JazzRemington
3rd April 2007, 19:55
EDIT: I appologize for this, but apparently when I refer to C below, it comes out as the copyright symbol. This is a technical glitch, as I do not know how to stop it from doing that. But just keep in mind that © is "a sewer who works for a firm that makes clothing but yet owns the sewing machine he uses."
I'm (literally) in the middle of G.A. Cohen's "Karl Marx's Theory of History" and it has brought up a number of questions. Perhaps one of the most interesting is how to define a proletariat.
The typical definition of a proletariat is, according to one person or another, a person who falls under both categories below:
A) He/she owns his labor (meaning he is neither a medieval serf or a slave).
B) He/she does not own the means of production.
Mr. Cohen brings up an interesting counter-example to (B). In Chapter 3, section 4 (of the 2000 expanded edition) he brings examples of:
C) a sewer who works for a firm that makes clothing but yet owns the sewing machine he uses.
D) another person that works cutting bolts of cloth on a machine he does not own, nor could ever hope to own.
This brings up an interesting point: is the condition of not owning the means of production what makes, in part, a proletariat?
Certainly, there is the shared condition of (A) between the two demonstrates that being in full ownership of one's labor is a pre-condition of being a proletariat. But note the lack of sharing (B) between then. One owns what he uses and the other doesn't.
But this implies legal ownership. In ©, this person owns the sewing machine he uses, he has legal ownership of it, to wit it is his legal property. But for (D), he does not own the cutting machine he uses to cut the bolt, for the machine is legal property of the person who does own it (say, the capitalist).
Therefor, I say that in a technical sense (B) is incorrect. It would be better to modify it to read: "He/she does not have effective ownership of the means of production."
I would wager this is a better pre-condition to "proletariat-hood" as, while a person may have legal ownership of the means of production (in the case of ©), he may not have control over how he uses it. We mean here that the capitalist (or the foreman, supervisior, manager, etc.), while not legally owning the sewing machine, has control over how it's used or when: fast, slow, for a long time, for a short time, during the day, during the night, etc.
With all this in mind, I recommend to all who subscribe to anything remotely Marxian or Proletarian, that the technical definition of "proletariat" me revised to be "one who owns his labor but does not have effective ownership of the means of production."
I'm (literally) in the middle of G.A. Cohen's "Karl Marx's Theory of History" and it has brought up a number of questions. Perhaps one of the most interesting is how to define a proletariat.
The typical definition of a proletariat is, according to one person or another, a person who falls under both categories below:
A) He/she owns his labor (meaning he is neither a medieval serf or a slave).
B) He/she does not own the means of production.
Mr. Cohen brings up an interesting counter-example to (B). In Chapter 3, section 4 (of the 2000 expanded edition) he brings examples of:
C) a sewer who works for a firm that makes clothing but yet owns the sewing machine he uses.
D) another person that works cutting bolts of cloth on a machine he does not own, nor could ever hope to own.
This brings up an interesting point: is the condition of not owning the means of production what makes, in part, a proletariat?
Certainly, there is the shared condition of (A) between the two demonstrates that being in full ownership of one's labor is a pre-condition of being a proletariat. But note the lack of sharing (B) between then. One owns what he uses and the other doesn't.
But this implies legal ownership. In ©, this person owns the sewing machine he uses, he has legal ownership of it, to wit it is his legal property. But for (D), he does not own the cutting machine he uses to cut the bolt, for the machine is legal property of the person who does own it (say, the capitalist).
Therefor, I say that in a technical sense (B) is incorrect. It would be better to modify it to read: "He/she does not have effective ownership of the means of production."
I would wager this is a better pre-condition to "proletariat-hood" as, while a person may have legal ownership of the means of production (in the case of ©), he may not have control over how he uses it. We mean here that the capitalist (or the foreman, supervisior, manager, etc.), while not legally owning the sewing machine, has control over how it's used or when: fast, slow, for a long time, for a short time, during the day, during the night, etc.
With all this in mind, I recommend to all who subscribe to anything remotely Marxian or Proletarian, that the technical definition of "proletariat" me revised to be "one who owns his labor but does not have effective ownership of the means of production."