat old-fashioned word meaning rogue, thug or something like that). I'm a native German speaker, and I used to think that Lumpenproletariat was derived from the word for rags, but after reading the German WP entry for de:Lumpenproletariat and especially the Marx quote "...ruinierten Bourgeois und ruinierten Proletariern, [...] einer Kollektion von Lumpen, die in jedem Zeitalter existiert haben", ("...ruined bourgeois and ruined proletarians, [...] a collection of rogues who have existed in all ages") I am convinced that it's actually derived from rogues. I'll change the intro accordingly. Chrisahn (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In German compound nouns Lumpen is primarily used with the meaning rags. For example, a Lumpensammler is not a rogue collector but a Rag-and-bone man. However, there are also words such as Lumpengesindel (=riffraff). But I'm sure that Marx had the meaning rags in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.195.112.160 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the Marx quote I gave? It's pretty clear that he is using "Lumpen" in the sense of "rogues". Besides - consider getting a username. Chrisahn (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend considering the exposition Marx gives in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon:
Neben zerrütteten Roués <Wüstlingen> mit zweideutigen Subsistenzmitteln und von zweideutiger Herkunft, neben verkommenen und abenteuernden Ablegern der Bourgeoisie Vagabunden, entlassene Soldaten, entlassene Zuchthaussträflinge, entlaufene Galeerensklaven, Gauner, Gaukler, Lazzaroni, Taschendiebe, Taschenspieler, Spieler, Maquereaus <Zuhälter>, Bordellhalter, Lastträger, Literaten, Orgeldreher, Lumpensammler, Scherenschleifer, Kesselflicker, Bettler, kurz, die ganze unbestimmte, aufgelöste, hin- und hergeworfene Masse, die die Franzosen la bohème nennen; mit diesem ihm verwandten Elemente bildete Bonaparte den Stock der Gesellschaft vom 10. Dezember.
Der achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte, S. 160-161
http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me08/me08_159.htm
Along with the ruined roués of questionable means of support and qusationable antecedents, along with the foul and adventures-seeking dregs of the bourgeoisie, there werde vagabonds, dismissed soldiers, discharged convicts, runaway gallery slaves, sharpers, jugglers, lazzaroni, pickpockets, sleight-of-hand performers, gamblers, procurers, keepers of disorderly houses, porters, literati, organ grinders, rag pickers, scissors grinders, tinkers, beggars--in short, that whole undefined, dissolute, kicked-about mass that the Frenchmen style "la Bohème." With this kindred element, Bonaparte formed the stock of the "Society of December 10," [...]
The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Published 1907 by Charles H. Kerr in Chicago, p 41
http://archive.org/stream/theeighteenthbru00marxuoft#page/40/mode/2up)
This enumeration makes obvious that Marx talks about an "undefined" mass indeed -- very different categories of people some of which one might rightly call rogues while most of them were obviously just less fortunate than proper proletarians. Of course, calling runaway slaves, porters, writers, street musicians, rag pickers, scissors grinders, tinkers and beggars "rogues" harmonically fits in with the arrogant spirit Owen Jones comments on in his Chavs book. However, it does not fit in with Marx.
Best regards --Liberatus (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC) (a native German speaker myself)[reply]

Unprovable replaced with provable quote

[edit]

The Revision as of 11:24, 18 July 2005 [2] by User:172 added a passage, according to which in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,

the term refers to the 'refuse of all classes,' including 'swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ-grinders, beggars, and other flotsam of society.'

As a search engine run shows, this text passage, while it has been cited frequently in the Web, cannot be backed with a source where it possibly was cited from in the first place. The passage from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte actually reads different. I've put in a quotation instead, that can be proven. --Liberatus (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literati?

[edit]

Many other classes listed here are more or less understandable(though I really don't accept most of Marx's idea), but why is literati listed alongside them is something I can't quite get. Even if what he means is actually "Bohemian artistic people" it still seems to be way far off, because in essence Bohemian artists are very different from all the other classes. They are actually living a very respectable and fascinating and also totally harmless, even very conducive life in relation with the society. Would anybody give me a little bit of an further explanation on this? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon J (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lumpenproletariat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lumpenproletariat&oldid=1208622475"