The Historical Concept of the Lumpenproletariat
Contents:
I. The Marx-Bakunin Debate
II. The Context of the Russian Revolution
III.From Mao to Fanon
Reading questions:
1.) Do all the thinkers quoted below mean the same thing when they say “lumpen”?
What do they mean?
2.) What difference can we find between Marx’s description in The Communist
Manifesto and in the Grundrisse?
3.) Why is Bakunin optimistic toward the lumpen? What assumption does he have?
4.) Why does Trotsky discuss the lumpen in the context of terrorism? What are the
implications?
5.) What similarities are there between Mao, Fanon, and Newton on the lumpen?
6.) What makes a class revolutionary? Do you agree with Bukharin?
7.) Cleaver and Bogues attempt to put the concept into practice. Are they successful?
From Marxists.org glossary:
Lumpenproletariat: Roughly translated as slum workers or the mob, this term identifies
the class of outcast, degenerated and submerged elements that make up a section of the
population of industrial centers. It includes beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers,
petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out
by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements. In times of prolonged
crisis (depression), innumerable young people also, who cannot find an opportunity to enter into
the social organism as producers, are pushed into this limbo of the outcast. Here demagogues and
fascists of various stripes find some area of the mass base in time of struggle and social
breakdown, when the ranks of the Lumpenproletariat are enormously swelled by ruined and
declassed elements from all layers of a society in decay.
The term was coined by Marx in The German Ideology in the course of a critique of Max
Stirner. In passage of The Ego and His Own which Marx is criticising at the time, Stirner
frequently uses the term Lumpe and applies it as a prefix, but never actually used the term
“lumpenproletariat.” Lumpen originally meant “rags,” but began to be used to mean “a person in
rags.” From having the sense of “ragamuffin,” it came to mean “riff-raff” or “knave,” and by the
beginning of the eighteenth century it began to be used freely as a prefix to make a range of
perjorative terms. By the 1820s, “lumpen” could be tacked on to almost any German word. The
term was later used in the Communist Manifesto (where it is translated as “dangerous classes”)
and in Class Struggles in France, and elsewhere.
I. The Marx-Bakunin Debate
Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848)
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.
Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire (1852)
…Society of December 10. This society dates from the year 1849. 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, is the real Bonaparte, the Bonaparte sans phrase. An old, crafty roué, he
conceives the historical life of the nations and their performances of state as comedy in the most
vulgar sense, as a masquerade in which the grand costumes, words, and postures merely serve to
mask the pettiest knavery.
…The artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction
their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but
conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by
chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the
proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own
standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
Marx, Grundrisse (1857)
The same relation holds for all services which workers exchange directly for the money
of other persons, and which are consumed by these persons. This is consumption of revenue,
which, as such, always falls within simple circulation; it is not consumption of capital. Since one
of the contracting parties does not confront the other as a capitalist, this performance of a service
cannot fall under the category of productive labour. 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. He who represents money in this relation
demands the service only for its use value, which immediately vanishes for him; but the porter
demands money, and since the party with money is concerned with the commodity and the party
with the commodity, with money, it follows that they represent to one another no more than the
two sides of simple circulation; goes without saying that the porter, as the party concerned with
money, hence directly with the general form of wealth, tries to enrich himself at the expense of
his improvised friend, thus injuring the latter's self-esteem, all the more so because he, a hard
calculator, has need of the service not qua capitalist but as a result of his ordinary human frailty.
Bakunin, On the International Workingmen's Association and Karl Marx (1872)
The International Workingmen’s Association, as I have said, would not have grown so
phenomenally if it had not eliminated from its statutes and program all political and
philosophical questions. This is clear and it is truly surprising that it must again be demonstrated.
I do not think that I need show that for the International to be a real power, it must be able
to organize within its ranks the immense majority of the proletariat of Europe, of America, of all
lands. But what political or philosophic program can rally to its banner all these millions? Only a
program which is very general, – hence vague and indefinite, for every theoretical definition
necessarily involves elimination and in practice exclusion from membership.
For example: there is today no serious philosophy which does not take as its point of
departure not positive but negative atheism. (Historically it became necessary to negate the
theological and metaphysical absurdities.) But do you believe that if this simple word “atheism”
had been inscribed on the banner of the International this association would have been able to
attract ore t an a few hundred thousand members? Of course not because the people are truly
religious, but because they believe in a Superior Being; and they will continue to believe in a
Superior Being until a social revolution provides the means to achieve all their aspirations here
below. It is certain that if the International had demanded that all its members must be atheists, it
would have excluded from its ranks the flower of the proletariat.
To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the Marxists, the upper layer, the
aristocracy of labor, those who are the most cultured, who earn more and live more comfortably
than all the other workers. Precisely this semi-bourgeois layer of workers would, if the Marxists
had their way, constitute their fourth governing class. This could indeed happen if the great mass
of the proletariat does not guard against it. By virtue of its relative. well-being and semibourgeois position, this upper layer of workers is unfortunately only too deeply saturated with all
the political and social prejudices and all the narrow aspirations and pretensions of the
bourgeoisie. Of all the proletariat, this upper layer is the least social and the most individualist.
By the flower of the proletariat, I mean above all that great mass, those millions of the
uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable, the illiterates, whom Messrs. Engels and Marx
would subject to their paternal rule by a strong government – naturally for the people’s own
salvation! All governments are supposedly established only to look after the welfare of the
masses! By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal “meat” (on which governments
thrive), that great rabble of the people (underdogs, “dregs of society”) ordinarily designated by
Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase Lumpenproletariat. I have in mind
the “riffraff,” that “rabble” almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner
being and in its aspirations, in all the necessities and miseries of its collective life, all the seeds of
the socialism of the future, and which alone is powerful enough today to inaugurate and bring to
triumph the Social Revolution.
In almost all countries, this “rabble” would refuse to join the International if that
association had an official commitment to atheism. It would be a heavy blow if they should reject
the International, for on them rests the entire success of our great association.
Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy (1873)
Nowhere are there more favorable conditions for the Social Revolution than in Italy.
There does not exist in Italy, as in most other European nations, a special category of relatively
affluent workers, earning higher wages, boasting of their literary capacities, and so impregnated
by a variety of bourgeois prejudices that, excepting income, they differ in no way from the
bourgeoisie. This class of bourgeois workers is numerous in Germany and in Switzerland; but in
Italy, on the contrary, they arc insignificant in number and influence, a mere drop in the ocean. In
Italy it is the extremely poor proletariat that predominates. Marx speaks disdainfully, but quite
unjustly, of this Lumpenproletariat. For in them, and only in them, and not in the bourgeois strata
of workers, are there crystallized the entire intelligence and power of the coming Social
Revolution.
