What exactly is a proletarian?

[RedWorker]

For instance, a politician (wage from state), indie game developer (relies on e.g. people's donations / money from running advertisements on website, not wage) and person who doesn't work and doesn't plan to work, living e.g. from having won the lottery.

None of them own any means of productions nor exploit workers, so they can't be said to be part of the bourgeoisie. But are they proletarians? What are they?

Which peasants can be said to be part of the proletariat? None?

Person who owns a store = petit bourgeois? How does it change depending whether he employs other people?

Person who used to own means of productions and now does not = new proletarian?

Typically, what % of the population are proletarians?

[adipocere12]

If the only thing you have to sell is your labour power to survive then you are a proletarian. It's important to remember that marx was concerned with roles rather than categorising people in that way. Personally I work for a company for money so in that role I'm a proletariat but I also have a pension and savings and in that capacity (of using money to make money) I'm a capitalist. That doesn't mean I'm one or the other it just means my role shifts depending on what I'm doing.

[RedWorker]

I also have a pension and savings and in that capacity (of using money to make money) I'm a capitalist. That doesn't mean I'm one or the other it just means my role shifts depending on what I'm doing.

I don't think that makes you a capitalist.

[Regicollis]

Politician - administers the populace and have a position of power in the class system -> bourgeois.

Indie game developer - Owns means of production in the form of intellectual property/goodwill. He still have to work though. -> Petty bourgeois.

Lottery winner - Someone has to work for him to eat, live in a house etc. He creates no surplus value himself but lives off the surplus created by others. -> Bourgeois.

These are just my quick thoughts on the classification of the persons mentioned. However the class position of individuals are not that interesting. Instead the interesting question is how the different classes behave collectively.

[RedWorker]

Politician - administers the populace and have a position of power in the class system -> bourgeois.

Well, he has a position of power, but so do trade union leaders.
And no matter the interests of whose class he advances?


Lottery winner - Someone has to work for him to eat, live in a house etc. He creates no surplus value himself but lives off the surplus created by others. -> Bourgeois.

So a baby is bourgeois?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

You can view it this way: there are crude categories such as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The former doesn't own any means of production, the latter does. So technically speaking, a politician would be a part of the proletariat, however, he would be a part of a different caste within the proletariat class, which, while a part of the proletariat, has a different relationship to the means of production. The same goes for policemen and others.

Classes (proletariat, bourgeoisie) have a necessary role in production and, hence, can enforce their will trough the class struggle, hence, Marxists' emphasis on the class. Castes, on the other hand, don't have such a social power and couldn't enforce their will through "class/caste" struggle.

This is one way to view it, but it might be a more correct way to view a proletariat not merely as a group of people who have nothing to sell but their labour-power, but as a group, which has certain relations to the means of production, so that it's not only that they don't own it. So policemen wouldn't be considered a part of the proletariat, because while they don't own means of production and have nothing but their labour-power to sell, their relation to the means of production is pretty different from those who actually are proletariat.

I remember briefly having a conversation in private with 870 on this exact issue, so that's what I learnt from that conversation. Obviously, 870 is better suited to answer this question, so you might give him a nudge to share his thoughts.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You can view it this way: there are crude categories such as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The former doesn't own any means of production, the latter does. So technically speaking, a politician would be a part of the proletariat, however, he would be a part of a different caste within the proletariat class, which, while a part of the proletariat, has a different relationship to the means of production. The same goes for policemen and others.

Classes (proletariat, bourgeoisie) have a necessary role in production and, hence, can enforce their will trough the class struggle, hence, Marxists' emphasis on the class. Castes, on the other hand, don't have such a social power and couldn't enforce their will through "class/caste" struggle.

This is one way to view it, but it might be a more correct way to view a proletariat not merely as a group of people who have nothing to sell but their labour-power, but as a group, which has certain relations to the means of production, so that it's not only that they don't own it. So policemen wouldn't be considered a part of the proletariat, because while they don't own means of production and have nothing but their labour-power to sell, their relation to the means of production is pretty different from those who actually are proletariat.

I remember briefly having a conversation in private with 870 on this exact issue, so that's what I learnt from that conversation. Obviously, 870 is better suited to answer this question, so you might give him a nudge to share his thoughts.

I would put it like this: society is divided into several classes, large functional groups with an independent and indispensable role in the process of production (this role arises due to their specific relation to the means of production - for the proletariat this isn't simply not owning the means of production, it is also being employed as direct producers), and special strata that are outside the classes, so to speak. Each class is also divided into several strata as a matter of fact. Some of these strata take on a particular importance in that they determine the particular form that the relations of production take in one definite territory - these are castes, like the bureaucratic caste or the black colour-caste in the US.

