Who do you include in the proletariat?

[d3crypt]

Were is the dividing line between proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. For example what class would a psychologist be. I think i understan this all pretty well but the exact lines between classes can be confusing.

[Brutus]

Proletarians sell the only thing they can- their labour; in return for this they get a wage. The petit bourgeoisie are small-scale capitalists such as shop-keepers, artisans, etc.- those who don't have to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie, but don't own any of the means of production themselves.

[Red Banana]

Being a Psychologist is a job not a class position. If they own means of production and hire workers, they're a capitalist. If they are a capitalist and work alongside their workers, they are petty-bourgeois, if not they're just a regular capitalist. A grand-capitalist if you will.

If they do not own means of production and have nothing to sell but their labor as a Psychologist, they are a proletarian. Class isn't decided by how many years of college you went to.

[Fakeblock]

Proletarians sell the only thing they can- their labour; in return for this they get a wage. The petit bourgeoisie are small-scale capitalists such as shop-keepers, artisans, etc.- those who don't have to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie, but don't own any of the means of production themselves.

The petits bourgeois own their own means of production. That's how they get to be shop-keepers and artisans without selling their labour power.

[ind_com]

Were is the dividing line between proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. For example what class would a psychologist be. I think i understan this all pretty well but the exact lines between classes can be confusing.

The class boundaries are somewhat flexible according to the particular society that we study. Not everyone who sells their labour power or does not own the means of production is a part of the proletariat.

[The Jay]

Those that sell their labor and do not play an actual role in the decision making of businesses or ownership of them are proletariat. This includes salaried but not partnered lawyers, doctors that do not own their own practice, and construction workers. Salaried officers of corporations are bourgeois since they control the business.

[Fakeblock]

Did Marx not speak of functional capitalists as opposed to the bourgeoisie proper at some point?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I hard to tell someone that their boss is a fellow proletariat because they also simply sell their labour for a wage. I mean, technically, yeah my boss is also a wage slave who doesn't own the place where we work but that divide is a difficult step to overcome because, frankly, I think my boss is a fucking moron.

[ind_com]

I hard to tell someone that their boss is a fellow proletariat because they also simply sell their labour for a wage. I mean, technically, yeah my boss is also a wage slave who doesn't own the place where we work but that divide is a difficult step to overcome because, frankly, I think my boss is a fucking moron.

The classes are ultimately political-economic in nature. So, production relations alone are often inadequate to define them.

[The Jay]

The classes are ultimately political-economic in nature. So, production relations alone are often inadequate to define them.

Political systems depend on the economic system that produces them. Those in political power may have the strength of the state at their command but they are beholden to the board of directors that is the bourgeois class. If you want to call those officials bourgeois then that's an argument that you can make, but that is only because they act at the behest of the industrial and financial bourgeoisie - assuming that the elected officials are not already bourgeois from owning business themselves.

[helot]

As usual its based on relationship to MoP; lacking capital and having to sell their labour power for a wage. There is, however, some who while being proletarian engage in work that is fundamentally opposed to the proletariat, these are your rank and file police, soldiers and management.

I think people's understandings of the petit bourgeoisie is a bit off... I'd consider the petit bourgeoisie as small scale capitalists, those that own their own MoP and employ a few hands however due to their position they still have to expend their labour power. I'd maintain that the self-employed worker, even if owning their own small amount of capital, is literally that, a worker not a capitalist because they are not engaged in the extraction of surplus value. This is, of course, if the self-employment isn't actually just a ruse to avoid labour laws such as holiday pay, minimum wage etc.


Further, i'd say that proletariat-bourgeoisie is a scale, not an absolute category. Thus, you could have someone who is proletarian in their working life yet extracts value from others due to being a landlord.

[G4b3n]

Proletarians sell the only thing they can- their labour; in return for this they get a wage. The petit bourgeoisie are small-scale capitalists such as shop-keepers, artisans, etc.- those who don't have to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie, but don't own any of the means of production themselves.

This is the actual difference right here.
Nothing more, nothing less.

