Marx and Engels mention a class “below” the proletariat called the lumpenproletariat, which i understand as meaning a class that has no class consciousness, and is therefore susceptible to the influence of the bourgeoisie. but i don’t see the difference between that and the proletariat proper. don’t the proletariat receive propaganda to suppress their own class consciousness, and don’t they have to be woken up? i don’t get why the lumpenproletariat supposedly can’t be woken up in the same way. besides, some examples of the lumpenproletariat given are people in organized crime, sex workers, and the unemployed. i find it hypocritical to condemn a class of people based on what they do to survive in a capitalist society (or in the case of the unemployed, the fact that the bourgeoisie won’t give them a job). but more than anything, i’m just thoroughly confused by this concept. i feel like i’m missing something major.
Marx’ flaws caused him to hit some really fat Ls in certain aspects of his theory and this is absolutely one of them. He seems to near-consistently run into the need to unnecessarily tier stuff as being ‘better’ and ‘worse’ for reasons that are pretty much hipfires. It’s the main reason I don’t recommend capital as an introduction; as not only is it near-unreadable, but it’s also deeply flawed in ways you won’t notice if you’re new. Like you don’t tell your friend to start an RPG series at the first game where it’s at its worst, you get them into the good one and let them come to it later once they’re invested. That way they’ll have tools to deal with the jank and the patience to actually stick around. Marx does have some amazing insight and learning it will practically give you future-sight, but it’s insanely rough around the edges and you have to know what parts are god and what parts are god-awful in order to walk away with a complete picture.