Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited

[cogg]

will be an IWCA article on the riots out tomorrow

so we can do another 16 pages of exactly the same thing on that

Ha, ha...

 

[revlon]

will be an IWCA article on the riots out tomorrow

so we can do another 16 pages of exactly the same thing on that

stop the author doing a hari and inventing quotes by marx to suit the article and you should be alright

 

[love detective]

I've seen two references to Marx calling it the 'the dangerous class' (one in communist manifesto and the other in chapter 25 of capital vol1 in the section on the 'different forms of the relative surplus population). In both cases it's referred to as 'the' dangerous class rather than 'a' dangerous class - in both cases, regardless of phrasing the substance of meaning is clear

It's also referred to in the 18th Brumaire and spoke about in the same context as that referred to in the dealing with the renegades article and the forthcoming one:-

On the pretext of founding a benevolent society, the lumpen proletariat of Paris had been organized into secret sections, each section led by Bonapartist agents, with a Bonapartist general at the head of the whole. Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni,[*] pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème; from this kindred element Bonaparte formed the core of the Society of December 10.

A "benevolent society" - insofar as, like Bonaparte, all its members felt the need of benefiting themselves at the expense of the laboring nation. This Bonaparte, who constitutes himself chief of the lumpenproletariat, who here alone rediscovers in mass form the interests which he personally pursues, who recognizes in this scum, offal, refuse of all classes the only class upon which he can base himself unconditionally

* Lazzaroni – a contemptuous name for declassed proletarians, primarily in the Kingdom of Naples. These people were repeatedly used by reactionary governments against liberal and democratic movements.

 

[revlon]

I've seen two references to Marx calling it the 'the dangerous class' (one in communist manifesto and the other in chapter 25 of capital vol1 in the section on the 'different forms of the relative surplus population). In both cases it's referred to as 'the' dangerous class rather than 'a' dangerous class - in both cases, regardless of phrasing the substance of meaning is clear

It's also referred to in the 18th Brumaire and spoke about in the same context as that referred to in the dealing with the renegades article and the forthcoming one:-

but marx didn't call them the most dangerous class of all (put in inverted commas by the author), which gives it a very different emphasis and a very different meaning. And given what we know about the petit-bourgeois and fascism, and in fact of what marx warned us about the capitalist class, it's a weird thing to make up.

And as you quoted above in brumaire marx refers to the lumpen as the 'refuse of all classes' and "this scum of the decaying elements of all classes" which negates the comparison somewhat.

The lumpen were only dangerous in their usefulness to Bonaparte (who marx describes - "Bonaparte knows how to pose as the Chief of the Society of December 10, as the representative of the lumpen proletariat to which he himself, his entourage, his government, and his army belong".

The reference to the dangerous class in communist manifesto was in quotation marks.

As i say, get rid of the attempts to create a new class formation, especially one that needs to misquote marx to do it, and you've got the start of a decent article.

 

[Joe Reilly]

but marx didn't call them the most dangerous class of all (put in inverted commas by the author), which gives it a very different emphasis and a very different meaning. And given what we know about the petit-bourgeois and fascism, and in fact of what marx warned us about the capitalist class, it's a weird thing to make up.

And as you quoted above in brumaire marx refers to the lumpen as the 'refuse of all classes' and "this scum of the decaying elements of all classes" which negates the comparison somewhat.

The lumpen were only dangerous in their usefulness to Bonaparte (who marx describes - "Bonaparte knows how to pose as the Chief of the Society of December 10, as the representative of the lumpen proletariat to which he himself, his entourage, his government, and his army belong".

The reference to the dangerous class in communist manifesto was in quotation marks.

As i say, get rid of the attempts to create a new class formation, especially one that needs to misquote marx to do it, and you've got the start of a decent article.

 

[Joe Reilly]

As i say, get rid of the attempts to create a new class formation, especially one that needs to misquote marx to do it, and you've got the start of a decent article.

Your objection distilled, is not to the use of the word 'most' but the use of the word 'class'.

 

[love detective]

but marx didn't call them the most dangerous class of all (put in inverted commas by the author), which gives it a very different emphasis and a very different meaning. And given what we know about the petit-bourgeois and fascism, and in fact of what marx warned us about the capitalist class, it's a weird thing to make up.

And as you quoted above in brumaire marx refers to the lumpen as the 'refuse of all classes' and "this scum of the decaying elements of all classes" which negates the comparison somewhat.

