The proletariat (; ) is the socioeconomic class of wage laborers, members of a capitalist society whose most significant economic value is their labour power (their capacity to work). A member of such a class is a proletarian or a worker. Marxist philosophy regards the proletariat under conditions of capitalism as an exploited class, deprived of the means of production and thereby forced to operate means of production held as private property by the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie), receiving wages which represent less than the value their labour produced, the remainder appropriated by the bourgeoisie as profits.
Karl Marx argued that the inherently irreconcilable interests between workers and capitalists gives the workers common economic and political interests that transcend national boundaries, impelling them to unite internationally and assert their sovereignty over the capitalist class, and eventually to create a communist society free from class distinctions.
Roman Republic and Empire
The constituted a social class of Roman citizens who owned little or no property. The name presumably originated with the census, which Roman authorities conducted every five years to produce a register of citizens and their property, which determined their military duties and voting privileges. Those who owned 11,000 (coins) or fewer fell below the lowest category for military service, and their children— (offspring)were listed instead of property; hence the name (producer of offspring). Roman citizen-soldiers paid for their own horses and arms, and fought without payment for the commonwealth, but the only military contribution of a was his children, the future Roman citizens who could colonize conquered territories. Officially, propertyless citizens were called because they were "persons registered not as to their property...but simply as to their existence as living individuals, primarily as heads () of a family."Adolf Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society 1953) at 380; 657.
Although explicitly included by name in the (Centuriate Assembly), were the lowest class, largely deprived of voting rights.Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (1953) at 351; 657 (quote). Not only did have less voting "weight" in the various elections, but since voting ran hierarchically starting with the highest social ranks, a majority could be reached early and their votes never even taken. Late Roman historians such as Livy vaguely described the as a popular assembly of early Rome composed of , voting units representing classes of citizens according to wealth. This assembly, which usually met on the to discuss public policy, designated the military duties of Roman citizens.Titus Livius ( – AD 17), Ab urbe condita, 1, 43; the first five books translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt as Livy, The Early History of Rome (Penguin 1960, 1971) at 81–82. One of the reconstructions of the features 18 of cavalry, and 170 of infantry divided into five classes by wealth, plus 5 of support personnel called , one of which represented the . In battle, the cavalry brought their horses and arms, the top infantry class full arms and armour, the next two classes less, the fourth class only spears, the fifth slings, while the assisting adsidui held no weapons. If unanimous, the cavalry and top infantry class were enough to decide an issue.Andrew Lintott, The Constitution of the Roman Republic (Oxford University 1999) at 55–61, re the . A deeper reconstruction incorporating social backgrounds found that the senators, the knights, and the first class held 88 out of 193 , the two lowest propertied classes held only 30 , but the held only 1. Musicians, by way of comparison, had more voting power despite far fewer citizens, with 2 . "[F]or the voting to reach the a very profound split in the elite and the higher classes was required."Henrik Mouritsen, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 94–95.
Modern use
Classic liberal view
In the early 19th century, many Western European liberal scholarswho dealt with social sciences and economicspointed out the socio-economic similarities of the modern rapidly growing industrial worker class and the classic proletarians. One of the earliest analogies comparing workers to the "slaves" of the Roman period can be found in the 1839 work by French philosopher and political scientist Felicité Robert de Lamennais, De l'esclavage moderne. It was translated to English and published the following year with the title "Modern Slavery". He wrote, "The proletarian is one who lives by his labor, and who could not live unless he did labor. [...] The necessity of living makes the laborer dependent upon the capitalist, irremediably his subject: because in the purse of the one is the other’s life."
Swiss liberal economist and historian was the first to apply the proletariat term to the working class created under capitalism, and whose writings were frequently cited by Karl Marx. Marx most likely encountered the term while studying the works of Sismondi.
Marxist theory
Marx, who studied Roman law at the Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin,Cf., Sidney Hook, Marx and the Marxists (Princeton: Van Nostrand 1955) at 13. used the term proletariat in his socio-political theory (Marxism) to describe a working class untainted by private property and capable of revolutionary action to topple capitalism and abolish social classes, leading society to ever higher levels of prosperity and justice. With reference to such expectations, Andreas Dorschel, alluding to Sigmund Freud's notion of "super-ego" ("Über-Ich"), calls Marx's proletariat a "super-we" ("Über-Wir") installed above any actual workers' movement.Andreas Dorschel, Die Welt verändern. Zur Poetik des Manifests. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 2026 (Politische Philosophie 2), p. 84.