[lautréamont]

"Proletarian" literally comes from "proles" like "progeny" or "children." Basically meaning the people who only have enough resources to sustain their children. (Bourgeois means to own land). Of course, Marx contextualizes the rise of the industrial proletariat in the industrial revolution, and his definition of the proletariat is scarcely applicable in the modern world, but there are in fact an INCREASING number of people who only have the resources to (often barely) support the survival of their families (if that). I would argue that if anyone could be called proletarian today it would have to extend beyond the industrial proletariat to also encompass, say, restaurant workers, grocery store workers - the people who barely make enough to survive. A psychologist, though, would not qualify. Any vaguely academic profession exists for the PRODUCTION of bourgeois ideology (which does not mean it cannot be détourned). Therefore psychologists and academics have a means to production that proletarians do not have (a defining factor). Also I assume that psychologists make enough money to own a house, send their children to bourgeois colleges, etc.

[Sotionov]

Talking about economic classes, it is neccessary to know that there are different class theories on what is considered the left.

Marxists base their class theory on the ownership on the means of production, thereby considering themselves a movement of all wage-workers (including managers/coordinators), but not of workers that own their means of production ("petty-bourgeois") like artisans, peasants, and workers in workers' coops, whether or not they exploit anyone or not.

Anarchists base their notion of class on power stratification, which is in economy formed trough hierarchy and exploitation. So, anarchist see themselves as a movement of the workers (wage-workers, artisans, peasants, workers in workers' coops) and in general of people that don't oppress or exploit anyone, against those that do, in economy them being the capitalists (/"bourgeois") and managers/ coordinators.

Anarchist thought finds the notion of the "petty-bourgeoisie" pointless. Bourgeois, a capitalist is according to anarchism someone who employes wage-labor or is a rentier. Whether he is "big" or "small" it is irrelevant. Workers that own the means of production but don't oppress or exploit anyone are not any sort of bourgeois, big or small.

Bakunin noted against the Marxist notion of proletariat that “the designation of the proletariat, the world of the workers, as class rather than as mass was deeply antipathetic to us revolutionary anarchists who unconditionally advocate full popular emancipation. To do so means nothing more or less than a new aristocracy, that of the urban and industrial workers, to the exclusion of the millions who make up the rural proletariat".

[lautréamont]

Workers that own the means of production but don't oppress or exploit anyone are not any sort of bourgeois, big or small.

Anyone who owns the means of production and uses them in any way also exploits. Capital is inherently exploitative AND everyone living under capital uses capital. Just because bourgeois X thinks that they're being nice and non-exploitative doesn't mean they are - in fact, it is impossible. Their exploitation also doesn't mean they're bad or evil. It just means that the system of capital and bourgeois power should be destroyed.

[Tim Cornelis]

The class boundaries are somewhat flexible according to the particular society that we study. Not everyone who sells their labour power or does not own the means of production is a part of the proletariat.


Those that sell their labor and do not play an actual role in the decision making of businesses or ownership of them are proletariat. This includes salaried but not partnered lawyers, doctors that do not own their own practice, and construction workers. Salaried officers of corporations are bourgeois since they control the business.


I hard to tell someone that their boss is a fellow proletariat because they also simply sell their labour for a wage. I mean, technically, yeah my boss is also a wage slave who doesn't own the place where we work but that divide is a difficult step to overcome because, frankly, I think my boss is a fucking moron.


As usual its based on relationship to MoP; lacking capital and having to sell their labour power for a wage. There is, however, some who while being proletarian engage in work that is fundamentally opposed to the proletariat, these are your rank and file police, soldiers and management.



Marxists base their class theory on the ownership on the means of production, thereby considering themselves a movement of all wage-workers (including managers/coordinators), but not of workers that own their means of production ("petty-bourgeois") like artisans, peasants, and workers in workers' coops, whether or not they exploit anyone or not.


From a Marxist perspective, the proletariat would technically be those wage-workers that both produce commodities and produce a surplus value. Thus, the basis whereupon we can say that the boss or manager is not a proletarian is not on the basis of decision-making power but whether or not this boss or manager produces surplus value through commodities (which they do not).