A popular insurrection, by its very nature, is instinctive, chaotic, and destructive, and
always entails great personal sacrifice and an enormous loss of public and private property. The
masses are always ready to sacrifice themselves; and this is what turns them into a brutal and
savage horde, capable of performing heroic and apparently impossible exploits, and since they
possess little or nothing, they are not demoralized by the responsibilities of property ownership.
And in moments of crisis, for the sake of self-defense or victory, they will not hesitate to burn
down their own houses and neighborhoods, and property being no deterrent, since it belongs to
their oppressors, they develop a passion for destruction. This negative passion, it is true, is far
from being sufficient to attain the heights of the revolutionary cause; but without it, revolution
would be impossible. Revolution requires extensive and widespread destruction, a fecund and
renovating destruction, since in this way and only this way are new worlds born...
Ann Robertson, The Philosophic Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict (2003)
The Revolutionary Agent
Another strategical disagreement dividing Marx and Bakunin centered around the
question of who would lead the revolution. Both agreed that the proletariat would play a key
role, but for Marx the proletariat was the exclusive, leading revolutionary agent while Bakunin
entertained the possibility that the peasants and even the lumpenproletariat (the unemployed,
common criminals, etc.) could rise to the occasion. Bakunin argued, for example, that the
peasants were a revolutionary class for three reasons: (1) They have retained “the simple, robust
temperament and the energy germane to the folk nature.” (2) They work with their hands and
despise privilege. And (3) as toilers they have common interests with workers. 55 In other words,
being close to nature, the peasants are less alienated from their true, natural essence since they
have suffered less corruption by the evils of society. Bakunin adopted a similar argument in
relation to the lumpenproletariat:
“By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal ‘meat’, ... that great rabble of
the people (underdogs, ‘dregs of society’) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in
the picturesque and contemptuous phrase lumpenproletariat. I have in mind the ‘riffraff’,
that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner being
and in its aspirations ... all the seeds of the socialism of the future....” 56
In both cases, Bakunin’s conclusions flow directly from his conviction that inherent in humanity
is a natural essence which can be suppressed but never entirely extinguished. Those in society
who are more distant from the State apparatus (the peasants are scattered throughout the
countryside, the lumpenproletariat simply refuses to obey the laws) are accordingly natural
leaders.
In contrast, Marx consistently argued that the proletariat alone was the revolutionary
agent: “Of all classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a
really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern
Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.” 57 Here again their different
philosophical frameworks led these revolutionaries in opposed directions. Because Marx
believed human nature was shaped by the economy, he analyzed the possible revolutionary
agents by analyzing how the economy would influence their development. And economic
considerations led him to conclude that the peasants could not play a leading revolutionary role.
For example, they do not constitute a cohesive class. Some are large landowners and hire other
peasants to work for them while the latter are often landless and destitute. Moreover, the desire
for land by a majority of the peasants could serve as an anchor, holding them back from a truly
revolutionary perspective. Rather than rallying for a thoroughgoing, socialist revolution where
private ownership of land is abolished, they often veer in the direction of seeking to augment
their own modest, private property land holdings at the expense of the large landowners. But
aside from these economic considerations, Marx also believed that the situation of the peasants,
not only prohibited them from attaining class consciousness, but from becoming a truly
revolutionary class:
“The small holding peasants form a vast mass, the members of which live in similar
conditions but without entering into manifold relations with one another. Their mode of
production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual
intercourse.... Their field of production, the small holding, admits of no division of labor
in its cultivation, no application of science and, therefore, no diversity of development,
no variety of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is
almost self-sufficient; it itself directly produces the major part of its consumption and
thus acquires its means of life more through exchange with nature than in intercourse
with society. A small holding, a peasant and his family; alongside them another small
holding, another peasant and another family.... In so far as millions of families live under
economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests and their
culture from those of other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they
form a class. In so far as there is a merely local interconnection among these smallholding peasants, and the identity of their interests begets no community, no national
bond and no political organization among them, they do not form a class.” 58
Marx was even less enthusiastic about the lumpenproletariat because it was not directly related to
the production process at all, being comprised of the permanently unemployed, criminals, etc.
II. The Context of the Russian Revolution
Luxemburg, The Mass Strike (1906)
Anarchism has become in the Russian Revolution, not the theory of the struggling
proletariat, but the ideological signboard of the counterrevolutionary lumpenproletariat, who,
like a school of sharks, swarm in the wake of the battleship of the revolution. And therewith the
historical career of anarchism is well-nigh ended.
Lenin, “A Caricature of Bolshevism” (1909)
Lumpen-proletarians are sometimes distinguished for their sharp conflicts, and sometimes
for their amazing instability and inability to fight.
Trotsky, “Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism” (1911)
[Terrorism] Belittles the role of the masses
In order to develop, the capitalist system needs a parliamentary superstructure. But
because it cannot confine the modern proletariat to a political ghetto, it must sooner or later
allow the workers to participate in parliament. In elections, the mass character of the proletariat
and its level of political development—quantities which, again, are determined by its social role,
i.e. above all, its productive role—find their expression.
As in a strike, so in elections the method, aim, and result of the struggle always depend
on the social role and strength of the proletariat as a class. Only the workers can conduct a strike.
Artisans ruined by the factory, peasants whose water the factory is poisoning, or lumpen
proletarians in search of plunder can smash machines, set fire to a factory, or murder its owner.
Only the conscious and organised working class can send a strong representation into the
halls of parliament to look out for proletarian interests. However, in order to murder a prominent
official you need not have the organised masses behind you. The recipe for explosives is
accessible to all, and a Browning can be obtained anywhere. In the first case, there is a social
struggle, whose methods and means flow necessarily from the nature of the prevailing social
order; and in the second, a purely mechanical reaction identical anywhere—in China as in France
—very striking in its outward form (murder, explosions and so forth) but absolutely harmless as
far as the social system goes.
A strike, even of modest size, has social consequences: strengthening of the workers’ selfconfidence, growth of the trade union, and not infrequently even an improvement in productive
technology. The murder of a factory owner produces effects of a police nature only, or a change
of proprietors devoid of any social significance. Whether a terrorist attempt, even a ‘successful’
one throws the ruling class into confusion depends on the concrete political circumstances. In
any case the confusion can only be shortlived; the capitalist state does not base itself on
government ministers and cannot be eliminated with them. The classes it serves will always find
new people; the mechanism remains intact and continues to function.
Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution (1918)
A problem which is of great importance in every revolution is that of the struggle with the
Lumpenproletariat. We in Germany too, as everywhere else, will have this problem to reckon
with. The Lumpenproletariat element is deeply imbedded in bourgeois society. It is not merely a
special section, a sort of social wastage which grows enormously when the walls of the social
order are falling down, but rather an integral part of the social whole. Events in Germany – and
more or less in other countries – have shown how easily all sections of bourgeois society are
subject to such degeneration. The gradations between commercial profiteering, fictitious deals,
adulteration of foodstuffs, cheating, official embezzlement, theft, burglary and robbery, flow into
one another in such fashion that the boundary line between honorable citizenry and the
penitentiary has disappeared. In this the same phenomenon is repeated as in the regular and rapid
degeneration of bourgeois dignitaries when they are transplanted to an alien social soil in an
overseas colonial setting. With the stripping off of conventional barriers and props for morality
and law, bourgeois society itself falls victim to direct and limitless degeneration [Verlumpung],
for its innermost law of life is the profoundest of immoralities, namely, the exploitation of man
by man. The proletarian revolution will have to struggle with this enemy and instrument of
counter-revolution on every hand.
And yet, in this connection too, terror is dull, nay, a two-edged sword. The harshest
measures of martial law are impotent against outbreaks of the lumpenproletarian sickness.
Indeed, every persistent regime of martial law leads inevitable to arbitrariness, and every form of
arbitrariness tends to deprave society. In this regard also, the only effective means in the hands of
the proletarian revolution are: radical measures of a political and social character, the speediest
possible transformation of the social guarantees of the life of the masses – the kindling of
revolutionary idealism, which can be maintained over any length of time only through the
intensively active life of the masses themselves under conditions of unlimited political freedom.
As the free action of the sun’s rays is the most effective purifying and healing remedy
against infections and disease germs, so the only healing and purifying sun is the revolution itself
and its renovating principle, the spiritual life, activity and initiative of the masses which is called
into being by it and which takes the form of the broadest political freedom. [1]
Footnotes
The following section, found in the original manuscript on a seperate sheet of paper, repeat
substantially the same ideas of this chapter but in a schematic form, apparently the draft outline
for this chapter:
In our case as everywhere else, anarchy will be unavoidable. The lumpenproletarian
element is deeply embedded in bourgeois society and inseparable from it.
Proofs:
* East Prussia, the “Cossack” robberies.
* The general outbreak of robbery and theft in Germany. (Profiteering, postal and railway
personnel, police, complete dissolution of boundaries between well-ordered society and
[1]
penitentiary.)
* The rapid degeneration (Verlumpung) of the union leaders.
Against this, draconian measures of terror are powerless. On the contrary, they cause still further
corruption. The only anti-toxin: the idealism and social activity of the masses, unlimited police
freedom. That is an overpowering objective law from which no party can be exempt.
Bukharin, Historical Materialism (1921)
The production relations are therefore at the basis of the class alignment in society. Other
divisions have been made, which must now be disposed of. A frequent conception is the division
into the classes of "poor" and "rich"…. This conception is not only very simple, but also naive
and erroneous. From this point of view, a well paid metal worker in capitalist society would not
be counted with the proletariat, while a poor person or artisan would fall into the working class.
The lumpenproletariat would have to be considered as the most revolutionary class, as the power
capable of realizing the transition to a higher form of society. On the other hand, two bankers,
one of whom has twice as much money as the other, would have to be assigned to two separate
classes. Yet, everyday experience shows us that the various classes of workers are far more likely
to fight side by side than are the workers and artisans, or workers and peasants, etc. The peasant
is not much inclined to feel any solidarity with the worker….
It will be interesting to determine the reasons for this phenomenon, the heroic struggle of
the proletariat and its incomparably, greater receptivity for communist reconstruction and
communist ideology. It is not sufficient to reply that the peasants are not quite so poor, for then
we might ask why the lumpenproletariat (beggars, declassed persons) did not furnish the chief
detachments of fighters.
It is important to learn what are the traits that must be preset in a class in order to enable
it to accomplish a transformation of society, to shunt society from the capitalist track to the
socialist track.
1. Such a class must be one that has been economically exploited and politically
oppressed under capitalist society; otherwise, the class will have no reason for resisting
the capitalist order; it will not rebel under any circumstances.
2. It follows - to put the matter crudely - that it must be a poor class; for otherwise it will
have no opportunity to feel its poverty as compared with the wealth of other classes.
3. It must be a producing class; for, if it is not, i.e., if it has no immediate share in the
production of values, it may at best destroy, being unable to produce, create, organize.
4. It must be a class that is not bound by private property, for a class whose material
existence is based on private property will naturally be inclined to increase its property,
not to abolish private property, as is demanded by communism.
5. This class must be one which has been welded together by the conditions of its
existence and its common labor, its members working side by side. Otherwise, it will be
incapable of desiring - not to mention constructing - a society that is the embodiment of
the social labor of comrades. Furthermore, such a class could not wage an organized
struggle or create a new state power.
In the following table, the presence or absence of these characteristics in the various classes and
groups is indicated by a + or - sign.
Class Properties
1. Economic exploitation
2. Political oppression
3. Poverty
4. Productivity
5. Freedom from private property
6. Condition of union in production, and common labor
Peasantry
+
+
+
+
-
Lumpen-proletariat Proletariat
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
In other words, the peasantry-for instance-lack several elements necessary to make them a
communist class: they are bound down by property, and it will take many years to train them to a
new view, which can only be done by having the state power in the hands of the proletariat; also,
the peasantry are not held together in production, in social labor and common action; on the
contrary, the peasant's entire joy is in his own bit of land; he is accustomed to individual
management, not to cooperation with others. The lumpenproletariat, however, is barred chiefly
by the circumstance that it performs no productive work; it can tear down, but has no habit of
building up. Its ideology is often represented by the anarchists, concerning whom a wag once
said that their whole program consists of two paragraphs. Para. 1. There shall be no order at all;
Para. 2. No one shall be obliged to comply with the preceding paragraph.
We have thus seen how the conditions of material existence determine the psychology
and ideology of classes in groups; the proletariat shows: hatred against capital and its state
power, revolutionary spirit, the habit of organized action, a psychology of comradeship, a
productive and constructive conception of things, a rejection of the traditional, a negative attitude
on the "sacredness of private property", that pillar of bourgeois society, etc.; in the peasantry:
love of private property, preventing them from favoring innovation; individualism,
exclusiveness, suspicion of everything lying outside the village; in the luvnpenproletariat:
shiftlessness , lack of discipline hatred of the old, but impotence to construct or organize
anything new, an individualistic declassed "personality", whose actions are based only on foolish
caprices. In each of the above classes, we find the ideology that corresponds to its psychology: in
the proletariat, revolutionary communism; in the peasantry, a property ideology; in the lumpen
proletariat, a vacillating and hysterical anarchism. Obviously, once such psychological and
theological nucleus is present, it will set the fundamental note for the entire psychology and
ideology of the class or group concerned.
