Proletarians are the class-conscious working class, by definition, period. Peasants, serfs, slaves, babies, the "lumpenproletariat" etc. do not own the means of production either, but neither are they the proletariat.I like this. Any definition I could give that cast doubt upon a particular group would merely be answered by "they're not the real proletariate". You are passing your opinions off as objective facts.
: And in his critique of Proudhon, Marx deals with the possibility that the proletariat could in fact be owners of capital. So proletarianism can't be defined as exclusion from the ownership of capital. (The fact that Marx tried to incite revolution by posing the working classes and the owning classes as opposing sides in a struggle was Marx's legacy to the art of propaganda, not economic theory.)
A socialist labeling Marx as propagandist? Interesting. Maybe socialism is evolving past Marxism. A good paradigm shift and an excitingly heady one to contemplate.
: : So, he goes to work for a capitalist who pays him $10 per hour. If he were to work without this individual's capital he would only produce goods priced at $2 per hour.
: SDF: Since the source of all capital is the labor of the working classes,
Which tens of thousands of years ago included everyone. Remember, no per-social individual means no pre-modern tribalism. Which means that at one time lines of property were drawn because people managed better when they could define a sphere that was their responsibility, although still a unified tribal collective. As certain people began standing out from the rest, others realized that their personal utility would be maximized through co-operation, though in a subordinate manner. First, it was informal, but began crystalizing.
This 'alienation', as you next suggest, was conciously and activly accepted by some past prole at one time or another. Thus, 'alienation' was the concious act of some past prole in order to maximize his/her personal utility. Remember, there was still co-operation and tribal altuism, however, the very faint beginnings of the labor and price system had begun to coagulate.
:without which it wouldn't exist, the idea of "this individual's capital" itself implies a prior act of "theft" of labor by a capitalist. That is, if you believe in the morality implied in the word "theft," which Marx didn't. Marx would have used the word "alienation."
If you're referring to war, much capital has been "extracted" through conquest. But the alienation you're referring to only bears an weight if captialism has always existed (see above). Red says that capitalism is 200-300 years old so I guess my above narrative still fits the bill for the beginnings of alienation. You're saying taht the survival mechanisms developed by our ancestors, way back when we were on four legs, even, are alienating. Wow!!! Amazing!!! You're criticizing tens of millions of years of evolution; in other words the human capacity itself is your punching bag.