[Sotionov]

When product is sold, the earnings are divided into expenses (on materials, etc), wages and profits. This is according to classical economics, according to which also profits are defined as the 'earnings' of those that own the means of production. Both managers and capitalists can participate in the production process if they choose to, but that doesn't change their positions- the capitalist takes from the earnings profits ("surplus-value") and give from the earnings wages to those that are subordinated to him, no matter if there's only one or miltiple ranks among them. I think it is pretty obvious that managers are wage-workers.

[Fakeblock]

From a Marxist perspective, the proletariat would technically be those wage-workers that both produce commodities and produce a surplus value. Thus, the basis whereupon we can say that the boss or manager is not a proletarian is not on the basis of decision-making power but whether or not this boss or manager produces surplus value through commodities (which they do not).

This seems like a pretty shaky definition to me. I think most of us would include janitors, teachers etc. in the proletariat even though they don't produce commodities.

[The Idler]

The 99%.

[UncleLenin]

In my opinion, anybody that works for someone else is a member of the proletariat. The middle class would be people who run small businesses.

[Brutus]

The 99%.

Not really. The bourgeoisie are more than 1% of the population, and then you still haven't accounted for the petit-bourgeoisie.

[Leftsolidarity]

The 99%.

Infraction for unconstructive one-liner.

[Karlorax]

This is a question that really interests me. It seems like some groups dogmatically just base their analysis on definitions: Marx said so and so.. Of course this is not an argument for serious people. Others just make up their own analysis without really showing any kind of method behind it. One group I find the most interesting is LLCO because they actually have a method: http://llco.org/revisiting-value-and-exploitation/ and here: http://llco.org/equality-and-global-alignments/


__________________

Currently reading, dare to join me? I am no Leading Light Communist, but I am studying their work for my MA thesis

Leading Light on Conspiracy Theory is Intelligent Design (http://llco.org/leading-light-on-conspiracy-theory-is-intelligent-design/)
Was Lin Biao guilty plotting a coup? Part 1 of 2 (draft) (http://llco.org/draft-was-lin-biao-guilty-plotting-a-coup-part-1-of-2/)
Revisiting Value and Exploitation (http://llco.org/revisiting-value-and-exploitation/)
What about the Gulag? Mao’s errors? Stalin’s? (http://llco.org/revolutionary-history-initial-summations/)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

From a Marxist perspective, the proletariat would technically be those wage-workers that both produce commodities and produce a surplus value. Thus, the basis whereupon we can say that the boss or manager is not a proletarian is not on the basis of decision-making power but whether or not this boss or manager produces surplus value through commodities (which they do not).

I'm a bit at odds with you here.

Not all commodities are physical though, and not all employed labour is necessarily 'productive labour' (i.e. labour that produces surplus). So, say if a janitor was getting paid a wage to clean up a factory, his labour is not producing any commodity nor is it producing surplus value, but it does act as a contribution to the survivability of the business, which allows it to continue running. By this same logic one could surmise that a janitor is not a proletarian at all, but another class.

Actually I think it would be interesting if people opened a thread up about this.

[Tim Cornelis]

This seems like a pretty shaky definition to me. I think most of us would include janitors, teachers etc. in the proletariat even though they don't produce commodities.

Services constitute commodities as well, and "producing commodities" is often used synonymous with producing tangible products as well as services for sale.


I'm a bit at odds with you here.

Not all commodities are physical though, and not all employed labour is necessarily 'productive labour' (i.e. labour that produces surplus). So, say if a janitor was getting paid a wage to clean up a factory, his labour is not producing any commodity nor is it producing surplus value, but it does act as a contribution to the survivability of the business, which allows it to continue running. By this same logic one could surmise that a janitor is not a proletarian at all, but another class.

Actually I think it would be interesting if people opened a thread up about this.

I suppose, but then again. The uniqueness of proletarians consist in the emergence of the production surplus value. I suppose we may not need to look at individual proletarians or individual capitalists, but the general class relations and that the janitors on this basis are proletarian -- I suppose.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anybody who couldn't survive (state welfare notwithstanding) without selling their labour power to someone else. It's that simple, for they/we are the people who suffer under capitalism and have a genuine socio-economic interest in its demise.

