I’m not sure if you’re joking, but either way there’s a lot that could be said here.
It’s not that Marx hates the poors, which is a bit absurd to accuse him of, but I do think his class analysis of the lumpen is somewhat misguided, and this error is still commonly made by leftists to this day*. Part of the problem is using lumpenproletariat as a catch-all class for people who subsist without participating in productive labor. Within that category there are so many different ways that people might relate to production, meaning there can be huge differences in their class character, hence it being imo problematic to call the lumpenproletariat a class at all. But even if we do, maybe we shouldn’t be lumping all NEETs in with the lumpen.
For example, a NEET who chooses to be NEET because they have a rich (bourgeois or labor aristocracy) family that takes care of all of their needs is going to have significantly different class interests compared to say someone who has lived in destitution most of their life and is forced to turn to pickpocketing, prostitution, or selling drugs in order to survive (the latter few being traditional examples of lumpenproletariat). There are other conditions that can produce NEETS who would have class characteristics more like those traditional lumpen examples or even that of regular proletariat, like people who are barely able to subsist on disability, and have little choice but to live like hermits. In other words, NEETs can be all over the place as far as actual class character, but then again, so can any lumpen.
(*In the linked thread, OP @Frank@hexbear.net was correct. When I said there is an error that leftists make to this day, I am referring to many of the responses he got.)
I’m not sure if you’re joking, but either way there’s a lot that could be said here.
It’s not that Marx hates the poors, which is a bit absurd to accuse him of, but I do think his class analysis of the lumpen is somewhat misguided, and this error is still commonly made by leftists to this day*. Part of the problem is using lumpenproletariat as a catch-all class for people who subsist without participating in productive labor. Within that category there are so many different ways that people might relate to production, meaning there can be huge differences in their class character, hence it being imo problematic to call the lumpenproletariat a class at all. But even if we do, maybe we shouldn’t be lumping all NEETs in with the lumpen.
For example, a NEET who chooses to be NEET because they have a rich (bourgeois or labor aristocracy) family that takes care of all of their needs is going to have significantly different class interests compared to say someone who has lived in destitution most of their life and is forced to turn to pickpocketing, prostitution, or selling drugs in order to survive (the latter few being traditional examples of lumpenproletariat). There are other conditions that can produce NEETS who would have class characteristics more like those traditional lumpen examples or even that of regular proletariat, like people who are barely able to subsist on disability, and have little choice but to live like hermits. In other words, NEETs can be all over the place as far as actual class character, but then again, so can any lumpen.
(*In the linked thread, OP @Frank@hexbear.net was correct. When I said there is an error that leftists make to this day, I am referring to many of the responses he got.)