Proletariat Definition Examples

[uncontent_soul]

Of a proletariat differs from a manufacturing worker, serf, slave, handicraft man etc., then what can be considered a proletariat?

[Sinister Intents]

Did you read this? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Or are you arguing based off of what's in this?

[Creative Destruction]

Of a proletariat differs from a manufacturing worker, serf, slave, handicraft man etc., then what can be considered a proletariat?

Anyone who only has their labor to sell and make a living off of.

[#FF0000]

Of a proletariat differs from a manufacturing worker, serf, slave, handicraft man etc., then what can be considered a proletariat?

Industrial workers, serfs, slaves, and craftsmen are not all proletarians. A proletarian is, put simply, a formally free individual who has to sell their ability to work in order to survive.

Manufacturing workers are proletarians. Retail workers and fast food workers are proletarians.

Serfs and slaves are not proletarians, because they are not formally free. Serfs, generally, were considered part of the estate owned by the lord, and slaves were considered property in and of themselves. Slaves and serfs do not sell their labor-power -- it's taken from them by force.

Craftsmen can be a tricky one, because they may or may not be considered a proletarian depending on the situation. A carpenter who owns his own tools and workshop would probably be considered petit-bourgeoisie. A carpenter who works for a wage, however, would probably be considered a proletarian.

[Alet]

A proletarian is someone who gets paid from capital to increase it. Retainers, people who work directly for a capitalist for example a servant, do not get paid from capital but from revenue. A retainer and a proletarian have in common, that they live from their labor, but the retainer's labor is unproductive, it does not produce surplus value, he is, by definition, not a proletarian.
However, I do not like to classify people if it is about who benefits from a socialist revolution. Who says that the retainer's miserable situation is not equivalent to the proletarian's?

[Carlos-Marcos]

how about the skilled person who uses their body, ie: pro sports player, actor, musician etc??

[ñángara]

how about the skilled person who uses their body, ie: pro sports player, actor, musician etc??
Do they transform raw material and add to it a surplus value which in turn allow capitalists to gain more money (increase their capital)?

[#FF0000]

how about the skilled person who uses their body, ie: pro sports player, actor, musician etc??

They're pretty much like any other skilled craftsman or artisan, so petit-bourgeoisie for the most part. There mega-famous and wealthy ones who eventually start making money from managing their brand and investments like Michael Jordan, though, are bourgeoisie.


Do they transform raw material and add to it a surplus value which in turn allow capitalists to gain more money (increase their capital)?

A lot of proletarians don't do this either, though.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Industrial workers, serfs, slaves, and craftsmen are not all proletarians. A proletarian is, put simply, a formally free individual who has to sell their ability to work in order to survive.

Manufacturing workers are proletarians. Retail workers and fast food workers are proletarians.

Serfs and slaves are not proletarians, because they are not formally free. Serfs, generally, were considered part of the estate owned by the lord, and slaves were considered property in and of themselves. Slaves and serfs do not sell their labor-power -- it's taken from them by force.

Craftsmen can be a tricky one, because they may or may not be considered a proletarian depending on the situation. A carpenter who owns his own tools and workshop would probably be considered petit-bourgeoisie. A carpenter who works for a wage, however, would probably be considered a proletarian.

Ah, but what about a wage working carpenter who has been a petty-bourgeois for most of his life? What if he comes from a stable family that has up-kept a tradition of being petty-bourgeois for generations? What if this worker grew up and lived his whole life in a middle class home, in a sub-urban neighborhood actively kept sterile and racially segregated by wily policies of bourgeois financial and government institutions?

I don't believe that it's so easy for us to say: "This worker lives only off his wage, is hence a member of the proletarian class. Since he lost his position as a job creator Joe Shmoe as of last month is a Proletarian!" Being called a Proletarian around the world and historically has implications that go beyond an individual's day-to-day economic relations but include social attitudes and habits. "The Proletariat" is a label that historically (back to ancient Rome) was used for people that were often considered dangerous/mysteriously incomprehensible, described as 'riff raff', those that are 'irresponsible', rebellious, people who did not easily conform to the material world and whose motivations could often not be the least bit comprehended. Marx did not invent the concept of the Proletariat, it predates him by thousands of years. If you see the fact that Marx came out of an age where genuine scientific knowledge was valued, it makes a lot of sense why Marx choose to uphold "the Proletariat" and instill it with its historical mission. Arguably the industrial, urban working class of capitalism claimed an amount of freedom unrivaled to any other working classes since the inception of agricultural society. In comparison to the respectable bourgeois "man of power" or pedantic petty-bourgeois, workers have always been free to pursue their desires. Whether they do so and claim a proletarian life of independence and freedom ties into greater factors of politics, education, culture etc., the strength of the social-revolutionary movement and social hegemony.

I'm not fully aware of whether Karl Marx ever addressed this dichotomy of greater cultural issues affecting the strength of the proletarian class. I assume he never got that far in his work before he died. Either way, the Marxist concept of a "class in itself" and a "class for itself" has always been for me more than a mere reference to the political independent organization of the working class, but also naturally the cultural struggle, for the development of independent proletarian social values etc.

[Carlos-Marcos]

so there must be some jobs out there that are neither one thing or the other, kind of semi prole/petit bourg/bourg , can't think of an example of the top of my head - but where do they fit in on the scale?

[#FF0000]

so there must be some jobs out there that are neither one thing or the other, kind of semi prole/petit bourg/bourg , can't think of an example of the top of my head - but where do they fit in on the scale?

Nah, not really. This is pretty clear cut, in most cases, since we define class according to one's relationship to the means of production (class in itself). There's people who own it, people who don't, and the skilled artisans, craftsmen, and shopkeepers who fall in between.

There's also the idea of the "class for itself", which is (rough definition) when members of a particular class become aware of and act in their own class interests.

[Carlos-Marcos]

How about entry-level schoolteacher?

[#FF0000]

How about entry-level schoolteacher?

Proletarian imo, because they have nothing but their labor to survive on.

[RedWorker]

People who tend to be employed, depend on it and who do not have a privileged standing in the management of capitalism, the state or capital are proletarians (workers).
Self employed people and small business owners who work are petty bourgeois.
People who employ others and do not work are bourgeois (capitalists).