The Lumpenbourgeoisie
The demographic most eager for socialism comes from the thwarted middle class.
Zohran Mamdani’s victory last week continues to generate takes. Some conservatives view him as the candidate of affluent whites against the “anti-socialist” elements of the multiracial working class. Other conservatives, such as Stephen Miller, argued that “unchecked migration fundamentally remade the NYC electorate” and made Zohran possible. Mamdani did particularly well among Asians and performed better among Hispanics than among blacks. Immigrants seemed to not mind his message.
Leftist John Ganz incorporates both into the most accurate view of Zohran’s base. According to Ganz, the socialist won “New New York,” meaning “recent arrivals in New York, across cultural and class lines: post-college professionals on the make (or, in many cases, downwardly mobile white-collar workers who are being proletarianized or bohemianized) and recent immigrants from abroad.”
Mamdani’s core supporters are drawn more from the “post-college professionals” rather than the immigrants. His victory party was filled with young, college-educated whites. There weren’t many fresh-off-the boat migrants in the crowd. These immigrants voted for Mamdani, but they aren’t the vanguard of his revolution. It’s an element that I would call “lumpenbourgeoisie.”
These are middle-class types who feel thwarted in some way. Some may have decent jobs, but still struggle to pay rent living in NYC or another big city. Others are NEETs (not in employment, education, or training) who live with their parents and have no job at all. They think they will not obtain the level of security as their parents, and they don’t see much of a path to advance. They may have a college degree, but it’s no ticket to the American dream. They’re in a precarious position and are open to radical ideas. They don’t have much to lose, so why not try socialism? It will at least own the chuds they despise.
Marxists have deployed the term “lumpenbourgeoisie” before, but they use it to describe native elites who back colonial rule. It’s derived from “lumpenproletariat,” which connotes the criminal and vagabond elements of the working class. These are people alienated from the rest of the proletariat and turn to dishonest work or no work at all. Marx and Engels took a dim view of this element, viewing them as a counter-revolutionary force against the proper proletariat. Later leftists, such as Frantz Fanon, saw these elements in a more positive light, claiming they would be the leading agents of the revolution. “It is among these masses, in the people of the shanty towns and in the lumpenproletariat that the insurrection will find its urban spearhead,” Fanon declared in The Wretched of the Earth. “The lumpenproletariat, this cohort of starving men, divorced from tribe and clan, constitutes one of the most spontaneously and radically revolutionary forces of a colonized people.”
Gangbangers and hobos don’t seem to be leading socialism today. It’s rather the alienated elements of the bourgeoisie most eager for it.
Some of the lumpenbourgeoisie were always going to struggle to achieve the American dream. Many of them go into the creative professions where there’s not much chance to make money. These young, urban creatives (Yuccies?) have always been bohemians on the precipice of poverty. There may be more people pursuing these dreams now than before, and New York City plays host to many of them. It’s no surprise they would support a socialist just like them.
But there are other elements who pursued the standard middle-class path and didn’t find the expected success. They may have a decent job and a good degree, but their career prospects are dismal and their cost of living is unaffordable. They feel that their quality of life and future is worse than that of their parents. Declining or threatened status is a common ingredient in political radicalization. Even though Mamdani’s policies will lead to this demographic experiencing more crime and higher rents, they vote for it because they want change–no matter the costs.
These types are also the most beholden to left-wing thinking. They went to schools where it was the norm, they accepted it to fit in, and their social circles still exhibit it. They hate the suburban chuds they grew up around and detest their Trump support. They see them as racists, so they try to be as anti-racist as possible. They love diversity because it’s so much better than their whitebread hometown. They’re woke because it signifies that they are good and smart. It’s just a small step to decide that what society needs is massive wealth redistribution.
Social theorist Peter Turchin has long discussed the problem of elite overproduction that produces the lumpenbourgeoisie. He believes that too many Americans are getting college degrees, particularly post-graduate degrees, and there aren’t enough positions for them. Turchin warns this will cause unrest:
Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of cooperation, which is followed by ideological polarization and fragmentation of the political class. This happens because the more contenders there are, the more of them end up on the losing side. A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions.
The elite-wannabes are the lumpenbourgeoisie. This is a social element that continues to grow. The job market for recent college grads is one of the worst on record. If you talk to any white collar worker looking for a job, you will be greeted with a grim tale of sending out a hundred applications with no takers. Young people struggle to buy homes and save for the future. Younger Americans are much less bullish on the American dream. On top of all this, they’re far more atomized. They have fewer friends and are less likely to marry. This is a demographic without roots and without much investment in the system. They’re ripe for radicalization.
Something I regularly harp on is how the Right is primarily composed of people with something to lose. They have jobs, homes, families, and 401ks. They may LARP as revolutionaries online, but they’re not gonna sign up for one. It’s too risky for them. It’s why it’s tough to get right-wingers to do activism in the way the Left does. They’re too busy. Of course, there are more risks with open right-wing agitation versus left-wing activism. But it’s also due to the Right having a different support base. It’s people who want to protect what’s theirs rather than radicals with nothing to lose.
The Left can count on the nothing to lose types to rally to its causes. Most lumpenbourgeoisie aren’t deranged enough to join Antifa. They’re simply young, middle-class Americans who feel the American dream is denied to them.
If any kind of revolution happens in America, they will be its vanguard.