Trump, Democrats and the Lumpenproletariat Problem

Photograph Source: May4th – CC BY 2.0

The American Democratic Party has a problem with white working-class America – they lost them, or at least large segments of them to Donald Trump’s Republican Party. Policy reasons may explain part of this. But a better explanation may be that these voters fit the description of what Karl Marx used to call the Lumpenproletariat–reactionary working class opposed to revolution or at least progressive politics.  Understanding who these individuals are may be critical to Democrats winning in 2020.

The 2016 US presidential vote saw counties with a greater percentage whites and a percentage of the population with only a high school degree or less voter for Donald Trump. This is the white working class. This vote was a continuation of a trend that began with Richard Nixon’s 1968 appeal to the working class with law and order themes.  It then goes to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 exploitation of their economic insecurities as America was deindustrializing and closing factories and industrial plants across the country, resulting in the loss of millions of jobs, and George H. W. Bush’s 1988 pandering to racial fears with Willie Horton.

Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign brought all these themes together in his “Make America Great Again” slogan, blaming immigrants, Muslims, and anyone not straight, white, and mostly male and working class for what ails the country. “Make America Great Again” was explicit in its reactionary themes, much in the same way the original 2016 UK Brexit vote and the 2019 Boris Johnson victory was.  All these votes were marked by the loss of the white working class–once a mainstay of the Democratic Party in the US or the Labor Party in the UK–to the Republican and Conservative Parties respectively.

In America, policy positions adopted by the Democratic Party can partly explain the loss of the white working class.  One suggestion is that President Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the 1964 Civil Rights bill led to what he reputedly said was the loss of the south for a generation. Yet it was not so much the signing of the civil rights act as it was the abandonment of class and the embrace of identity politics that cost the Democrats the South and white working class. When US deindustrialization started to kick in during the 1970s, Democrats failed to offer a competing economic response to the global restructuring of capitalism.

They instead embraced neo-liberal economic solutions and talked race and social issues.  Bill Clinton’s signing of the 1994 crime bill and attacking “superpredators” was no different than Nixon’s law and order appeals.  Clinton also signed the 1996 welfare reform bill, signaling a retreat from progressive economic policies.  Obama’s refusal to push for reform of the National Labor Relations Act to make it easier to form unions, and his continuation of his predecessor’s bailout of the banks and not workers or home owners after the 2008 economic crash all also examples of the rush to the right.

Classic Communist Manifesto Marx would have said that these actions were part of a crisis of late stage capitalism characterized by a declining ability of the bourgeoisie to maintain profits.  This should have resulted in the increasing immiserization of the proletariat and the development of the conditions for revolutionary consciousness and action.  Yet it did not happen, leading some to suggest that Marx was wrong about capitalism and class struggle.

Yet Marx did foresee this problem with some workers, and it resides in his concept of the Lumpenproletariat.    Who are the Lumpenproletariats?  In the Communist Manifesto he defines them as the “lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant.”   He sees them as willing to fight against the bourgeoisie to save themselves from extinction, and they are a reactionary group who wish to “roll back the wheel of history.”   Elsewhere, such as in the German Ideology and The Class Struggle in France he describes the Lumpenproletariat as the “scum of the Earth,” thieves, or a group historically caught between peasants and freeman.  Yet bracketing off these more derogatory descriptions, many of Trump’s white working-class base fits the description of the Lumpenproletariat.

Marx anticipated that a group of the working class would not be amendable to revolutionary action.  They would be pulled self-defensively, prone to resisting change.  Now couple this concept of the Lumpenproletariat with two other observations about Marx.  One, as critics pointed out, Marx and Marxism have a problem with race, failing to see how non-class oppression was an issue.  In theory, Marx failed to see how race could be used as a tool to break class solidarity among the proletariat.  Yet the concept of the Lumpenproletariat provides an opening, especially if one views racism and racialized rhetoric and politics as either structural or ideological tools to divide.

Two, as Theodore Adorno contended in his 1950 The Authoritarian Personality, certain personality types are linked to, and prone to appeals to anti-democratic behavior.   The traits of the authoritarian personality included anti-intellectualism, stereotyping, and often misogynist behavior.  The traits of the authoritarian personality fit well into the concept of the Lumpenproletariat.

Assuming that much of the Trump base fits the description of Lumpenproletariat, what are the implications?  For one, it is not clear over the last 50 years if now going into the 2020 US presidential elections that significant appeals to class and economics could have moved these voters back to the Democrats.  Perhaps had the Democratic Party continued to talk class many of these workers would have stayed with them, but it is not clear that faced with the threat of extinction they could have be moved toward more progressive politics.  Two, even if the Democrats had continued to talk class, appeals today to them on the basis of class and economics may not be powerful enough to move them electorally;  they may be lost politically and if demographics are correct, they are facing significant distinction over time.  Three, while progressive candidates such as Bernie Sanders may be able to shift some of these voters to them, betting on wholesale shifting of the Lumpenproletariat to the Democrats is unlikely.