Now, policemen are not direct producers, they are a special stratum whose role is to act as enforcers of bourgeois order. This is important because the workers' movement needs to resolutely stand against the police - and against things like police strikes etc.

[statecapitalist]

This site has a policy of not allowing links, so I will quote an article here.


"Notes on class analysis and class formation

“In his study of Fanon’s revolutionary nationalism, the late political theorist and political prisoner James Yaki Sayles notes that Marx defined class in terms of individuals sharing (1) a common position in relation to the means of production (that is, as producer, owner, exploited and exploiter); (2) a distinct way of life and cultural existence; (3) social interests that are antagonistic to those of other classes; (4) a communal, national or international unity transcending local boundaries; (5) a collective consciousness of themselves as a class; and (6) a political organization serving as a vehicle for their class interests. [T]he present global class structure is the product of political activity by and for the core-nation working class and rejects any opportunistic suggestion that the latter is a purely passive recipient of unsolicited imperialist patronage.” - Zak Cope, “Divided World Divided Class”

Stating the problem

The roots of the problem regarding the mainstream Marxist view of class analysis originates in the terms used by Marx in “The Poverty of Philosophy”: class-in-itself and class-for-itself. According to this notion, class-in-itself is determined by the economic position people have, and class-for-itself is people sharing an economic position acting in their objective interests.
In this view, only economic relations determine class-in-itself, while class-for-itself is characterized by organization and solidarity. There are only two outcomes from this notion:
either objective relations automatically become subjective, since politics is about realizing interests and objective economic relations determine interests (economic determinism);
or since objective economic relations don’t “express” themselves in subjective politics, there’s a need for an “external agent” (in some unrefined versions of Leninism) to express objective conditions into subjective ones (voluntarism).
Another component of this argument is a simplistic understanding of classes as either proletarian or bourgeois, with little attention paid to middle classes, how hey are formed, and why they don’t behave in proletarian ways (which is generally dismissed by appealing to false consciousness).
We can instead take another approach. Class should be understood as a relation between the objective positions people occupy in the social division of labor (understood as determined by economics as well as ideology and politics), and the collective struggles they partake in at given moments of history. As a corollary, class struggle is then the management of this relation between objective positions and collective struggles.
This approach solves the two possible problems originating with the mainstream conception: 1. if class exists solely as determined by economic relations, then it is not a very useful analytical tool in explaining history (as they are simply collections of individuals who share similar life experiences); 2. if classes are only understood to be political forces, then history is entirely arbitrary. On the other hand, understanding class as a relation between positions in the social division of labor and collective political-ideological struggles is both useful in the explanation of historical facts, useful politically, and enables communists to effectively understand class structures in order to formulate political programs. The question then becomes one of forming the proletariat into a class.

Economic criteria

With economic criteria, we discern the relations of production people partake in.
The main economic relation in capitalist society is capital. As such, in order to understand one’s position in the social division of labor, we should look at how people relate to capital. Distinctions between economic positions are arrived at by looking at economic ownership and economic management. These distinctions are particularly relevant in appraising the role of managers and similar ambiguous positions.
First, definitions:
Economic ownership (concrete, not legal) is the effective control of the products of labor. This is the defining characteristic for who is a capitalist and who isn’t, as this is the personification of capital accumulation;
Economic management is the effective control over the process of production, it administers the technical requirements of production and makes it possible, fulfilling the functions of capital. This may or may not be separate from economic ownership, depending on the type of business.
So then, on the dominant side of capital we have:
Traditional/entrepreneurial capitalists: these are characterized by a position of economic ownership as well as one of economic management; they are bourgeois insofar as they employ wage labor;
Executives/CEOs: characterized by a position of economic ownership as well as economic management, the only distinction with entrepreneurial capitalists being they don’t have legal ownership; they too employ wage labor;
Managers, foremen, etc.: characterized by a lack of economic ownership, but in a position of economic management and hence fulfilling the functions of capital. In this sense, they are part of the new petty bourgeoisie (the name is provisional); they don’t directly employ wage labor, they simply manage the process of production and make sure labor power is able to bring a profit;
Traditional petty bourgeoisie: characterized by economic ownership and a position of management, but doesn’t employ wage labor; they are generally self-employed.
Now, as for the subordinated side.
Given the political economy of capitalism, we know the main relation of production is that of productive capital, which produces surplus value while reproducing the material elements required for the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, i.e. labor involved in production. Generally, this means those who deal with industrial capital: wage-earners involved in mining, manufacturing, construction, transport and agriculture. This economic position gives the proletariat not only the status of exploited workers, but also implies that this class is characterized also by its ability to organize a communist system of production. As such, the main economic criterion for those who are employed as wage laborers is whether or not their labor is productive for capital.