[stefanbl]

Those who would normally have to sell their labour in order to survive, including those who are not presently from the unemployed, to the retired and students.

[Partigano]

I am fond of the idea of the Socialized Worker or the Social Factory (as I understand it) so I'd say everyone who in some way allows for production can arguably be included in the Proletariat. This means that people who stay at home and care for children, cook food, do generic housework [for example] are productive workers as they allow for others to go to work and produce in a more traditional sense. This also means that Office Workers who may not be directly involved with the actual productive process are still Proletarians by virtue of doing work that allows for production to occur [white receiving a wage and not owning the mans of production].

Students and Specialists I see as a sort of bridging group, both are Proletarian because of the relationships forced upon them by Capitalism in the University or Workplace respectively but they both hold Revolutionary Energies that are distinct but allied with the more traditional Proletarian Energies and Perspectives. Students are a fine example because while they may struggle on behalf of the Working Classes (especially if they hail from the Working Classes themselves) they also have interests such as lowering or normalizing tuition. So while Students are a serious ally to the Proletarian and definitely have won a place in the Revolutionary Movement (through May '68 in France, Civil Rights in the USA, and Il Movimento Studentesco in Italy among others) I treat them (I'm a student by the way) as an auxiliary force with the Mass Worker as the main component.

With this expanded view of the Proletariat who then is Bourgeoisie? Are we a society of Producers with no Bosses or Manipulators left? No! While it may be true that in the modern era the Boss isn't as tangible as he was in the past and we can no longer pick them out via top-hat, cigar, and evil laugh, they still exist holed up in institutions such as Wall Street and the RTS Index and in cities such as Washington, Brussels, and Moscow. They are still in control of the factories, they are still in control of the TV and the Radio, they are still the class who are in control. So while the Proletariat has expanded to include Students, Specialists, and (in my opinion) all who allow for production, the Bourgeoisie has remained almost entirely the same.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

For one, I think asking "Who is the proletariat?" is complicated by a host of factors since, for one, a lot of old Marxist definitions are pretty problematic, for example, in excluding the sexual, domestic, and affective labour that is necessary for the reproduction of variable capital (http://culturalstudies.ucsc.edu/EVENTS/Winter09/FedericiReading.pdf). So, obviously, there's some people missing.
Secondly, do we mean "the proletariat" that "has nothing to lose but its chains"? Arguably, a great number of workers, while still finding it necessary to sell their labour, have a lot to lose in terms of the social capital to which they have access - infrastructure and goods which, while not "for them" as "proletarians" is for them as the-workers-as-a-class-within-capitalism. At $17.70-an-hour (plus dental, health, and smartphone) sitting in a call centre answering questions about cell phone plans, one might find something else more fulfilling, but one undeniably has a lot to lose. So if we simply say wage labourers, we're obviously including strata that aren't likely to be part of a "class for itself". So, like, if the point is "to change [reality]" and not just gaff about it: more problems.

I know I'm not really giving an answer here, just problematizing other answers, but I hope it's still helpful in a way.

[Ocean Seal]

Were is the dividing line between proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. For example what class would a psychologist be. I think i understan this all pretty well but the exact lines between classes can be confusing.
The line between proletariat, and petty bourgeoisie is confusing. I personally place it at a petty bourgeoisie is someone who has their fortune locked up in the success of a capitalist. This can be someone who either owns property (ie: a store owner) or someone who owns stock in a company (ie: A high ranking employee who has been given stock as part of his salary, or someone who manipulates stocks as a significant part of his fortune). Employees of finance companies would be considered bourgeoisie because they are enacting as part managers (as perhaps the most cruel part of it) of the control scheme. As are company executives being that they are chosen to govern by the bourgeoisie. This is the most important step of constructing capitalist society. Giving the power to a nameless, faceless creature. Petty bourgeoisie can include the professional class if their interests are tied into those of the bourgeoisie. For example, lawyers who prosecute shop-lifters, consultants who advise the bourgeoisie, and doctors who run their own clinics and turn down patients who have don't have healthcare. This also includes managerial personnel ranking above team leader being that they are tied into the power of the bourgeoisie and are no longer working for a wage, but for a rank in the company.