The lumpen were only dangerous in their usefulness to Bonaparte (who marx describes - "Bonaparte knows how to pose as the Chief of the Society of December 10, as the representative of the lumpen proletariat to which he himself, his entourage, his government, and his army belong".

The reference to the dangerous class in communist manifesto was in quotation marks.

As i say, get rid of the attempts to create a new class formation, especially one that needs to misquote marx to do it, and you've got the start of a decent article.

To be honest nitpicking about what Marx did or did not say 150 years ago (and the meaning of the usage of the definitive article in front of dangerous class) shouldn't really be the substance of discussion about the article. The essence of the article remains the same whatever Marx said or did not say

What's clear though, is that Marx saw the reactionary potential and inherent danger of the activities that this particular grouping posed towards any kind of progressive working class movement.

Any roads, for Marx class analysis was not a tool for identifying and labeling specific individuals with anyway. It was about understanding roles played in society, and the impact of the activity & actions stemming from those roles on others and on society itself. So back to the point of the article again - what's important is identifying what activities are a help or a hindrance to independent pro working class organisation.

(btw, don't understand your point about the activities & actions of the lumpen being only dangerous in their usefulness to Bonaparte - obviously in the 18th Brumaire the context was in the way Bonaparte used them, but are you implying that in all times previous and since, and in all other places they have never been used in this way? Surely the reference to Lazzaroni in the post I quoted shows this not to be the case? Why would the term exist otherwise)

 

[Fedayn]

The use of the term 'Lazzaroni' has one big problem however as is often the case with historical analogies. What is certainly true that during the French Revolutionary period the then Lazzaroni were overwhelmingly pro Monacrchy and the then Bourbon monarchy. However years later when Garibaldi and his revolutionary redshirt movement moved into Naples the Lazarroni were overwhelmingly Pro-Republic and Pro-Garibaldi. One commentator of the time even commented how Garibaldi was their patron saint. Even those who seem to be written off historically were in fact most certaoinly capable of being swept up with and into progressive even revolutionary political movements..

 

[Brainaddict]

The use of the term 'Lazzaroni' has one big problem however as is often the case with historical analogies. What is certainly true that during the French Revolutionary period the then Lazzaroni were overwhelmingly pro Monacrchy and the then Bourbon monarchy. However years later when Garibaldi and his revolutionary redshirt movement moved into Naples the Lazarroni were overwhelmingly Pro-Republic and Pro-Garibaldi. One commentator of the time even commented how Garibaldi was their patron saint. Even those who seem to be written off historically were in fact most certaoinly capable of being swept up with and into progressive even revolutionary political movements..

Well fuck me sideways with a dead donkey. It seems ill-defined groups in different places with vague similarities can behave differently at different times.

I hate to generalise, but in general this thread is rubbish.

 

[Fedayn]

I would also add that the estimates for the numbers of Neapolitan Lazzaroni is upwards of 40,000 in the one city at the time of the French Revolution. The use of such a comparison is especially poor given the history and continuing history of the Neapolitan poor and how they are enmeshed sadly in a criminality that is effectively big business across the world. It is like no other and was at that time like no other. What is also true is that many had proper-as proper as it could be then-work and paid employment, it's not as simple as Marx claims.

 

[love detective]

Even those who seem to be written off historically were in fact most certaoinly capable of being swept up with and into progressive even revolutionary political movements..

if only Marx had acknowlegded such a possiblity and written something like the below:-

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.

Anyway, as i said above - what's important is looking at the activities & impacts of the actions of those being discussed in the here & now and identifying whether these are a help or a hinderance to independent pro working class organisaiton. Surely you're not suggesting the material conditions of the here & now should be ignored because there's a chance in a different context in a different time in a different place, things could be different?

 

[love detective]

Well fuck me sideways with a dead donkey. It seems ill-defined groups in different places with vague similarities can behave differently at different times..

and the article, in which this this thread is a discussion about, talks about the particular behaviour of a particular group at this particular time

problem is?

 

[Fedayn]

if only Marx had acknowlegded such a possiblity and written something like the below:-

Anyway, as i said above - what's important is looking at the activities & impacts of the actions of those being discussed in the here & now and identifying whether these are a help or a hinderance to independent pro working class organisaiton. Surely you're not suggesting the material conditions of the here & now should be ignored because there's a chance in a different context in a different time in a different place, things could be different?

No, I think Marx was too proscriptive not the above bit. It merely highlights the danger of using Marx as some kind of infallible totem rather than how his ideas should be used.