Trotsky, How Mussolini Came to Power (1932)
Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty
bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat -- all the countless
human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy.
Kautsky, Social Democracy vs. Communism (1930s)
It is naive to conceive of the working class as synonymous with the mass of the poor and
needy. Marx regarded the proletariat as consisting only of those workers who do not own or
control the means of production they must use in order to live, and who are consequently obliged
to sell their labor power. Strictly speaking, the small peasantry or farmers, artisans and petty
tradesmen do not belong to the category of the working class, however needy they may be. These
elements perceive their salvation not in a Socialist society, but in the rise of prices on
commodities they offer for sale. Their ideal is to become bigger peasants or farmers, artisans and
businessmen in the society based on private ownership.
On the other hand, the workers themselves are divided into two categories, neither of
which own any means of production. But only under certain specific historical circumstances can
they find buyers for their labor power. This becomes possible on a large scale only where capital
has acquired control of industry and requires wage labor. Before this development becomes a
fact the masses of the propertyless have but one recourse – to beg or steal. This type of
proletarian is not necessary to the basis of society. On the contrary, they are an unnecessary
burden. They live only upon the alms of the propertied classes or by plundering them. Such
workers cannot grasp the ideal of a new, better social order, much less are they fit to fight for it.
To the extent to which they are dependent upon the good will of the higher classes they become
cringing and sycophantic. Individuals among them, those of stronger character, turn to violent
resentment and become criminals. Such elements are easily disposed of by the state.
Due to particularly favorable circumstances, proletarians of this type attained to great
political power in ancient Rome, which after prolonged struggles had established a democratic
constitution, but a great portion of whose citizens had become impoverished as a result of
continued civil wars. Under this condition the urban proletariat obtained the power in the state,
but not knowing how to utilize it found nothing better to do than to sell its votes to those who
paid the most in bread and circuses, or to sell itself as hired mercenaries to successful and
ambitious military leaders.
It was this political and military assistance on the part of the proletariat that made
possible the dictatorship of a single individual in Rome, which led to the rise of Caesarism and
its development into a state form.
Marx differentiated sharply between the proletariat of this type, which he termed the
Lumpenproletariat, and the wage earning proletariat. It was the latter type that he regarded as
capable of developing, in the process of many struggles and through long experience, the
requisite power and ability to emancipate itself, and thus move society forward to higher forms.
Hundreds of years of struggle were required before such consciousness became possible,
and even then it was confined at the beginning to a small elite, which, perceiving its social power
and significance, placed before itself the aim of achieving a fundamental social change.
Under certain circumstances this elite can develop rapidly in numbers, but behind this
elite and the Lumpenproletariat there remains a mass which Marx well characterized as the
“undeveloped figure” of the proletariat. Economically this mass performs the functions of the
wage-earning proletariat, but intellectually and culturally it is not much above the level of the
Lumpenproletariat. It no longer begs for alms but for work, perceiving frequently in the
capitalist who employs it not the exploiter who lives upon its labor but the master, the
philanthropist, upon whose good will the wage earner subsists. Occasionally, these proletarians
begin to glean vaguely the real character of the situation, which in turn, leads them to
manifestations of resistance. But they are not capable of continuous, systematic struggle.
Only occasionally are they moved to outburst of despair, which is followed immediately
by dejection and surrender. Higher aims than those of the moment are beyond the scope of the
undeveloped proletariat.
III. From Mao to Fanon
Mao Tse-Tung, “Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society” (1926)
Apart from all these, there is the fairly large lumpen-proletariat, made up of peasants who
have lost their land and handicraftsmen who cannot get work. They lead the most precarious
existence of all. In every part of the country they have their secret societies, which were
originally their mutual-aid organizations for political and economic struggle, for instance, the
Triad Society in Fukien and Kwangtung, the Society of Brothers in Hunan, Hupeh, Kweichow
and Szechuan, the Big Sword Society in Anhwei, Honan and Shantung, the Rational Life Society
in Chihli [17] and the three northeastern provinces, and the Green Band in Shanghai and
elsewhere [18] One of China's difficult problems is how to handle these people. Brave fighters
but apt to be destructive, they can become a revolutionary force if given proper guidance.
To sum up, it can be seen that our enemies are all those in league with imperialism--the
warlords, the bureaucrats, the comprador class, the big landlord class and the reactionary section
of the intelligentsia attached to them. The leading force in our revolution is the industrial
proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. As for the
vacillating middle bourgeoisie, their right-wing may become our enemy and their left-wing may
become our friend but we must be constantly on our guard and not let them create confusion
within our ranks.
Mao Tse-Tsung, Vanguard of the Revolution (1927)
Without the poor peasants (the “riffraff” as the gentry call them) it would never have been
possible to bring about in the countryside the present state of revolution, to overthrow the local
bullies and bad gentry, or to complete the democratic revolution. Being the most revolutionary,
the poor peasants have won the leadership in the peasant association. . . . This leadership of the
poor peasants is absolutely necessary. Without the poor peasants there can be no revolution. To
reject them is to reject the revolution. To attack them is to attack the revolution. Their general
direction of the revolution has never been wrong.
Mao Tse-Tsung, The Struggle in the Chingkang Mountains (1928)
As to class origin, the Red Army consists partly of workers and peasants and partly of
lumpen-proletarians. Of course, it is inadvisable to have too many of the latter. But they are able
to fight, and as fighting is going on every day with mounting casualties, it is already no easy
matter to get replacements even from among them. In these circumstances the only solution is to
intensify political training.
Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (1961)
It cannot be too strongly stressed that in the colonial territories the proletariat is the
nucleus of the colonized population which has been most pampered by the colonial regime. The
embryonic proletariat of the towns is in comparatively privileged position. In capitalist
countries, the working class has nothing to lose; it is they who in the long run have everything to
gain. In the colonial countries the working class has everything to lose…
…The men whom the growing population of the country districts and colonial
expropriation have brought to desert their family holdings circle tirelessly around the different
towns, hoping that one day or another they will be allowed inside. It is within this mass of
humanity, this people of the shantytowns, at the core of the lumpenproletariat, that the rebellion
will find its urban spearhead. For the lumpenproletariat, that horde of starving men, uprooted
from their tribe and from their clan, constitutes one of the most spontaneous and the most
radically revolutionary forces of a colonized people…
…The lumpenproletariat constitutes a serious threat to the “security” of the town and
signifies the irreversible rot and the gangrene eating in to the heart of colonial domination. So
the pimps, the hooligans, the unemployed, and the petty criminals, when approached, give the
liberation struggle all they have got, devoting themselves to the cause like valiant workers.
