> Lumpen, otoh, is a predatory or
>parasitic element within the low socio-economic stratum - it denotes people
>who are not working class bur rather prey on it - criminals, house
>flippers, slumlords, check cashing/loan sharks, drug dealers, enforcers,
>addicts, pimps, idlers, etc. What these groups of people have in common is
>extraction what economists call "rent" - or the payment for one's monopoly
>position in the market rather than for any services rendered. In other
>words, they take advantage of the working people's limited access to
>alternative housing, financial services, life options etc. and simply prey
>on them.
So social workers must be part of the lumpen-proletariat, according to your definition, then?
>While Yoshie correctly observed that the term is a bit fuzzy, but so is
>definition of most social groups. At the same time, the concept has
>empirical meaning i.e. it is possible to empirically determine who is and
>who is not lumpen (even if some cases may be "borderline") and the term has
>analytical usefulness. That usefulness comes in the form of distinguishing
>between working class and other social elements that look similar but are
>not working class.
If "proletariat" means working class, then "lumpen-proletariat" must be a sub=set of the working class, surely? So then it isn't at all about distinguishing "... between working class and other social elements." Anymore than one can distinguish rabbits from rodents, rabbits ARE rodents.
>More importantly, that distinction points at a larger issue that there is
>another dimension that cuts across socio-economic class lines - social
>contribution or utility. Each class, working, professional,
>techno/managerial, or capitalist, has subsets that differ in their level of
>social contributions or utility. Each socio-economic stratum, itself is
>divided into parasitic/predatory elements and productive ones. It makes
>sense to talk about lumpenproletariat, lumpenprofessionals, or
>lumpencapitalists - which simply denote parasitic elements that prey on
>others by virtue of their monopoly positions, as well as "ordinary"
>proletariat, professionals/managers or capitalists that actually create
>social utility.
Depending on what you mean be being "parasitic". Of course many of these "parasitic" elements are also socially-necessary, in the context of the existing social system. Someone has to be a slum landlord, if slums are to exist. "Social utility" isn't something that can be determined on some kind of abstract moral grounds. Lawyers are necessary because there is law, law is necessary because our social system creates a necessity for it to maintain some kind of social system. So in that sense lawyers and social workers can be said to have social utility.
>Such a distinction has both theoretical and practical consequences. From
>the theory point of view, it introduces the element of relative monopoly
>power (i.e. monopoly within a particular social confines, even though the
>society as a whole is not monopolized). From practical point of view, it
>identifies friends and foes of progressive social change which by definition
>aim to reduce predation and monopolistic power and increase social utility.
Professional burglars don't have any monopoly power though, in the sense that you don't have to have any special licence, or even very sophisticated tools of trade to take up the profession. For some reason I had the notion that a professional burglar would be regarded as "lumpen".
This new re-alignment of class is a bit confusing, I guess I'm getting old. Or maybe I'm just a snob, I don't want to be in the same social sub-class as lawyers as social workers and lawyers, especially if you are going to kick out all my burglar friends. Damn, there goes the lumpen-proletariat neighbourhood.
Bill Bartlett Brcknell Tas