/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

Because modern Marxists are social climbing MPC cunts who have zero interest even in something as basic as class discussion, let alone talking about how non-Chad men have been systematically fucked over. They're affluent men and women who adopted Marxism as an aesthetic to keep socially underprivileged men from having a movement to organize around.

grandpasimpson.gif

>>11272
This,absolutely this.

>>11272
Wasn’t Marx a lumpenbourg himself?

>>11275
No, he didn't rely on exploiting people via violent coercion like actual lumpen do. So many honkey 'leftists' think lumpen just means really poor. It's someone making money off of poor people through vices or rackets.

>>11277
>exploiting people via violent coercion like actual lumpen do
That's not what lumpen means, fool.
Not even Marx defined lumpen that way.

Per Marx,
"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 many honkey 'leftists' think lumpen just means really poor.
Anon said "lumpenbourg" not "lumpenprole."
Which is also not accurate, Marx was closer to a lumpenprole than a lumpenbourg, but he wasn't really either.

>>11278
The lumpenproletariat subsist on illicit or informal work. Gangsters are lumpen, but an illegal immigrant doing house keeping isn't. There just isn't really anyone, at least in the west, that lives completely off informal work like collecting aluminum cans.
And the ones that do are committing petty crimes so they're still exploiting people.
Even if you insist that an illegal immigrant that moves from farm to farm doing field work is lumpen, Marx has been proven wrong about those people and they have indeed been organized. The real material differentiation between classes is how much of your income relies on stolen surplus value.

>>11283
>illicit or informal work
>unless it's informal gig workers who I don't personally disregard
This is the problem with trying to define classes based on how you personally feel about them instead of by their relationship with capital. Lumpenproles aren't all in a gang, but do all work irregular, informal, illicit, or taboo work - usually with very low or unreliable pay. Hence the "reserve army of labor" label.

>>11291
But it's not based on how I personally feel, it's based in how they make money.
'Informal Work' has pretty much been subsumed by capitalist enterprises. And there weren't giant pools of illegal immigrants in Marx's time like there are now, they just relied on old fashioned colonialism for free labor or original capital.
Some of Marxism is just outdated. Like the fact that Marx thought of money as a commodity, which fiat currency isn't, but was when there was the gold standard during his time.

>>11300
>But it's not based on how I personally feel, it's based in how they make money.
Then your excluding certain groups based on things other than how they make money is based on how you feel.
>'Informal Work' has pretty much been subsumed by capitalist enterprises.
An increasingly large swathe of first world workers are deliberately lumpenized, yes.
>And there weren't giant pools of illegal immigrants in Marx's time like there are now,
He literally alluded to Bohemians in his original description of lumpenproles lol. The only reason that there weren't large swathes of "illegal immigrants" in the US, specifically, at that time is that the US didn't require any documentation for legal entry until the 20th century. There were massive waves of migration from Europe (Ireland is especially notable, also Germany and Italy) for which no identification or registration was required, and there were also large waves of immigrant laborers from China, which led to the Chinese (specifically) eventually being refused entry and citizenship entirely based on race/nationality, so technically the Chinese (and the Chinese alone) did kind of become the prototypical "illegal immigrants" before "illegal immigration" was properly codified as a more general concept.

>>11303
>Then your excluding certain groups based on things other than how they make money is based on how you feel.
No, it's based on how THEY make money, aka their relationship to the means of production.
>An increasingly large swathe of first world workers are deliberately lumpenized, yes.
No, their status as simply employees is just obfuscated for political and legal reasons. If you have a boss that tells you when, how and at what wage you work, you're a prole or employee. Even libs recognize this and have been trying to change the rules governing gig workers
https://nysba.org/reimagining-workers-rights-in-the-gig-economy-bridging-the-gap-between-independent-contractors-and-employees/
>He literally alluded to Bohemians in his original description of lumpenproles lol.
I'm talking about modern workers now, the type of 'informal work' doesn't exist in modern times. There are no 'ragpickers'. At best I could think of someone like a scalper falling into this 'informal work' category, but they're a negligible part of the work force.
>The only reason that there weren't large swathes of "illegal immigrants" in the US, specifically, at that time is that the US didn't require any documentation for legal entry until the 20th century. There were massive waves of migration from Europe (Ireland is especially notable, also Germany and Italy) for which no identification or registration was required, and there were also large waves of immigrant laborers from China, which led to the Chinese (specifically) eventually being refused entry and citizenship entirely based on race/nationality, so technically the Chinese (and the Chinese alone) did kind of become the prototypical "illegal immigrants" before "illegal immigration" was properly codified as a more general concept.
OMG, the 1800's immigration wave from Europe were not lumpen. They were settler brought on to complete the American settler-colonialist project aka 'Manifest Destiny' and their legal status as settlers (read: white) was established as far back as 1691 after Bacon's rebellion. It's just a honky settler cope that 1800's European immigrants were some downtrodden mass equivalent to the colonized blacks and indigenous populations.
They were eager accomplices in the US' brutal settler-colonialist project of the West Coast and Mid-West.
It's why even into today the average settler (read: white) has 100k in net worth, while black and other indigenous people have 20k.

>>11305
>settlers
here we go again…