These vagrants, these less-than-men, find their way back to the nation thanks to their decisive,
militant action… These jobless, these species of subhumans, redeem themselves in their own
eyes and before history. The prostitutes too, the domestics at two thousand francs a month, the
hopeless dregs of humanity, all who turn in circles between suicide and madness, are restored to
sanity, return to action and take their vital place in the great march of a nation on the move.
Huey Newton, Intercommunalism (1971)
The [revolutionary] thrust will come from the growing number of what we call the
“unemployables” in this society. We call blacks and third world people in particular, and poor
people in general, the “unemployables” because they do not have the skills needed to work in a
highly developed technological society…as technology develops, the need for workers
decreases… It has been estimated that ten years from now only a small percentage of the present
work force will be necessary to run the industries… The working class will be narrowed down,
the class of unemployables will grow, because it will take more and more skills to operate those
machines and fewer people. And as these people become unemployable, they will become more
and more alienated; even socialist compromises will not be enough. You will then find an
integration between, say, the black unemployable and the white racist hard hat who is not
regularly employed and mad at blacks who he thinks threaten his job. We hope that he will join
forces with those people who are already unemployable, but whether he does or not, his material
existence will have changed. The proletarian will become the lumpen proletariat. It is this future
change—the increase of the lumpen proletariat and the decrease of the proletariat—which makes
us say that the lumpen proletariat is the majority and carries the revolutionary banner.
Eldridge Cleaver, “On the Ideology of the Black Panther Party” (1969)
Essentially, what Huey did was to provide the ideology and the methodology for
organizing the Black Urban Lumpenproletariat. Armed with this ideological perspective and
method, Huey transformed the Black Lumpenproletariat from the forgotten people at the bottom
of society into the vanguard of the proletariat…
Fanon delivered a devastating attack upon Marxism-Leninism for its narrow
preoccupation with Europe and the affairs and salvation of White folks, while lumping all third
world peoples into the category of Lumpenproletariat and then forgetting them there; Fanon
unearthed the category of the Lumpenproletariat and began to deal with it, recognizing that vast
majorities of the colonized people fall into that category. It is because of the fact that Black
people in the United States are also colonized that Fanon's analysis is so relevant to us.
After studying Fanon, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale began to apply his analysis of
colonized people to Black people in the United States. They adopted the Fanonian perspective,
but they gave it a uniquely Afro-American content. Just as we must make the distinctions
between the mother country and the colony when dealing with Black people and White people as
a whole, we must also make this distinction when we deal with the categories of the Working
Class and the Lumpenproletariat. We have, in the United States, a "Mother Country Working
Class" and a "Working Class from the Black Colony." We also have a Mother Country
Lumpenproletariat and a Lumpenproletariat from the Black Colony. Inside the Mother Country,
these categories are fairly stable, but when we look at the Black Colony, we find that the hard
and fast distinctions melt away. This is because of the leveling effect of the colonial process and
the fact that all Black people are colonized, even if some of them occupy favored positions in the
schemes of the Mother Country colonizing exploiters.
There is a difference between the problems of the Mother Country Working Class and the
Working Class from the Black Colony. There is also a difference between the Mother Country
Lumpen and the Lumpen from the Black Colony. We have nothing to gain from trying to smooth
over these differences as though they don't exist, because they are objective facts that must be
dealt with. To make this point clear, we have only to look at the long and bitter history of the
struggles of Black Colony Workers fighting for democracy inside Mother Country Labor Unions.
Historically, we have fallen into the trap of criticizing mother country labor unions and
workers for the racism as an explanation for the way they treat Black workers. Of course, they
are racist, but this is not the full explanation. White workers belong to a totally different world
than that of Black workers. They are caught up in a totally different economic, political, and
social reality, and on the basis of this distinct reality, the pigs of the power structure and
treacherous labor leaders find it very easy to manipulate them with Babylonian racism. This
complex reality presents us with many problems, and only through proper analysis can these
problems be solved. The lack of a proper analysis is responsible for the ridiculous approach to
these problems that we find among Mother Country Marxist-Leninists. And their improper
analysis leads them to advocate solutions that are doomed to failure in advance. The key area of
the confusion has to do with falsely assuming the existence of one All-American Proletariat; one
All-American Working Class; and one All-American Lumpenproletariat.
O.K. We are Lumpen. Right on. The Lumpenproletariat are all those who have no secure
relationship or vested interest in the means of production and the institutions of capitalist society.
That part of the "Industrial Reserve Army" held perpetually in reserve; who have never worked
and never will; who can't find a job; who are unskilled and unfit; who have been displaced by
machines, automation, and cybernation, and were never "retained or invested with new skills";
all those on Welfare or receiving State Aid. Also, the so-called "Criminal Element," those who
live by their wits, existing off that which they rip off, who stick guns in the faces of businessmen
and say “stick'em up”, or “give it up”! Those who don't even want a job, who hate to work and
can't relate to punching some pig's time clock, who would rather punch a pig in the mouth and
rob him than punch that same pig's time clock and work for him, those whom Huey P. Newton
calls "the illegitimate capitalists." In short, all those who simply have been locked out of the
economy and robbed of their rightful social heritage.
But even though we are Lumpen, we are still members of the Proletariat, a category
which theoretically cuts across national boundaries but which in practice leaves something to be
desired.
Contradictions within the Proletariat of the USA
In both the Mother Country and the Black Colony, the Working Class is the Right Wing
of the Proletariat, and the Lumpenproletariat is the Left Wing. Within the Working Class itself,
we have a major contradiction between the Unemployed and the Employed. And we definitely
have a major contradiction between the Working Class and the Lumpen.
Some blind so-called Marxist-Leninists accuse the Lumpen of being parasites upon the
Working Class. This is a stupid charge derived from reading too many of Marx's footnotes and
taking some of his offhand scurrilous remarks for holy writ. In reality, it is accurate to say that
the Working Class, particularly the American Working Class, is a parasite upon the heritage of
mankind, of which the Lumpen has been totally robbed by the rigged system of Capitalism
which in turn, has thrown the majority of mankind upon the junkheap while it buys off a
percentage with jobs and security.
The Working Class that we must deal with today shows little resemblance to the Working
Class of Marx's day… The flames of revolution, which once raged like an inferno in the heart of
the Working Class, in our day have dwindled into a flickering candle light, only powerful enough
to bounce the Working Class back and forth like a ping pong ball between the Democratic Party
and the Republican Party every four years, never once even glancing at the alternatives on the
Left.