Finally, none of this analysis should be construed to suggest that it does not matter if the Democrats pick a conservative or progressive candidate for president in 2020.  In an election based on the electoral college and not the popular vote, policy prescriptions and candidate strategy in a handful of swing states will decide the outcome.  Here the mobilization by Trump of the Lumpenproletariat compared to the Democrats’ ability to move their base is what will decide the election, with in some cases some of the working class in play.  The trick for the Democrats is identifying which working class voters they can or cannot move.

More articles by:

David Schultz is a professor of political science at Hamline University. He is the author of Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter.

July 14, 2020
Anthony DiMaggio
Canceling the Cancel Culture: Enriching Discourse or Dumbing it Down?
Patrick Cockburn
Boris Johnson Should not be Making New Global Enemies When His Country is in a Shambles
Frank Joyce
Lift From the Bottom? Yes.
Richard C. Gross
The Crackdown on Foreign Students
Steven Salaita
Should We Cancel “Cancel Culture”?
Paul Street
Sorry, the Chicago Blackhawks Need to Change Their Name and Logo
Jonathan Cook
‘Cancel Culture’ Letter is About Stifling Free Speech, Not Protecting It
John Feffer
The Global Rushmore of Autocrats
C. Douglas Lummis
Pillar of Sand in Okinawa
B. Nimri Aziz
Soft Power: Americans in Its Grip at Home Must Face the Mischief It Wields by BNimri Aziz July 11/2020
Cesar Chelala
What was lost when Ringling Bros. Left the Circus
Dan Bacher
California Regulators Approve 12 New Permits for Chevron to Frack in Kern County
George Wuerthner
Shrinking Wilderness in the Gallatin Range
Lawrence Davidson
Woodrow Wilson’s Racism: the Basis For His Support of Zionism
Binoy Kampmark
Mosques, Museums and Politics: the Fate of Hagia Sophia
Dean Baker
Propaganda on Government Action and Inequality from David Leonhardt
July 13, 2020
Gerald Sussman
The Russiagate Spectacle: Season 2?
Ishmael Reed
Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Perry Mason Moment
Jack Rasmus
Why the 3rd Quarter US Economic ‘Rebound’ Will Falter
W. T. Whitney
Oil Comes First in Peru, Not Coronavirus Danger, Not Indigenous Rights
Ralph Nader
The Enduring Case for Demanding Trump’s Resignation
Raghav Kaushik – Arun Gupta
On Coronavirus and the Anti-Police-Brutality Uprising
Deborah James
Digital Trade Rules: a Disastrous New Constitution for the Global Economy Written by and for Big Tech
Howard Lisnoff
Remembering the Nuclear Freeze Movement and Its Futility
Sam Pizzigati
Will the Biden-Sanders Economic Task Force Rattle the Rich?
Allen Baker
Trump’s Stance on Foreign College Students Digs US Economic Hole Even Deeper
Binoy Kampmark
The Coronavirus Seal: Victoria’s Borders Close
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Power, Knowledge and Virtue
Weekend Edition
July 10, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Lynnette Grey Bull
Trump’s Postcard to America From the Shrine of Hypocrisy
Anthony DiMaggio
Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper’s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism
David Yearsley
Morricone: Maestro of Music and Image
Jeffrey St. Clair
“I Could Live With That”: How the CIA Made Afghanistan Safe for the Opium Trade
Rob Urie
Democracy and the Illusion of Choice
Paul Street
Imperial Blind Spots and a Question for Obama
Vijay Prashad
The U.S. and UK are a Wrecking Ball Crew Against the Pillars of Internationalism
Melvin Goodman
The Washington Post and Its Cold War Drums
Richard C. Gross
Trump: Reopen Schools (or Else)
Chris Krupp
Public Lands Under Widespread Attack During Pandemic 
Alda Facio
What Coronavirus Teaches Us About Inequality, Discrimination and the Importance of Caring
Eve Ottenberg
Bounty Tales
Andrew Levine
Silver Linings Ahead?
John Kendall Hawkins
FrankenBob: The Self-Made Dylan
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Deutsche Bank Fined $150 Million for Enabling Jeffrey Epstein; Where’s the Fine Against JPMorgan Chase?
David Rosen
Inequality and the End of the American Dream
Louis Proyect
Harper’s and the Great Cancel Culture Panic