The rise of the leftist neoproletariat and their call for violence/revolution

 The concept of the neoproletariat, as an extension of the Marxist proletariat, can be critiqued for its potential advocacy of violence and revolution to gain power and overthrow those they consider oppressors and exploiters, typically identified as the capitalist elite or bourgeoisie. The neoproletariat encompasses modern marginalized groups—such as low-wage workers, precarious laborers, keftists, trannies, psychopaths, and those displaced by automation—who are viewed within a Marxist framework as being without power and as being oppressed and exploited by the structures of contemporary capitalism. Below, I will address how this group is often associated with revolutionary tactics. 

The neoproletariat’s inclination toward violence and revolution stems from the broader Marxist ideology of class struggle, which frames the relationship between the working class and capitalists as inherently antagonistic. This perspective holds that systemic oppression and exploitation can only be rectified through a radical overhaul of the economic order, often necessitating revolutionary action to seize power from the ruling class [1][3].  This approach is seen as a direct threat to individual property rights and the voluntary exchange that underpins free markets, rejecting the possibility of addressing grievances through innovation or market-driven reforms.

Specifically, the neoproletariat is depicted as identifying capitalists as oppressors/exploiters who maintain their dominance through economic control and structural inequality. The narrative suggests that to dismantle this power structure, a collective uprising is required, which may involve violent means to forcibly redistribute wealth and resources. This revolutionary intent is rooted in the belief that the existing system offers no viable path for reform and that the oppressors/exploiters will not relinquish their power willingly [2][4]. A free market critique would argue that such a stance overlooks the potential for economic mobility and the benefits of competition, which can elevate individuals without the need for conflict or coercion.

Furthermore, the neoproletariat’s rhetoric often emphasizes the need to confront and overthrow these oppressors/exploiters as a moral imperative, framing violence not just as a strategy but as a justified response to systemic injustice. This can manifest in calls for organized resistance or uprisings aimed at disrupting the capitalist order and establishing a new system where power dynamics are reversed [5][6]. From a laissez-faire perspective, this rhetoric is inherently divisive and counterproductive, as it promotes hostility rather than cooperation, ignoring the capacity of free markets to address disparities through voluntary mechanisms like charity, entrepreneurship, and consumer choice.

In summary, within the Marxist-influenced framework attributed to the neoproletariat, violence and revolution are often seen as necessary tools to gain power and overthrow those deemed oppressors and exploiters in the capitalist system. This stands in stark contrast to the principles of free market laissez-faire capitalism, which advocate for non-coercive, market-based solutions to economic challenges, emphasizing individual liberty and peaceful economic interactions over class conflict and revolutionary upheaval.

Sources

1 Economic Thought Before Adam Smith by Murray Rothbard

2 Capitalism by George Reisman

3 Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, Scholar's Edition, by Murray Rothbard

4 Classical Economics by Murray Rothbard

5 Farewell to Marx by David Conway

6 The Birth of Plenty by William J. Bernstein