Proletariat: Difference between revisions

From InfraWiki
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 5: Line 5:
<blockquote> "The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century."<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm</ref> </blockquote>
<blockquote> "The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century."<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm</ref> </blockquote>


In his first book ''The Condition of the Working Class in England''<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/</ref>, Engels argues that the proletarianisation began in the second half of the 18th-century as a result of the introduction of industrial capital which put the traditional cottage cotton workshops and yeomen out of business. As a result, the new proletarians migrated into towns in search for manufacturing jobs.
In his first book, ''The Condition of the Working Class in England''<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/</ref>, Engels argues that the proletarianisation began in the second half of the 18th-century as a result of the introduction of industrial capital which put the traditional cottage cotton workshops and yeomen out of business. As a result, the new proletarians migrated into towns in search for manufacturing jobs.


The proletariat is in a dialectic with private property, as Marx outlines in Chapter 4 of ''The Holy Family''<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm</ref>
The proletariat is in a dialectic with private property, as Marx outlines in Chapter 4 of ''The Holy Family''<ref>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm</ref>

Revision as of 02:08, 11 April 2024

The proletariat, or the working class, is the lower of the two main social classes in capitalist society, whose existence is derived from being able to earn a living through each member's labor power. The upper class is the capitalist class, the Bourgeoisie, which owns the means of production and whose existence is derived from such ownership.

The proletariat is defined in the Principles of Communism as:

"The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century."[1]

In his first book, The Condition of the Working Class in England[2], Engels argues that the proletarianisation began in the second half of the 18th-century as a result of the introduction of industrial capital which put the traditional cottage cotton workshops and yeomen out of business. As a result, the new proletarians migrated into towns in search for manufacturing jobs.

The proletariat is in a dialectic with private property, as Marx outlines in Chapter 4 of The Holy Family[3]

Proletariat and wealth are opposites; as such they form a single whole. They are both creations of the world of private property. The question is exactly what place each occupies in the antithesis. It is not sufficient to declare them two sides of a single whole.

Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the antithesis, self-satisfied private property.

The proletariat, on the contrary, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby its opposite, private property, which determines its existence, and which makes it proletariat. It is the negative side of the antithesis, its restlessness within its very self, dissolved and self-dissolving private property.

The propertied class and the class of the proletariat present the same human self-estrangement. But the former class feels at ease and strengthened in this self-estrangement, it recognizes estrangement as its own power and has in it the semblance of a human existence. The class of the proletariat feels annihilated in estrangement; it sees in it its own powerlessness and the reality of an inhuman existence. It is, to use an expression of Hegel, in its abasement the indignation at that abasement, an indignation to which it is necessarily driven by the contradiction between its human nature and its condition of life, which is the outright, resolute and comprehensive negation of that nature.

Within this antithesis the private property-owner is therefore the conservative side, the proletarian the destructive side. From the former arises the action of preserving the antithesis, from the latter the action of annihilating it.

Indeed private property drives itself in its economic movement towards its own dissolution, but only through a development which does not depend on it, which is unconscious and which takes place against the will of private property by the very nature of things, only inasmuch as it produces the proletariat as proletariat, poverty which is conscious of its spiritual and physical poverty, dehumanization which is conscious of its dehumanization, and therefore self-abolishing. The proletariat executes the sentence that private property pronounces on itself by producing the proletariat, just as it executes the sentence that wage-labour pronounces on itself by producing wealth for others and poverty for itself. When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property.

When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary. Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need — the practical expression of necessity — is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself. But it cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life of society today which are summed up in its own situation. Not in vain does it go through the stern but steeling school of labour. It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today. There is no need to explain here that a large part of the English and French proletariat is already conscious of its historic task and is constantly working to develop that consciousness into complete clarity.

With the rise of the socialist mode of production[4], both private property and the proletariat are being sublated and the rigid 19th-century definition of proletariat has been rendered increasingly obsolete. In the 21st-century America, the proletarian class interest can be distilled among the blue collar working class[5], people who's job fits the category of labour outlined by Marx in Das Kapital Chapter 7 as a process transforming the products of nature into the products useful to man [6], as well as gig economy workers and service workers who represent the interest of general labour. The proletariat, due to its unique relationship to the whole system of social production, as the class which materially reproduces the mode of production is latent with revolutionary potential and an antagonistic relationship to the capitalist class.

References