Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T03:10:06.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2009

Shahid Amin
Affiliation:
University of Delhi
Marcel van der Linden
Affiliation:
Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis, Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

The proletarians have lost their innocence. A conservative sociologist once described wage labourers as follows:

The worker is personally free, i.e. his physical and spiritual-moral powers are completely at his own disposal. […] He has no property, i.e. he has no exclusive material power over capital as a secure basis with relative permanency. […] He has neither a stock of consumer goods that enable him to live, nor permanent interests of capital. […] He lives in economic circumstances in which means of subsistence can be obtained only through economic returns. […] He is forced to offer personal capacities with an economic exchange value in return for means of subsistence.

The fact that this description – disregarding its formulation – is almost identical to the classical Marxist definition indicates a broad consensus regarding the characteristics of proletarians among intellectuals in the first half of the twentieth century. Implicitly, proletarians were considered to be male, were perceived in isolation from their families or households, and were associated with a “pure” social category: while personally free and without property, they were compelled to sell their individual capacities or skills for money. These proletarians were viewed not as abstract theoretical constructs, but (at least in the advanced countries and in the societies of “really existing socialism”) as concrete living people whose number was increasing rapidly by any standard. While some historians and social scientists may have suspected that workers could also be females, might live in families or households that combined several “coping strategies”, and sometimes had their freedom severely restricted by debts or other impediments, etc., these insights did not play a significant theoretical role.

Type
Chapter
Information
Peripheral Labour
Studies in the History of Partial Proletarianization
, pp. 1 - 8
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×