[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?