Talk:Proletariat

etymology

Etymology: French prolétariat, from Latin proletarius
Date: 1853

1. the lowest social or economic class of a community
   
2. the laboring class; especially : the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live

---

Petty Bourgeoisie and Middle Class.

• The lower middle class or the petty (petite) bourgeoisie (the bourgeoisie was sometimes called the middle class in this era), constitutes "the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant" (Giddens and Held, p. 24). The characteristic of this class is that it does own some property, but not sufficient to have all work done by employees or workers. Members of this class must also work in order to survive, so they have a dual existence – as (small scale) property owners and as workers. Because of this dual role, members of this class have divided interests, usually wishing to preserve private property and property rights, but with interests often opposed to those of the capitalist class. This class is split internally as well, being geographically, industrially, and politically dispersed, so that it is difficult for it to act as a class. Marx expected that this class would disappear as capitalism developed, with members moving into the bourgeoisie or into the working class, depending on whether or not they were successful. Many in this class have done this, but at the same time, this class seems to keep recreating itself in different forms.
  • Source : http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s28f99.htm (sociology 250, Marx's Theory of Social Class and Class Structure, Sept 28 1999)

Merge with working class

I think this article should be merged with working class and turned into a redirect. As far as I know, "proletariat" is synonymous with "working class" and simply indicates the use of Marxist theory. I think that "proletariat" (or Marxist theory) could be made into a subsection of "working class" and this page could act as a redirect. Other's have suggested merging working class into social class. AdamRetchless 17:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There can be quite a historical confusion. At Marx times working class meant primarily physical workers. An engineer was not a proletarian, although he didn't own means of production. Over time, the notion became more and more blurred. The same engineer from one side was a "lackey of capitalist", but from the other side he was a "proletary of mental labor". I mean what both articles are missing is evolution of these notions over time. Unfortunately I cannot provide this, only grumble :-) Mikkalai 01:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

: Then I agree that a merge with working class is still acceptable, but framing it within the evolution of the two terms. I think those are essentially under the same umbrella term.Pingijno (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this makes sense but I hope that when this happens whoever descides to do it makes a new section for the merged page. This way we keep the current near perfect structure of the article. michaelkemp 2/19/10

George Orwell

The section on G.Orwell eventually overgrew its relevance to the topic. IMO only the first sentence must be left here. The rest must be moved elsewhere (dictatorship of the proletariat, communist state, whatever). Mikkalai 00:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mikkalai on this issue. Following an episode of vandalism, I took the initiative to remove this portion of the article and will post it on the discussion page for reference.

Sophrosune (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of vandalism, now there isn't any mention of Orwell, at all! Given that, ironically or otherwise, the Proles is a common reference-point for a discussion of the working class in a modern context, Orwell's characterisation of a downtrodden and disenfranchised labouring class who are routinely ignored as not politically dangerous, has resonance with the status of the poor in modern society.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Latin origin

While "proletariat" is, of course, nearly always used in a Marxian context in contemporary discourse, this article needs a section explaining its use in the Roman Empire. - Jersyko talk 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is not even one mention of the proletarii of ancient Rome in this article. 79.146.140.241 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed again. Maybe it should be a separate article from the disambiguation page, but it definitely needs to be referenced on Wikipedia somehow. Eythan91 (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Transformative Character

What about the notion that the proletariat possess a unique place in society in socialist and anarchist theory? That is the proletariat possess the the ability to see past petty advantages and therefore is in the best position to lead society. Nothing in the article about this positive aspect of the class. Could maybe cite Harrington on this, as he has a democratic defense of this aspect of Marxist theory.--Edivorce 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition

It surprises me that the definition at the beginning of the article refers to "lower classes" and makes no reference to labour as a defining feature, save for the phrase "working class". Isn't the fact of surviving by selling one's labour more central than matters of "high" and "low"? --Rrburke 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There are levels of "high" and "low" within the lower classes: the working class is divisible into, for example, people who work in retail, and people who graft with physical exertion, such as on building sites. Below them, the non-working class: that is, those who are culturally identical with the working class, but are long-term unemployed, and do not enjoy the comparative prosperity of those who are in work. A further level below are the so-called underclass, those in grinding poverty, sometimes homeless or unable to heat their homes, and facing continued malnutrition. Such levels of poverty really do continue to exist within our modern societies.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

{{OR}}

I removed this tag because there was no related reason given when the tag was added, or in the time since.--Bookandcoffee 05:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

{{O. Perera philospher?}}

It says at the bottom "The famous Sri-Lankan philosopher O. Perera once said during a red-eclipse "Hark! See how the Chinese have captured the moon and claimed it for the proletariat!"" with no reference. A google search can't find anything about this so-called Perera...vandalism?

Labour vs Labour force

In Marxist theory, labour is not a commodity, and cannot be sold or bought. What proletarians sell is labour force, or labour power, not labour.

A quick glance at Das Kapital shows that:

Chapter Six: The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power

Not the Buying and Selling of Labour.

