[Technology]

As welfare states have matured and grown larger and larger in the 20th Century and beyond, the proletariat as a class has split into two groups; a sub-class that works, and a sub-class that does not.

Now, these sub-classes are fluid as a reality, but they exist very solidly in the minds of the right-liberal conservative (and right-libertarian) proletariat in Western countries, especially the UK and to even greater extremes in the US. The nonworking class are divorced from their means of production and can only sell their labor power and so are certainly of the same Marxist class definition of prole, but in the face of diminishing prospects at mobility, they choose to piggy back off the tax system instead of actually selling their labor power. Perhaps they can't, because there are too few jobs. Perhaps capital has to too great an extent been substituted in place of their labor. Are they a lumpen underclass?

In reality, most people on welfare still work, but political reality is different from actual reality, and what is believed about class distinction can define what the future will be like more than what the consequences of structural reality alone would suggest. There is believed to be a large class of welfare leeches who shirk work and abuse the state. This class which exists most strongly in the minds of proles who take a pride in being working men, helps create an opposition which more sharply defines their place in the world for them. It is certainly a growing consequence of diminishing labor power, even if it is numerically exaggerated for ideological effect.

So, Marxists: If so many believe this (the TeaParty is proof enough that this is the case I think), what problems does it create for the realization of communism going forward? Is the existence or the belief in the existence of a leech class a potential stumbling block to the awakening of working class consciousness? The class that works has traditionally been synonymous with proletariat, but if that class has split it may dampen and misdirect your efforts. The working segment defines itself through not being the non-working segment, and the smaller non-working segment (which may grow) seems dependent on the status quo to accrue benefits.

Marxism certainly has a great reliance on workers for its revolutionary outcomes, and at the time Marx was writing, the modern scale of welfare state did not exist, and so proletariat = worker consequentially. Now this may not be the case. You could easily argue that this problem will create the discontent necessary for revolution, but it's not a forgone conclusion that this discontent will be directed at the bourgeoisie if the class with revolutionary potential can be kept in a state of infighting.

[The Immortal Goon]

As welfare states have matured and grown larger and larger in the 20th Century and beyond, the proletariat as a class has split into two groups; a sub-class that works, and a sub-class that does not…[the latter] in the face of diminishing prospects at mobility, they choose to piggy back off the tax system instead of actually selling their labor power. Perhaps they can't, because there are too few jobs. Perhaps capital has to too great an extent been substituted in place of their labor. Are they a lumpen underclass?

This was true long before the 20th Century, as you allude. It is a key Marx goes back to several times, most notably in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, the subject of which is able to seemingly circumvent both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie by placing himself as the head of the Lumpenproletariat. Marx describes the Lumpenproletariat as such:

...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, 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...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.

Incidentally, Bonaparte could only go so far. He was a rogue himself, as Marx points out, but even if he pretended to be above the bourgeoisie he could not escape capitalism because he did not oppose it. Thus, it was a broken movement to begin with and ended in the farce that it only could have been.

As per the questions:

what problems does it create for the realization of communism going forward? Is the existence or the belief in the existence of a leech class a potential stumbling block to the awakening of working class consciousness? The class that works has traditionally been synonymous with proletariat, but if that class has split it may dampen and misdirect your efforts. The working segment defines itself through not being the non-working segment, and the smaller non-working segment (which may grow) seems dependent on the status quo to accrue benefits.

Lumpenproletariat are often a leg on which fascism sits, though fascism tends to use another nebulous class, the petite bourgeoisie as their foundation. Regardless, the actions of the Lumpenproletariat before the second world war did help in undermining the communist movement. It is no coincidence that the same black hundreds tend to be attracted to the the Tea Baggers. But this has been true since Marx's time.

Ultimately, however, this becomes a question of cultural hegemony—which is what I think you're trying to get at. Gramsci has been slow to get onto Marxists.org, but you can still find stuff on line about him. That's where I would turn.

[Technology]

I see, so it is a problem. Are there any specific political strategies you use to deal with this, or do you just have to hold tight and hope the proletariat awaken to your message in spite of misdirection?

[The Immortal Goon]

Well, it's not a major problem.

The lumpenproletariat, like the petite bourgeoisie, or the peasantry, will ultimately gravitate one way or the other. There is no active way that these, "classes," can run a society. The source of their production simply doesn't make sense—despite what the utopian, fascist, or whatever will say.

This is, ultimately, where the term, "third way," comes from in the attempt to find a, "third way," that mostly fascists tend to use. But you can see that kind of rhetoric amongst the libertarians and tea-baggers too.

Mostly this is why we need to organize. The only think Marx said was inevitable was struggle. I listened to something recently that went over how Spain was poised to be the first bourgeoisie country, but was not even close. I always use the example of the English Civil War. It was thoroughly modern in many of its conception, but the preoccupation with religion and whatnot caused it to fall back. There was no inevitability that Cromwell would become the first president of the bourgeois republic of England.

This said, productive forces tend to work in a certain direction. In order to shape that direction into something useful, you need an organization. In doing this, then, we can better cause gravitation to us—of the working class, the lumpenproletariat, the petite bourgeoisie, and even some of the masters of society (there were examples in Russia).

But it comes down to us.

[Leninist]

A political response to the problem, say in the United States, would require some sort of promise of cracking down on the "slackers" as the tea party thinkd of them. but the fact is that communism, if properly explained and progated to the masses, would solve the problem by itself. A combination of cultural rehabilitation of the work ethic, universal (and mandatory) employment of healthy people, and plentiful commodities would effectively annihilate this group. And I think you'll find most people in this class would find the prospect of reasonable employment quite attractive.

[Decky]

And I think you'll find most people in this class would find the prospect of reasonable employment quite attractive.

This.

They only exist because of capitalism (unemployment helps the capitalists in many ways, keeping inflation down, supplying a reserve army of labour to keep wages and working conditions down etc).

In a nation with full employment they would not be a problem as they would not exist. In a red nation any able bodied adult works or he starves. What excuse is there for not working if there is full employment?

Think about how much people hate dole scum now when there are fewer jobs than people (i,e when unemployment is a mathematical inevitability). Now imagine how much they would be despised if it really was just a case of lazy scum refusing to work. No one would choose to live like that.

[Leninist]

This.

They only exist because of capitalism (unemployment helps the capitalists in many ways, keeping inflation down, supplying a reserve army of labour to keep wages and working conditions down etc).

In a nation with full employment they would not be a problem as they would not exist. In a red nation any able bodied adult works or he starves. What excuse is there for not working if there is full employment?

Think about how much people hate dole scum now when there are fewer jobs than people (i,e when unemployment is a mathematical inevitability). Now imagine how much they would be despised if it really was just a case of lazy scum refusing to work. No one would choose to live like that.

Very true. And although it might sound a little cliche, many of the worst people in capitalism, are simply products of it, the result of their circumstances. After a few generations, the mindset itself would cease to exist.