What is leftism view on hobos,homeless,alcoholics,drug addicts, vagrants and etc? Are they considered proles?
gkfasngksfngksfgnskfgnsfkgnsfkgnsfkgnsfkgnsfkgnsfkgsfklgnsflkgnsflkgnsflkgnsflkgnsflgknsfglksfnklgsnfglksfnglksfnglksfnglskfgnsflkgnsfklgnsflkgnsflkgnsflkgnsflkgnsflkgnsflkgnsflkgnsfnlkg 200 charachters(USER WAS BANNED FOR CHEATING CHAR LIMIT)
Other urls found in this thread:
nyu.edu
youtube.com
twitter.com
Most people here think fucking CEO's and wealthy entertainers are proles so sure, why fucking not.
I believe Marx referred to them as lumpenproles - though, for the record, this label certainly doesn't apply to all homeless, alcoholic, or drug addicted people since many of said categories actually do work waged jobs or service jobs which aren't entertainment.
I'd consider them proles, yes. And many of their ills and predicaments are caused or made worse by real estate speculation (homelessness) and capitalism (drugs, see especially the opioid epidemic as well as the way caffeine and nicotine are treated).
They are not proles they are lumpen proles and will never be able to achieve class consciousness or become revolutionary.
They are technically proletariat but they have interests with the bourgeois.
How about you read Rafiq instead of bringing in that vulgar "Marxism"?
Fucking look up the word proletariat you dumb liberal.
Plenty of lumpens become class conscious. I'd even argue that it's more common today than workers becoming class conscious.
...
I've been a communist since late 2015. Not long but long enough to know there's no consistent definition of the term presently in use.
ARM THE HOMELESS
Explain the massive riots during the Great Depression caused by the unemployed.
Proletariat: individual whose only valuable asset is his/her children (proles). This is the original definition. It's not that complicated user.
Reserve army of labor not lumpen prole.
Majorly aided if not outright caused by capitalism. I don't want to get into indepth "dialectical analysis" though.
No, I think they have a different relationship to the means of production, considering they are altogether excluded from it, instead of the products of their labor.
All those are a part of the umbrella poor and working class. They are integral to the existence of the working class, a constant reminder that refusal to submit to the system results in a loss of property and basic human rights/dignities.
I’m I’m not mistaken Marx spoke on this. The prole must constantly fear for their employment and the excess of workers to the point of generating homelessness is important for driving more labor. As for drug addicts, in my experience (I was addicted to heroin for ~4 years) it largely results from alienation and boredom, as well as depression inherent from certain aspects of liberalism. Individualism and competition is not healthy mentally and drives people to correct their mental state through a variety of things, including porn or drugs, whatever your vice may be. But overall the homeless and drug addicted should be supported to the best of our ability, they are victims of the system we fight to overthrow
how was heroin?
This
How would the lumpenproletariat be treated in a leftist society?
This week I interviewed hobos about their life quality and if they are satisfied with our local institutions offering them help. Basically, they simply cannot afford deposit and commission for a lodging. Some of them even negotiated a deferred payment, but renters screwed them.
In addition, the neoliberal paradigm is burned in their mind. They believe any job with enough money to earn saves them from their misery.
So in fact, they are quadruple-free wageworkers, because they are free of lodging and wage, too.
Some hobos even analyzed how the city prevents them from blocking the streets with the public support. Since tourism is one of the city's main income, hobos would ruin the beautiful cityscape. Medicinal offers are necessary for not spreading diseases in this city. And so on.
There is a capitalistic interest in helping hobos. And they get just the help to prevent them from protesting. Still hobos have a revolutionary potential as they have not only the time but also a huge private interest to revolt against the system. One has only to organize them. Anticapitalistic attempts like blockades or syndicalist production are possibilities which come to my mind.
In order to answer your question, yes, they are proles as already told.
KILL RICH LANDOWNERS AND TAKE THEIR STUFF
Lol unexpected question. It’s both simultaneously the greatest thing and the worst. It’s hard to explain. First time I ever shot it was the craziest thing felt like a 100 orgasms at once in a way. But at the same it felt dirty, like tons of guilt or something. After that it was a few years of pure bullshit just constant feeling of seeking, followed by temporary relief and then more seeking. Gives me conniptions
Wouldn't socialism remove the status of lumpens altogether? Lumpens are a byproduct of capitalism, right?
end this meme now. they are not proletarians.
listen to comrade engels:
If you think CEO's only sustenance is their labor and they don't profit massively from capital then you are wrong.
They are not a revolutionary class because they are powerless, unlike the workers who need only to become conscious of and exercise their power over the MOP they engage with daily.
Ain't no hobo strike ever brought anyone to their knees.
homeless will be purged if they don't work, they probably are just crazy conspiracy theorists anyways
A large number of conspiracy theories are true though.
If i was in charge of a communist party i would get them to kill my enemies, they literally have nothing to lose but their chains