In fact, it is a basic tenet of Marxist theory that, in average, there is no exploitation through mere market mechanisms: all commodities are bought and sold, in average, at their value. If proletarians sold "labour" - if it was even possible to sell labour - then such labour would have to be systematically sold below its value. On the contrary, labour power is sold at its value - the exploitation does not come from the bourgeois "cheating" over the price of a commodity, but from the fact that labour power creates new value when consumed. Ninguém (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps labour power is the correct term, but labor force is not the same thing at all.Spylab (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In Portuguese it is "força de trabalho", which seemed to translate naturally to "labour force". Taking a look at Marx's work, I see the correct English translation for "Produktivkraft der Arbeit" is "labour power". But proletarians definitely do not sell their labour, at least not in Marxist theory. In fact, Marx clearly intended to make this distinction very neat:

The second essential condition to the owner of money finding labour-power in the market as a commodity is this — that the labourer instead of being in the position to sell commodities in which his labour is incorporated, must be obliged to offer for sale as a commodity that very labour-power, which exists only in his living self.

189.27.36.154 (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"evicerate the proletariat" quote

Does anyone know where the phrase "eviscerate the proletariat" comes from? I remember hearing Stewie recite it on Family Guy and thought there might be an underlying historical context. fintler (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

{{split}}

I have suggested the article be split as the original usage of the term and the Marxist theory are not one and the same thing, which makes this potentially confusing for readers. I accept that a line or two should be included to say how the term has also been used by political theorizers but to avoid bias it should not become dominated by any one political viewpoint . The Marxist view should stand as a separate article.--Utinomen (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just added is the section on "Usage in Roman Law". That done, the tag about splitting the article becomes mute. Accordingly this tag should be removed, unless objections are made. Elfelix (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The term proletariat is heavily associated with Marxism. I doubt it would be encyclopedic without the association so splitting it into a separate article is unnecessary. I've removed the banner. Lambanog (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've only just come across this article, through a redirect from proletarii at the Servius Tullius article. I'm currently rewriting there. I agree that the term proletariat is heavily associated with Marxism, and that this is prefigured by the proletarii of Roman history; but a couple of points.

Firstly, proletarii were Roman citizens, even when reduced to abject clientage. Pace Berger, who is useful but sometimes remiss, they were not the "the poorest stratum of the population." In law, if not always in fact, the poorest stratum were slaves, who could legally own nothing whatever, not even themselves, let alone their children. Some proletarii sold themselves or their children into slavery ; either way, they would lose their citizenship and the protection of citizen laws. It's a difficult, complex topic. Putting all that to one side, the section here on proletarii seems appropriate in length and detail. The article as a whole deals with the modern term in political context, and provides sufficient Roman background for an encyclopedic treatment. It's lively, readable and to the point.

On to my second point: proletarii is also an important, undeservedly neglected topic in Roman social history. It needs dedicated contextual treatment, which can't and shouldn't happen on this page. So I propose scrubbing the proletarii redirect. A separate article should be written, named Proletarii (ancient Rome); and I guess I'm offering to write it. That article would provide a see-also, or maybe a "Legacy" section, with links from there to here. Then readers can more easily find topic-appropriate context and detail under relevant subject headings. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations appropriate for current size

rm

<!-- There are paragraphs that go without a single citation, or a single fact is quoted but the source of the concept or its interpretation are not clear. -->

Inappropriate, excessive, litigious, etc. application of a wiki policy probably fronting an anti-marxist POV; see nothing above to the contrary so removing that tag as well. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as Ben Seattle's site link is concerned, it's a curious thing. If it were pushing anything other than proletarian revolution I would have removed it as obvious personal/scamming spam. However that is precisely what it is pushing and from an apparently authentic working class perspective so left in lex order. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Should be /ˌproʊlɨˈtɛəriət/ (see the key). --Preguntador (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Or possibly (according to the Oxford Dictionary) BrE /ˌprəʊləˈteəriət/; NAmE /ˌproʊləˈteriət/ Cwrwgar (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Prole drift §

This could be expanded with

1. more about proletarianization, especially in context of globalization and the creation of a precariat even in what primarily were formerly considered bourgeois layers
2. the fact that proletarianization and embourgeoisment may be proceeding simultaneously in a given society in different subpopulations
3. the fact that simultaneously modern bourgeois culture does commodify culture (for the masses) but it also presents an unparalleled richness outside the confines of the mass marketable cultural commodity (to the elites with the preparation to access it)

98.4.124.117 (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel that it's a relative niche criticism which should be presented more critically on the page-- The capitalism of Marx's era was not involved in mass consumer culture or globalization. The current text reads as if they did and Marx was incorrect in his assessment about his contemporary society. When Marx was writing, there were far more distinct class lines and cultural markers which have [somewhat] broken down over time, as literacy has exponentially increased and mass media is created for a common audience.

That said, I would argue that there are distinct cultural markers which still persist between classes-- while media has largely been designed for mass consumption and traditional class markers like etiquette have largely fallen by the wayside, the life experiences and resulting cultures of working people and the super-wealthy remain extremely different even if they lack the same distinct markers which they had in the 19th Century at the time of Marx's writing. Fauxlosophe (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The modern reintruduction of ancient latin word "proletarii" was not coined by Marx

The proletarian word was already used for wage-workers / worker-class when Karl Marx was a child. So it was not invented by "Marxists". That's why you can found this term in older books. Take a Boogle Book search!--Dwirm (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)