Marx himself defined the proletariat as the social class having no significant ownership of the means of production (factories, machines, land, mines, buildings, vehicles) and whose only means of subsistence is to sell their labour power for a wage or salary. Borders between the proletariat and adjacent social classes have been defined only vaguely in Marxist theory. In the socially superior, less progressive direction are the lower petty bourgeoisie, such as small shopkeepers, who rely primarily on self-employment at an income comparable to an ordinary wage. Intermediate positions are possible, where wage-labor for an employer combines with self-employment. In another direction, the lumpenproletariat or "rag-proletariat", which Marx considers a retrograde class, live in the informal economy outside of legal employment: the poorest outcasts of society such as beggars, tricksters, entertainers, buskers, criminals and prostitutes. Socialist parties have often argued over whether they should organize and represent all the lower classes, or only the wage-earning proletariat.
According to Marxism, capitalism is based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie: the workers, who own no means of production, must use the property of others to produce goods and services and to earn their living. Workers cannot rent the means of production (e.g. a factory or department store) to produce on their own account; rather, capitalists hire workers, and the goods or services produced become the property of the capitalist, who sells them at the market.
Part of the net selling price pays the workers' wages (variable costs); a second part renews the means of production (constant costs, capital investment); while the third part is consumed by the capitalist class, split between the capitalist's personal profit and fees to other owners (rents, taxes, interest on loans, etc.). The struggle over the first part (wage rates) puts the proletariat and bourgeoisie into irreconcilable conflict, as market competition pushes wages inexorably to the minimum necessary for the workers to survive and continue working. The second part, called capitalized surplus value, is used to renew or increase the means of production (capital), either in quantity or quality.Luxemburg, Rosa. The Accumulation of Capital. Chapter 6, Enlarged Reproduction, http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/ch06.htm The second and third parts are known as surplus value, the difference between the wealth the proletariat produce and the wealth they consume.Marx, Karl. The Capital, volume 1, chapter 6. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
Marxists argue that new wealth is created through labor applied to natural resources.Marx, Karl. Critique of the Gotha Programme, I. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm The commodities that proletarians produce and capitalists sell are valued not for their usefulness, but for the amount of labour embodied in them: for example, air is essential but requires no labor to produce, and is therefore free; while a diamond is much less useful, but requires hundreds of hours of mining and cutting, and is therefore expensive. The same goes for the workers' labor power: it is valued not for the amount of wealth it produces, but for the amount of labor necessary to keep the workers fed, housed, sufficiently trained, and able to raise children as new workers. On the other hand, capitalists earn their wealth not as a function of their personal labor, which may even be null, but by the juridical relation of their property to the means of production (e.g. owning a factory or farmland).
Marx argues that history is made by man and not destiny. The instruments of production and the working class that use the tools in order to produce are referred to as the moving forces of society. Over time, this developed into the levels of social class where the owners of resources joined to squeeze productivity out of the individuals who depended on their labor power. Marx argues that these relations between the exploiters and exploited results in different modes of production and the successive stages in history. These modes of production in which mankind gains power over nature is distinguished into five different systems: the Primitive Community, Slave State, Feudal State, Capitalist System, and finally the Socialist Society. The transition between these systems were all due to an increase in civil unrest among those who felt oppressed by a higher social class.
The contention with feudalism began once the merchants and guild artisans grew in numbers and power. Once they organized themselves, they began opposing the fees imposed on them by the nobles and clergy. This development led to new ideas and eventually established the Bourgeoisie class which Marx opposes. Commerce began to change the form of production and markets began to shift in order to support larger production and profits. This change led to a series of revolutions by the bourgeois which resulted in capitalism. Marx argues that this same model can and should be applied to the fight for the proletariat. Forming unions similar to how the merchants and artisans did will establish enough power to enact change. Ultimately, Marx's theory of the proletarian's struggle would eventually lead to the fall of capitalism and the emergence of a new mode of production, socialism.
Marx argued that the proletariat would inevitably displace the capitalist system with the dictatorship of the proletariat, abolishing the social relationships underpinning the class system and then developing into a communist society in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto, part II, Proletarians and Communists http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm