Abstract
Almost 30 years after the publication of the excellent Critical Theories of the State (1993), which covered the main Marxist inspired contributions to state theory, The Dangerous Class: The Concept of the Lumpenproletariat is Clyde W. Barrow’s second effort of providing an overview of important debates within the Marxist tradition, this time focusing on the concept of the ‘lumpenproletriat’.
As Barrow documents in the introduction, the concept of the lumpenproletariat has faced mixed fortunes in Marxist theory since the term was first coined by Marx and Engels in The German Ideology. While most, Marx and Engels first among them, could not hide their contempt and mistrust for this social group that Marx described as ‘scum offal, refuse of all classes’ (p. 57), others, like Frantz Fanon and the intellectuals of the Black Panther Party (BPP), valued its revolutionary potential (chapter 5). Whether the lumpenproletariat should be considered a revolutionary or, on the contrary, a counter-revolutionary force has been a major point of tension among Marxists. The objective of the book is to review and clarify these debates by conducting ‘the first comprehensive analysis of the concept of the lumpenproletariat in Marxist political thought’ (p. 1), from the seminal work of Marx and Engels (chapters 1–4) to that of post-Marxists like André Gorz (chapter 6).
After a first chapter addressing issues of ‘etymology, lexicology, and translation’, the following three chapters aim to provide a clear definition of the lumpenproletariat as an economic (chapter 2), cultural (chapter 3), and political (chapter 4) category. While the contributions of key Marxist figures like Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg are briefly addressed, these chapters mostly revolve around Marx and Engels’ writings. Barrow claims that, contrary to most authors who rely exclusively on Marx’s Class Struggles in France and The Eighteenth Brumaire as the defining texts on the lumpenproletariat, paying greater attention to Marx’s Capital Vol. 1 and Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England will shed light on some important, but apparently overlooked, theoretical elements that should illuminate and settle the debate. Unfortunately, I have to say that I was not convinced. Instead of providing more clarity, I find that the inclusion of these two major texts further highlights the incredible ambiguities that surround the concept of the lumpenproletariat in Marxist theory. This is particularly true when it comes to defining the lumpenproletariat as an ‘economic category’ and to assessing its position in capitalist class structures.
As Barrow emphasizes repeatedly throughout the book, ‘Marx and Engels define the lumpenproletariat by its nonrelation to economic production and by its position outside capitalist relations of production’ (p. 15, emphasis in original). This non-participation in production means that, ultimately, the lumpenproletariat is a ‘fundamentally parasitic social category’ and that ‘these chronic nonparticipants in the labor force fall outside the class structure of capitalist society’ (p. 41). Based on this analysis, the lumpenproletariat’s ‘existence as a nonworking class’ (p. 137) seems firmly established. However, an equally prevalent idea throughout the book is that of ‘a fluid and ambiguous class boundary between the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat’ (p. 45).
Here, the focus shifts from the seemingly clear-cut notion of non-participation in production to that of sporadic employment. From this perspective, it is argued that ‘the lumpenproletariat is sometimes a part of the proletariat and sometimes not, dependent on the extent and duration of its attachment to the labor market’ (p. 137). The tensions between these two approaches seem difficult to reconcile and I do not find the distinction between the so-called ‘honest lumpenproletariat’ that moves in and out of employment and the ‘lumpenproletariat proper’ – ‘a degraded and degenerate social group with no redeeming qualities’ (p. 158) – to be particularly helpful. Rather, I feel like this distinction demonstrates the theoretical and empirical vagueness surrounding the concept of the lumpenproletariat.
Chapters 3 and 4 further illustrate the animosity and contempt characteristic of traditional Marxism toward the lumpenproletariat. If, culturally, Marx and Engels speak of a ‘parasitic, violent, and prostituted culture whose members cannot be trusted’ (p. 58), the lumpenproletariat does not fare much better as a political category. For Marx and Engels, the counter-revolutionary nature of the lumpenproletariat is indisputable and they consider that it will never be able to act as anything else but the ‘bribed tool of reactionary intrigue’ (p. 2). No matter the circumstances, lumpenproletariants will always remain ‘the worst of all the possible allies’ (p. 85) for the working class.
One has to wait for chapter 5, which covers the work of Frantz Fanon and the intellectuals of the Black Panther Party (BPP) like Eldridge Cleaver to find a glimmer of hope. They were the first authors to draw explicit links between lumpenproletariat, colonialism (external in Fanon’s case, internal for the BPP), racial oppression, and capitalism. Compared to the other authors addressed in the book, Fanon and Cleaver stand out for not focusing exclusively on the White working class of the capitalist core but, on the contrary, on the experience of colonized subjects and racialized groups. By taking the intersection between race and class seriously, they show how, whether in Algeria (Fanon) or in the United States (BPP), people of color face much higher levels of exploitation, oppression, and violence than the White working class of advanced industrialized countries. For Cleaver, this means that Black workers will be the first ones to join the ranks of the surplus population as technological progress decimates the ranks of the industrial proletariat. As the first victims of the ‘lumpenproletarization process’ that will eventually extend to White workers, Cleaver considers that African Americans will form the revolutionary vanguard that, if the US working class overcomes its racial divisions and becomes united, will lead the way toward a new society: ‘Lumpen status is the future of the working class without a socialist revolution’ (p. 104). The topic of de-industrialization and of the future of the working class is further elaborated in chapter 6, which covers the work of various post-Marxist authors. While Cleaver remained skeptical that White workers would overcome their racial prejudice and see beyond their ‘wage of whiteness’, his work stands out for redeeming the lumpenproletariat, from ‘bribed tool of reactionary intrigue’ to revolutionary vanguard.
Overall, The Dangerous Class offers a great introductory overview of how ‘early Marxists’ have conceptualized the lumpenproletariat as an economic, cultural, and political category, and how later generations have addressed the topic through the intersection of race and class, and have debated on its future in post-industrial societies. As Barrow warns in the introduction: ‘this is a pessimistic book’ (p. 17). The more optimistic account of revolutionaries like Fanon and Cleaver notwithstanding, the lumpenproletariat is presented as a culturally depraved group that, most often than not, will act as a counter-revolutionary force. As argued earlier, one can lament the book’s inability to overcome the contradictions and ambiguities that have characterized decades of Marxist debates around the lumpenproletariat’s class position. While Barrow contends that the lumpenproletariat constitutes ‘a fluid and malleable category at the empirical level’, in my opinion, the various elements presented in the book fall short of supporting his claim that ‘it is still much more than a catchall phrase’ (p. 50). Ultimately, one is left pondering over the theoretical and empirical usefulness of a concept like the lumpenproletariat whose definition as an ‘economic category’ remains marked by such vagueness and ambiguity.