Political and ideological criteria

Economic position doesn’t alone determine one’s standing in the social division of labor understood broadly. I will be brief.
In terms of political criteria, we have political relations of subordination within the workplace. Meaning, supervisory activity and guard labor enforces a form of political domination, of supervision, over the direct process of production. This bars supervisors from the position of being proletarian and lands them in the position of being part of the new petty bourgeoisie, enforcing the political domination of capital within the workplace.
In terms of ideological criteria, we defer to the distinction between mental and manual labor. The division between mental/manual labor and monopolization of mental labor by a stratum of workers (experts) creates the ideological effect (and domination) of excluding the manual laborers from the knowledge of the production process. This criterion is relevant in order to understand engineers and technicians as part of the new petty bourgeoisie; more specifically, white-collar workers.

Forming the proletariat into a class

“The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” - Marx and Engels, “Communist Manifesto”
An analysis of the objective places people fill in the social division of labor leads to an understanding of what the possibilities of class formation are. It’s not a question of discovering the proletariat, it’s a question of forming it into a class.
“Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention.” - Marx, “The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”
This distinction is important because it transcends the two problems appearing in mainstream Marxist class analysis: either classes become political agents spontaneously, or they require a voluntarist external agent. These distinctions were the bedrock for arguments over forms of political organization (such as vanguard vs. social democratic party, etc.).
In reality, organizations should be understood as agents of class formation that aren’t external to the class and aren’t activating some sort of inherent potential, but neither are they free from determination or spontaneous. The point of communist organizing is creating a collective political agent of proletarians qua proletarians, who self-identify as such and understand their primary identity as being that of a member of the proletariat. If workers are organized on other collective identities (as taxpayers, as citizens, or what have you), then that is a failed attempt at class formation. With this framework, we can say classes are the relation between objective positions in the social division of labor, and collective political action.

Implications for socialist construction

Revisionism always has a social base. In the USSR and China, using the framework of analysis outlined here, we can identify the engineers, highly paid workers, managers of enterprises, white-collar workers, etc. It has been argued that the wage-grade system implemented in China was the breeding grounds of revisionism, as it creates different positions within the social division of labor which form the social basis for anti-proletarian and revisionist elements within the party. Understanding the social division of labor in this way makes us understand what could be the social basis for revisionists trying to bring a socialist country to a non-socialist path."
- Klaas Velija, as posted on tumblr under the url messraphiki

[RedWorker]

Now, policemen are not direct producers, they are a special stratum whose role is to act as enforcers of bourgeois order. This is important because the workers' movement needs to resolutely stand against the police - and against things like police strikes etc.

But there are so many property-less employed workers who are not "direct producers". Does this make them not part of the proletariat?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But there are so many property-less employed workers who are not "direct producers". Does this make them not part of the proletariat?

Ah, but workers are direct producers as a matter of definition - they directly participate in the production process even if they don't necessarily directly produce surplus value for the bourgeoisie. The police are outside the process entirely.

[RedWorker]

Ah, but workers are direct producers as a matter of definition - they directly participate in the production process even if they don't necessarily directly produce surplus value for the bourgeoisie. The police are outside the process entirely.

So are researchers who are employed and property-less part of the proletariat? White-collar workers? Pink-collar workers? Knowledge workers? Also, what are other examples of both "proletarian" and "not proletarian"?

Can you answer to the examples given in the original post of the thread?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So are researchers who are employed and property-less part of the proletariat? White-collar workers? Also, what are other examples of both "proletarian" and "not proletarian"?

Researchers generally do not participate in the production of commodities. "White-collar workers" is ambiguous - it could mean anything from secretaries (a proletarian, precarious and mostly female stratum) to managers (a part of what Marx once called "the foreman and overseer stratum").

Peasants are a stratum of the petite bourgeoisie - there is a rural proletariat, but these people are not generally referred to as "peasants". So are "indie" game developers and shop-owners. Anyone who doesn't own a part of the means of production is not a member of the bourgeoisie, but what they are - prole, declassed element, "foreman or overseer", etc., is an open question.

[RedWorker]

Researchers generally do not participate in the production of commodities.