And the Lazzarinos weren't 'here and there swept up' they were almost totally won over to the side of revolution...

 

[love detective]

It merely highlights the danger of using Marx as some kind of infallible totem rather than how his ideas should be used.

I agree

Something the IWCA in general or this article in particular could be accused off though?

 

[articul8]

is the IWCA riots piece out yet then (link?)

 

[Fedayn]

I agree

Something the IWCA in general or this article in particular could be accused off though?

Not especially, you (you even highlighted the word lazzaroni) and revlon had a bit of a duel over the issue and that's why I thought the issue was worth referring to

 

[revlon]

To be honest nitpicking about what Marx did or did not say 150 years ago (and the meaning of the usage of the definitive article in front of dangerous class) shouldn't really be the substance of discussion about the article. The essence of the article remains the same whatever Marx said or did not say

What's clear though, is that Marx saw the reactionary potential and inherent danger of the activities that this particular grouping posed towards any kind of progressive working class movement.

Any roads, for Marx class analysis was not a tool for identifying and labeling specific individuals with anyway. It was about understanding roles played in society, and the impact of the activity & actions stemming from those roles on others and on society itself. So back to the point of the article again - what's important is identifying what activities are a help or a hindrance to independent pro working class organisation.

(btw, don't understand your point about the activities & actions of the lumpen being only dangerous in their usefulness to Bonaparte - obviously in the 18th Brumaire the context was in the way Bonaparte used them, but are you implying that in all times previous and since, and in all other places they have never been used in this way? Surely the reference to Lazzaroni in the post I quoted shows this not to be the case? Why would the term exist otherwise)

i agree entirely. I don't know why it's there, or why the bulk of the article (if not the substance) is taken up with trying to convince the reader there's a new social class on the prowl (without any supporting evidence beyond listing certain behavioural traits). If it had just said "the reorientation of the underclass during late capitalism" you would've covered all your bases, and left yourself free to pose the pertinent questions.

Marx's lumpen covered a lot of social class distinctions - there was the literary lumpen, the noble lumpen, the irish catholics in england, and of course louis bonaparte and his crew. I suppose their common features were - socially parasitic, both on the working and ruling class, excluded from the dialectical class antagonisms, no class loyality beyond personal gain and individual preservation. I meant, as with the lazzaroni, they were not dangerous simply by being lumpen but became dangerous when employed directly by the ruling class as a political and physical force.

 

[articul8]

the irish catholics in england,

woah there - on what basis were Irish catholics "lumpens"?

 

[revlon]

woah there - on what basis were Irish catholics "lumpens"?

on engels say so

 

[articul8]

Coming over here with their lumpen starvation and joblessness....

 

[revlon]

In England Catholicism has its few supporters in the two extremes of society, the aristocracy and the lumpenproletariat. The lumpenproletariat, the mob, which is either Irish or of Irish ancestry, is Catholic by descent.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/11/01.htm

 

[articul8]

that's a drastic oversimplification - although it's true that at times there has been an alliance of landowning and peasant/working classes against middle class puritanism.

 

[Joe Reilly]

... they were not dangerous simply by being lumpen but became dangerous when employed directly by the ruling class as a political and physical force.

As we head toward a double dip is an acute political danger in proclaiming a potential enemy, as either the real revolutionary deal already, or failing that someone the working class could or should align itself with against the common enemy. That apart as has been pointed out on numerous occassions, there very existence is utterly corrosive to working class morale on a day to day basis.

 

[Fedayn]

That makes no sense at all. The first sentence especially.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

As we head toward a double dip is an acute political danger in proclaiming a potential enemy, as either the real revolutionary deal already, or failing that someone the working class could or should align itself with against the common enemy. That apart as has been pointed out on numerous occassions, there very existence is utterly corrosive to working class morale on a day to day basis.

And that is the point - one which most of the 'left' is too quesy to acknowledge let alone grapple with. Looking forward to the article.

 

[love detective]

That makes no sense at all. The first sentence especially.

In times of economic crisis (or any other times I would argue) it would be dangerous to look upon what is in effect a potential (or actual I would argue) enemy as having some kind of aligned revolutionary potential with which the majority of the working class could find common cause with

 

[love detective]

is the IWCA riots piece out yet then (link?)

should be up this evening

 

[The39thStep]

any news on the looters being won over to the revolutionary banner yet?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

any news on the looters being won over to the revolutionary banner yet?

Not yet, the latest issue of Workers Power isn't out yet tho.

 

[manny-p]

should be up this evening

Look forward to it.