Who speaks for the Lumpen Proletariat?
Some Marxist-Leninists are guilty of that class egotism and hypocrisy often displayed by
superior classes to those beneath them on the social scale. On the one hand, they freely admit
that their organizations are specifically designed to represent the interests of the Working Class.
But then they go beyond that to say that by representing the interests of the Working Class, they
represent the interests of the Proletariat as a whole. This is clearly not true. This is a fallacious
assumption based upon the egotism of these organizations and is partly responsible for their
miserable failure to make a revolution in Babylon.
And since there clearly is a contradiction between the right wing and the left wing of the
Proletariat, just as the right wing has created its own organizations, it is necessary for the left
wing to have its form of organization to represent its interests against all hostile classes –
including the Working Class.
The contradiction between the Lumpen and the Working Class is very serious because it
even dictates a different strategy and set of tactics. The students focus their rebellions on the
campuses, and the Working Class focuses its rebellions on the factories and picket lines. But the
Lumpen finds itself in the peculiar position of being unable to find a job and therefore is unable
to attend the Universities. The Lumpen has no choice but to manifest its rebellion in the
University of the Streets.
It's very important to recognize that the streets belong to the Lumpen, and that it is in the
streets that Lumpen will make their rebellion. One outstanding characteristic of the liberation
struggle of Black people in the United States has been that most of the activity has taken place in
the streets. This is because, by and large, the rebellions have been spear-headed by Black
Lumpen. It is because of the Black people's Lumpen relationship to the means of production and
the institutions of the society that they are unable to manifest their rebellion around those means
of production and institutions. But this does not mean that the rebellions that take place in the
streets are not legitimate expressions of an oppressed people. These are the means of rebellion
left open to the Lumpen.
The Lumpen have been locked outside of the economy. And when the Lumpen does
engage in direct action against the system of oppression, it is often greeted by hoots and howls
from the spokesmen of the Working Class in chorus with the mouthpieces of the bourgeoisie.
These talkers like to put down the struggles of the Lumpen as being "spontaneous" (perhaps
because they themselves did not order the actions!), "unorganized", and "chaotic and
undirected." But these are only prejudiced analyses made from the narrow perspective of the
Working Class. But the Lumpen moves anyway, refusing to be straight-jacketed or controlled by
the tactics dictated by the conditions of life and the relationship to the means of production of the
Working Class.
The Lumpen finds itself in the position where it is very difficult for it to manifest its
complaints against the system. The Working Class has the possibility of calling a strike against
the factory and the employer and through the mechanism of Labor Unoins they can have some
arbitration or some process through which its grievances are manifested. Collective bargaining is
the way out of the pit of oppression and exploitation discovered by the Working Class, but the
Lumpen has no opportunity to do any collective bargaining. The Lumpen has no institutionalized
focus in Capitalist society. It has not immediate oppressor except perhaps the Pig Police with
which it is confronted daily.
So that the very conditions of life of the Lumpen dictates the so-called spontaneous
reactions against the system, and because the Lumpen is in this extremely oppressed condition, it
therefore has an extreme reaction against the system as a whole. It sees itself as being bypassed
by all of the organizations, even by the Labor Unions, and even by the Communist Parties that
despise it and look down upon it and consider it to be, in the words of Karl Marx, the father of
Communist Parties, "The Scum Layer of the Society". The Lumpen is forced to create its own
forms of rebellion that are consistent with its condition in life and with its relationship to the
means of production and the institutions of society. That is, to strike out at all the structures
around it, including at the reactionary Right Wing of the Proletariat when it gets in the way of
revolution.
The faulty analyses which the ideologies of the Working Class have made, of the true
nature of the Lumpen, are greatly responsible for the retardation of the development of the
revolution in urban situtations. It can be said that the true revolutionaries in the urban centers of
the world have been analyzed out of the revolution by some Marxist-Leninists.
Tony Bogues, “Black Youth in Revolt” (1977)
The last few months have seen a number of major confrontations between black youth
and the police, most notably at Lewisham. Ladywood and Notting Hill Carnival. The
radicalisation of black youth presents socialists with new opportunities and new
problems, whichare discussed in the following article by TONY BOGUES. It is intended
as a contribution to discussion, rather than a finished analysis, and hopefully others
will contribute to the development of that analysis
The events of Carnival, Lewisham and Ladywood have highlighted the question of the
political role of black youth. The ruling class press reacted this way: ‘Must the lawless win
again’ (Evening News editorial 30 August 77.) The right-wing elements in the West Indian
community, led by the West Indian World wrote:
‘The gang of 300 youths who defied Carnival stewards and wantonly attacked innocent
and peace-loving people as they joined in the happy scene are an embarrassment to the
Carnival organisers and the black population in the UK, and should pay the penalty for
their actions. We will not extend any sympathy to these thugs, and we advise other black
organisations to come out strongly against them’.
The Daily Gleaner was unequivocal:
‘There is no getting away from the simple truth of the violence at the end of the Notting
Hill Carnival on Bank Holiday Monday, a bunch of stupid black youth are to blame. The
police should be commended for the way in which they handled the situation under great
provocation’.
However, what is the reality? Are black youths simply a part of the lumpen-proletariat, that strata
which Engels and Marx in the Communist Manifesto called ‘dangerous scum’? Or is what we
have seen at Lewisham, Ladywood and Carnival a section of the proletariat who, subjected to the
daily beatings and harassment of the police and faced with deep-seated racism in Britain, have
decided to attack society in whatever way they can. The answer to this question is extremely
important, since, for revolutionary Marxists, the question for our strategy is how to connect up
with the ideas and consciousness of the masses, and to assist that in developing into classconsciousness. But, one thing is clear whatever the answer – black youth, because of their
experiences in Britain, developed a life-style of their own independently of any revolutionary
organisation, and in which a key element is the identification with each other in their struggles
with the police.
Black people arrived in Britain looking for a better life. Many were from rural areas in
the Caribbean. There, they had a history of anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggles against
domination by Britain. But when they came here they were forced into accepting jobs that the
white working class would not do. In reality they became part of the reserve army of labour here,
working in the lowest paid, unskilled jobs. Bringing with them the traditions of the struggle
against imperialism, the black workers were not disturbed by the racism of the employers, but by
the racism which they encountered from the British working class. In the Caribbean, their
experience was of solidarity messages sent to them by the labour movement. But in Britain, this
same labour movement behaved quite differently. As the reality of discrimination amongst the
white working class itself became felt, an organisation called the North London West Indian
Association changed its symbol of a black hand clasping a white hand. The same organisation
picketed London Transport in the 1960s to get black inspectors, while white workers went on
strike to try to stop black workers being employed. This feature has meant that black youth in
Britain today have understood the question of racism from birth.However, black youth, seeing
their parents still at the bottom of the social system, have broken out in open rebellion against
this system.
