[danbolt]

I was under the impression that what defines the proletariat is someone whose income primarily comes from their labour, rather than capital. In this case, plenty of academics and engineers certainly qualify if they need to work to live.

I think the parent commenter is using the term in that context, rather than if they work a blue-collar job or if they’re middle class.

[zmgsabst]

The distinction has never been “work to live”, but working class versus professional class.

Also, academics and engineers don’t derive their income from labor, but from connections, bureaucratic status, and knowledge asymmetry. That’s why they’re part of the bourgeoisie and not proletariat.

Eg, lawyers were never part of the proletariat — yet they also need to work to survive.

[JohnFen]

> Also, academics and engineers don’t derive their income from labor

I'm an engineer and absolutely derive my income from labor. I don't get paid for just knowing people or knowledge asymmetry, I get paid for producing stuff.

[zmgsabst]

…based on your specialized knowledge.

See my example about lawyers:

> Eg, lawyers were never part of the proletariat — yet they also need to work to survive.

Perhaps you could address that.

[danbolt]

There are many ways we can use distinctions to classify everyone, but if we’re using the term proletariat like I mentioned, that’s certainly defined as someone who gets their income through labour power. [1]

I’m a bit confused by your examples with academics or engineers as well. If an engineer stops fulfilling their deliverables, they’ll likely stop being employed. Same goes for a postdoc not producing any research. I’ve certainly seen people get fired for failing to get work done even though they have connections in their industry. It almost seems like your conception of who is bourgeoises and who is not is based on how snobby the caricature of their job is.

[1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm

[zmgsabst]

You didn’t address my example:

> Eg, lawyers were never part of the proletariat — yet they also need to work to survive.

Please do.

[danbolt]

I guess it would depend on the particular lawyer, don’t you think?

Or, if the work from their clients (labour power) is sustaining them, they’d be part of the proletariat, but if they’re able to get by from the labour of others or capital they own (eg: investments, articling) then they wouldn’t be. Does that make sense?