Then what class are they?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Then what class are they?

They are an example of a stratum outside the main proletarian/bourgeois divide, the intelligentsia, which is "between" the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in a sense. Of course, within the intelligentsia itself there are substrata - the technical, academic intelligentsia etc.

[RedWorker]

And what are the main conclusions we can make from these bits of information? For instance, what will be the interaction of this intelligentsia with the revolution, with the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.?

[Slavic]

They are an example of a stratum outside the main proletarian/bourgeois divide, the intelligentsia, which is "between" the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in a sense. Of course, within the intelligentsia itself there are substrata - the technical, academic intelligentsia etc.


I agree with your overall class analysis but I must nit-pick.

By intelligentsia I am going to assume that you primarily mean those who are academic based, for there are quite a large amount of researchers who's work directly impacts the mean of production. Particulary researches of the physical sciences such as chemistry, biology, engineering, and physics. If I am not mistaken, most of the aforementioned sciences find most of their students working in private industries, particularly R&D.

The non-physical sciences such as history, arts, psychology, philosophy, etc. find most of their students working within academia.

[TheBigREDOne]

They are an example of a stratum outside the main proletarian/bourgeois divide, the intelligentsia, which is "between" the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in a sense. Of course, within the intelligentsia itself there are substrata - the technical, academic intelligentsia etc.

What about film directors/writers?

[Slavic]

What about film directors/writers?

Don't both of those professions work hourly? Well I know that writers basically just work a shit at a desk, directors I am going to assume receive some sort of salary for their product.

[Rafiq]

A proletarian is a wage-laborer, though the definition of what constitutes a proletarian is primarily grounded in the notion of exploitation.

However the overwhelming emergence and prevalence of service-sector workers in the first world should force us to reapproach (but not re-define) the notion of what exactly constitutes as the proletarian class. Some have argued that the proletariat is composed of different working classes with identifiably similar, or identical interests.


either objective relations automatically become subjective, since politics is about realizing interests and objective economic relations determine interests (economic determinism);


Which is precisely why politics, ideology, or class consciousness does not entail simply a recognition of objective circumstances. Communist ideology is not simply the absence of bourgeois ideology or false consciousness. It is an affirmative ideology by itself. As a matter of fact, the phenomena of Communism existed long before Marx was able to properly conceptualize the proletarian condition in theory. If we say "objective economic relations" determine interests, how exactly would this render the "objective relations" as subjective? We are speaking as Marxists, not class-conscoius proletarians. Proletarian interests do not necessarily extend as far as such an understanding or analysis, but that does not mean such an analysis cannot have a proletarian character.

We cannot be outside ideology. Objective truth exists, but as far as human consciousness goes it can never express itself simply, bare boned, as "objective interests" without necessarily assuming the bias character given by ideology. This is because, after all, we are animals whose existence is rational and not "specters of reason" or gods concerned with (knowing) the objective reality around them, or whatever you like.

There is a reason Marx never used terms like "economic relations". Marx was concerned with social relationships to production, which very much went beyond simply the "economic". Marxism does not understand the "economic" in such a specified sense. The fundamental social foundations of life, and their reproduction actively involve politics, ideology, culture and so on to such a point where identifying the "economic" alone is impossible. Well, it is possible but it is erroneous to simply conflate the "economic" with the Marxist notion of the base, or social relations to production.

[RedWorker]

To what class does a teacher belong? I'm still unclear about these who do not directly produce commodities but are employed. Is an employed researcher a proletarian? An employed doctor?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm prole as phuck bruh

[John Nada]

What class are housewives?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Wasn't there some twit who used to post here who declared that a person was only a true proletarian if they'd been in a proletarian family for three generations?

[Bala Perdida]

Wasn't there some twit who used to post here who declared that a person was only a true proletarian if they'd been in a proletarian family for three generations?

Lol. Some anti-bourgeois quasi-nazism? As for housewives I guess it depends on their nature. If they watch the home because they are unable to find a job or work they could easily be considered proletariat. If they don't work because they are restricted from doing so or choose to suffice from the labor of their partner, they might be considered an accessory to their partners. Especially if they married because of one's income. But again, it all depends on conditions.

[Slavic]

Wasn't there some twit who used to post here who declared that a person was only a true proletarian if they'd been in a proletarian family for three generations?


Well its the only way to make sure those muggles don't mix with use pure blooded proles.

Serious note, anyone who can not live unless they sell their labor while also not in the possession of capital.

[The Feral Underclass]

To what class does a teacher belong? I'm still unclear about these who do not directly produce commodities but are employed. Is an employed researcher a proletarian? An employed doctor?

Class is defined based upon our relationship to the means of production. Anyone who owns the means of production or who extracts value from the labour of others is not working class (i.e. they are bourgeois)

Anyone who has to sell their labour in order to sustain their existence and neither has control over the means of production nor extracts value from the labour of others is working class (i.e. proletarian).

[The Feral Underclass]

What class are housewives?

Again, it's not necessarily the type of work you do that defines your class, but your relationship to the means of production.

[newdayrising]

One could argue that teachers do produce commodities in the sense that they help developing the labor force their students will eventually sell.

[mojo.rhythm]

RedWorker,

Teachers are definitely part of the working class. Not all commodities are tangible. For example, a professional massager (working for a massage parlour) sells their ability to massage for a wage. And a teacher sells their ability to educate people for a wage.

[mojo.rhythm]

It's worth emphasizing the reason that Marxists categorize people by class.

The proletariat are the class of people that have the ability to finish a revolution and bring about a Communist society based on collective ownership—the ability to wage a general strike, and the inherent tendencies towards collectivization and collective action are key here. When a society enters into a revolutionary situation and workers and peasants are chomping at the bit for the end of the capitalist class, compare how the two classes can respond:

PEASANTS
When the capitalists are overthrown we can divide the land up amongst ourselves. You have this bit over here and I can have this bit over there.

WORKERS
When the capitalists are overthrown, our workplaces can't be divided up in the way peasants can divide up land. I can't have this little bit of the factory over here and you have that bit of the factory over there. We have to own it collectively and run it on a co-operative basis.

That's why the proletariat matters. So I don't think it's helpful to go around pedantically shoehorning people into this category or that category. The question you should ask is: when the time comes for revolution, what are the inherent interests of person x? Will they have an objective interest in collectivization, or will they do what the peasants tend to do? Moreover, will person x have an inherent interest in withholding labor and participating in a general strike if one was ever called?

[RedWorker]

RedWorker,

Teachers are definitely part of the working class. Not all commodities are tangible. For example, a professional massager (working for a massage parlour) sells their ability to massage for a wage. And a teacher sells their ability to educate people for a wage.

But doesn't a CEO technically live on a wage too? And doesn't a teacher live off surplus value?

Is Marxian analysis, made with industry in mind, completely applicable unmodified to today's capitalism? e.g. with bigger service sector

[John Nada]

But doesn't a CEO technically live on a wage too? And doesn't a teacher live off surplus value?

Is Marxian analysis, made with industry in mind, completely applicable unmodified to today's capitalism? e.g. with bigger service sector

Teachers preform socially-necessary labor. They teach and take care of children. It frees up time for workers to do their jobs and trains the future workforce. It's like a truck driver, a longshoreman, or a mucker in a mine. Like an assembly line.

I think Marx and Engels analysis holds up pretty good. If you really think about the antagonistic relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not just like an individual owner making you work 16hr a day, 7 days a week in a coal mine(though this still is true in many cases), but in terms of the value you add to what they sell, and how much of it you and everyone you know gets back. From start to finish.

In the case of a CEO, they don't add value anymore than a lord does to peasants' crops. One CEO doesn't produce more than a million workers. They merely command the workers in lieu of an individual owner. They receive a very large salary just by their role for managing capital for the major stockholders. With their very large salaries it's unlikely that they themselves don't own stock. It's still a similar social relation.

[Illegalitarian]

Trying to place every individual profession into this class or that class sort of misses the point. Such a mechanical view of class can only lead us to absurdities.

Marx was no reductionist, he viewed class not as some thing that could be empirically described on an individual basis, but rather, as a historical body that can only be understood in its relation to other classes, the contradictions between those classes, and its historical role in the changing modes of production throughout time and how it relates to production now.

So we don't need to know where every person of every profession fits in to the grand scheme of things, because the truth is, not all of them fit. Take the professional class, for example (doctors, lawyers, etc). They do not fit into any of the traditional Marxian notion of class, which means that they're historically irrelevant and there's no real need to place them on some scale of classes.

[MonsterMan]

my quick definition- anyone who earns less than 25K USD per yr, is prob proletarian

[MonsterMan]

Trying to place every individual profession into this class or that class sort of misses the point. Such a mechanical view of class can only lead us to absurdities.



I agree, it's impossible to do so, now in the modern age - like, how about pro football players etc...often not much education but big buck salary, what class is that? and that just didn't exist in Karl's day