‘I am not going to work at a place for 40 years and not have anything to show for it. After
40 years they just have a little watch. And one man owns a house and he alone lives there,
and the house is so big with all 200 rooms, and I have to walk the streets. That’s not right.
Because if a house has 200 rooms it means that 200 of us can stay there.’ (Race Today
April 1975)
The above quotation says it all. Black youth have no interest in shit work. For them the question
is both lack of work and the nature of work. In other words, a rejection of the capitalist labour
process. Just listen to the words of another youth:
‘My ambition is to get my father off London Transport and that is what my ambition has
always been since I know myself. I don’t feel ashamed because he works there. It is just
that he is on that bus collecting tickets all day and it’s uncool.’ (Race Today April 1975)
This rejection of the capitalist labour process is not strange. When a situation exists where your
parents slave at 2-3 jobs just to keep above subsistence level. When society puts black children
into racist schools. When you face the racism of the employers. Then it is no wonder that black
youth will not participate in that process. This is not to say that black youth will not work. But in
these days of 1½ million unemployed the tendency not to take part in the capitalist labour
process is strengthened.
Along with the question of working in the capitalist labour process goes the refusal to be
further dehumanised on the steps of the social security office:
‘You walk down the street and you are an ordinary person. But once you step into the
social security office you are not that person any more. The person behind the counter
treats you as if you are just a layabout, a tramp, someone you don’t have to have manners
to, someone you don’t say “can I help you sir” to. They just ask you what you want, come
at such a time, don’t do this, don’t do that, where do you come from, who is your girl,
how many dogs you got, what do you eat, where is your doctor, – and you get fed up,
man. And this is why a lot of guys don’t bother to sign on. They would rather just hustle.
Not that they enjoy stealing money. But the state wants you to work. And they tell you
the best way is to sign on and while signing on they will get you a job. But it’s not like
that. It’s totally different. And you just say “well fuck it man”, and you go and start
hustling, and you are independent again. And everyone wants to be independent.’ (Race
Today April 1975)
It is clear then that black youth are not the ‘dangerous scum’ who can be swung one way or the
other. It is clear, for example, that black people could not join a fascist organisation. Their anger
and frustration cannot be channelled rightwards. Black youths are therefore not part of the
lumpenproletariat. They are part of the strata in the working class that is exploited and oppressed,
and have reacted to their oppression not in an organised overt manner, but in spontaneous
outburst against individual aspects of their oppression.
‘To drive a car anytime in Lewisham or New Cross is a big joke. You might as well walk.
And when you do that, you might as well stay inside, and me no friend of the wicked. I
driving from Lewisham to New Cross and get stopped three times. The whole place full
with road blocks, transit vans, police cars, the lot. Curfew in this town’ (Black youth at
Moonshot Youth Club in Lewisham)
Police harassment of black youth is one of the most striking features of being black in Britain.
The recent Operation 39 Police Nigger Hunt in Lewisham, which resulted in the arrest of twentyone black youths, the rampage carried out by the police on the Foster family, the Islington 18, all
demonstrate that for blacks the police are seen as the main oppressor.
The police are now known for their open racism. The now infamous Commander Randall
of P Division in Lewisham, on releasing the first set of figures for ‘mugging’ in January 1975
said: ‘Various people have advanced reasons as having helped create the problem of mugging.
But these are lazy, little criminals’. It is the same commander who was responsible for Operation
39 PNG! ‘Mugging’ has been the cry of those who have called upon the police to deal with black
youth. Racist hysteria soars to a pitch when ‘mugging’ is talked about. The real question for he
ruling class however, is not mugging. It is a strategy for the containment and chanelling of the
anger of black youth. The 1976 Carnival demonstrates this.
Here was an occasion, the only one in the life of the black population here when they can
feel on ‘safe’ ground in this country, but where the police turned it into a ‘police Carnival’ with
their massive presence. The police said that their presence there was to arrest pickpockets – 16
arrests were made for theft in 2 days. But the real reason was to control the Carnival, to disallow
any freedom of expression of the West Indian masses on the streets of London. What happened is
now history. The youth took on the police and defeated them. On this occasion even the ruling
class had to recognise this. The Financial Times commented:
‘Those who steal or assault must be classed as criminal. But those who crowd round to
prevent the police from arresting them must surely be seen as expressing a kind of social
or political anger, however inarticulate.’
For the black population, the blue uniform represents brutality. There is one section of the
working class that harbours no illusions about the role of the police.
Recently, at Ladywood and Lewisham, the police came under attack from black youths.
In the minds of many young blacks there is no difference between the police and the NF. It is
clear that the reason for this is the racism of the police. The latter, however perform a function in
the strategy of the ruling class – the containment of struggles. The fascists on the other hand feed
off the despair in the society, the defeats of the working class and their struggles. There is no
doubt however that in the struggle against the Front, when it comes to confrontation with the
fascists, that the police will be on their side. However, what was demonstrated in the Battle of
Lewisham and Carnival 77 is that the level of police brutality is at such a peak that black youth
will organise themselves to inflict defeat on them whenever there is an opportunity. Increasingly,
the prospect is of open confrontations with youths and police.
Three charges are used against young blacks by the police. The charge of ‘affray’ or
‘fighting to the terror of the Queens subjects’, as the law so nicely puts it. Introduced in 1970, it
was first used against blacks in the Mangrove restaurant trial. More widespread and actually
more effective has been the use of the Vagrancy Act of 1824, the ‘sus’ law. This empowers the
police to arrest any ‘suspected person or reputed their frequenting or loitering ... with intent to
commit an arrestable offence’, and is the most frequently used method of harassing and picking
up young blacks on the street. More recently, the conspiracy charge of ‘conspiring with persons
unknown to rob persons unknown.’ has been used in both the Islington 18 and Lewisham 21
trials.
The use of this conspiracy charge in fact shows how successful the police and the state
have been in their role vis-à-vis black youth. They have succeeded in isolating and stigmatising a
layer of young blacks, many of them unemployed and sometimes homeless as well, labelling
then public nuisances, anti-social elements, troublemakers, and so on. They have used
misguiding and distorting ‘statistics’ to build up this image of black youths, such as the notorious
assertion that seventy per cent of all assailants in what they call ‘mugging’ cases are black, and
eighty-five per cent of those attacked are white, and mostly women. What they failed to make
clear in these figures is how many of those arrested were actually convicted. And if you look at
the figures for charges of ‘loitering with intent’, you can see why – out of 2,112 arrested,887, i.e.
42 per cent were black. Could this be something to do with the police’s willingness to arrest
anyone young and black and on the street as someone who just looked as if they might be about
to or have at sometime committed ‘crimes unknown’ with ‘people unknown’ in ‘places
unknown’?
This image of all young blacks as actual or potential troublemakers or petty crooks was
eagerly latched onto by Enoch Powell and his racist and fascist friends, who began using the
American term mugging to denote assaults on whites by blacks. They created an atmosphere of
racist hysteria, claiming that there was emerging within British society a dangerous increasing
crime ‘mugging’ committed by a growing number of young black thugs. In other words,
‘mugging’ came into use as a specifically racist term. Because of its usage in America, it
simultaneously was associated with violent crime. And so all young blacks began to be identified
in this atmosphere as ‘dangerous criminals’.
It was fairly easy when the time came therefore, for the police to bring much more
serious charges against their young black ‘suspects’, such as been done in the Islington 18 and
Lewisham 21 cases. One cannot deny that young blacks are involved in petty crime such as
pickpocketing. But let us be clear as to who are the real victims and who are the criminals. We
have outlined briefly the inhuman racist conditions that young blacks face from the police. This
combined with the dismal prospect of no work, therefore no money, therefore, in this society of
wage-slavery, no real chance of meeting any human needs, leaves one no alternative but to seek
other means. In all this hysteria of ‘petty crime’ by young blacks, we forget something Engels
wrote in 1845 about the British working class:
‘Want leaves the working man the choice between starving slowly, killing himself
speedily or taking what he needs where he finds it – in plain English stealing. And there
is no cause for surprise that most of them prefer stealing to starvation.’ (Engels,
Condition of the English Working Class)
For many blacks therefore, it is not a question of morality. Indeed the hypocrisy of bourgeois
society is its total ‘amoralism’ in pursuit of its own interests. Suddenly however, when the poor
and oppressed are caught stealing then a righteous ‘moralism’ prevades the press of the
bourgeois. The other issue is that of stealing from the other sections of .the working class. No
revolutionary socialist can condone stealing from the poor. However, what is crucial for us is
whether we will condemn the youths and therefore brand them as criminals, or rather seek to
involve this anger into revolutionary politics. In other words, whether as revolutionary socialists
we see that the real criminals are the bosses and the ruling class who are responsible for massive
exploitation of the working class and oppression of minorities.
One other point must be made. At Carnival 77 some whites, including a few socialists,
were attacked, and their pockets picked. Some of them have now thrown up their hands in
despair and brand the youths as ‘lumpen’. But again, a lumpen consciousness does not lead
people to attack a pawn shop or organise themselves to fight the police. Nor do lumpen fight the
fascists the way black youths have done at Lewisham. A lumpen consciousness is individualistic,
will refuse to go to Lewisham. Instead that person would prefer to go to Ladbrokes.
White people came under attack at Carnival for the simple reason that all whites in a
situation of high tension with a majority of blacks around will be identified as the enemy. In such
situations the most elemental aspects of racial oppression appear. Getting back at the white
man/woman becomes a way of hitting back at the depth of your oppression. Lewisham went
some way to forging links between black and white, but the links have not been cemented. Many
more struggles will have to be fought before we can see any real cementing of this unity. Blacks’
experience of racism goes back hundreds of years. One day cannot eradicate that. For the
revolutionary socialist the task is to assist the activity of the most oppressed strata, in this case
the young blacks. The ruling class have been noticably successful in using the mugging issue to
attempt to block solidarity actions by the working class and its organisations. It must not become
a red herring to the revolutionary socialist party.
The ruling class have sometimes tried to draw parallels between the activity of black
youths and ‘football hooligans’ (’Or do they, like white soccer hooligans, simply relish trouble
for its own sake’ Evening News). While there is a certain similarity in the action, the difference
is the depth of the black youth action and the consistent militancy against the police. This means
the willingness to take on the police wherever it is possible. Black youth going to Carnival had
weapons which were solely for attacks against the police.
The battle between police and black youths has long-term implications for the struggle of
the working class. The scenes of ‘bobbies in goggles beating a war tattoo on their riot shields’
means that any activity of the working class, e.g. another Grunwicks, will bring home the reality
of the nature of the police. The resistance of blacks to police oppression has taken the form of
various defence campaigns. So far they have proved a good political vehicle for the mobilisation
of a particular community. In the recent period the Islington 18 Defence etc has shown what can
be done. The weakness of the Committee is the weakness of the stage of overt political
organisation among the black population. Indeed, with the increasing scale of harassment by the
police, then the Defence campaigns will become vehicles by which as mass organisation in the
black community can be built. Nowhere else does the pain of being black in Britain show itself
more acutely than with the police. It is from this confrontation that the beginnings of an
organised mass movement may emerge in the black community. The police recognise this. Hence
their tactics at Carnival was to split the black community between parents and youths. To have
the parents condemning the youths is what the police wished. They almost succeeded with the
help of the right-wing leaders in the community.
Black people are oppressed and exploited. The nature of their oppression is racial. The
‘black question’ is not one of blacks as a nation. It is the oppression of a racial minority – an
oppression, however, which combines with the general class nature of the society to place blacks
at the bottom of the social system. The struggle of blacks is therefore twofold. It is the issue of
racism which leads young blacks not to accept the notion of ‘right to work’. For young blacks the
question is the right to what work. Given the nature of racism in the trade unions the spontaneous
reaction is ‘the unions are reactionary’ and at its starkest level ‘why should I work for a white
man anyway’. The point is that it is because of racism that young blacks are unemployed, but the
system then guarantees a reaction which begins to question the process of capitalist labour. This
questioning is not objectively ‘subversive’ of capital. Indeed without the power of the organised
working class, then the ‘unconscious’ rejection of the labour process remains at the level of
individual rebellion.
The problem therefore becomes how to link up the struggles of the organised working
class to the momentum of the movement of black youths. Firstly, because of the racism blacks
will struggle independently against racism. It is absolutely essential for the confidence of blacks
that we wage struggles on our own behalf. Secondly, the movement that is now developing in the
community is primarily against police harassment. And self-defence from racist attacks. It is here
that the working class has to show most solidarity. It is here that the energy and anger of black
youths will be demonstrated, as at Lewisham. Organising against the police will be the testing
ground for the real solidarity of the white working class. The task facing us therefore is of
connecting that anger and energy into organisational forms, linking that with various struggles at
the workplace. In the increasing attacks on the communities, the right to fight back is recognised.
Those at the bottom of the bottom don’t have the liberty to choose their battlegrounds’. As
revolutionary socialists we should stand in solidarity with those at the bottom. Our strategy
should flow from this standpoint.