(JAI: I don't know if this posting's formatting will survive its posting to this listserv. If it does not you may write me and I will forward the document as an attachment.)
To my way of thinking, the question is better framed: "Who are the Working Classes". Here it is proposed that there are three working classes and that class is determined and differentiated by the elements of [product (commodity) value that the several classes bring to market. *The Elements of Value in the Products Produced by the Several Working Classes* *1. Class Schematics: The Working Classes* *Class* ** *Independent Wkr* ** *Wage-worker* ** *Petit-bourgeois * *Example* Gardener working alone Proletarian Gardener with hired help (GWHH) *Product Value* c* + l v = (l - s) (c* + l) + (v +s) The *Independent Worker IW* *(footnote 1)* owns her own means of production c and therefore does not have to share the value added by her labor *l.* *i ( #sdendnote1sym )* She does have to replace her *used-up constant capital c** , the portion of her means of production devalued in the process of production. These used-up means c*, ceteris paribus, transfer their value to the produced commodity. The value of her product therefore equals *c + l*. Contrariwise, the *Wage-worker* *W-w* does not own her means of production c i ( #sdendnote2sym ) *(footnote 2)* and in order to obtain the use of these—so as to reproduce the value of her wage *v* —she has to accede to the owning capitalist a portion (the capitalist’s surplus-value s) of such value-added by her labo r l , i.e. *l – s = v;* *ii ( #sdendnote3sym )* *(Footnote 3)* Her working-day thus consists of ‘necessary labor’ (where she adds value to the product equal to the value of her own wage) and ‘surplus-labor’) which is all the value-added by her work beyond that point of equivalence. *v = l – s* *.* The *Petit-bourgeois* owns enough means of production *c* to employ not only herself as labor l but also means sufficient to hire a waged-worker *v.* *iv ( #sdendnote4sym )* *(Footnote 4)* In production, a portion of the *use-value* of such means, her constant capital c*, and, by that, the economic v alue of such means is devalued but enters as an element of value into the total economic value of her finished commodity. The value of her product is therefore *(c* + l) + (v + s)* as her product’s value consists of the used-up means of production c*; this is added to the value added by her own labor l (which because of her ownership of the m eans of production she does not have to share with anyone); plus the value added by labor l of her worker(s) which is divided into the workers' wage *v* plus the surplus-value s added by the her worker(s)’ labor l lasting longer than what is necessary to reproduce the value of their wages v. The important thing here is that the owner’s labor l adds value alongside her workers who add the value of their labor l but only net their wage, again, *v = l – s.* ( (1) "In that original state of things, which precedes both the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labour belongs to the laboure r. He has neither landlord nor master to share with him.” Adam Smith. “Wealth of Nations.” https:// www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch08.htm ( http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch08.htm ) Parallel to Smith, here Marx makes direct mention of the independent worker: “The production of a use-value, and even that of a commodity (for this can be carried on also by independent productive labourers ), is here only a means of producing absolute and relative surplus-value for a capitalist.” ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch19.htm ) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch19.htm (2) “...the labourer, on quitting the process, is what he was on entering it, a source of wealth, but devoid of all means of making that wealth her own.” Vol 1.” Chapter XXIII. ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch23.htm ) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch23.htm (3) We shall assume that he is a mere wage-labourer, even one of the better paid, for all the diffesrence it makes. Whatever his pay, as a wage-labourer he works part of her time for nothing.” “Vol 2.” Chap 6. . http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/ ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm ) works/1885-c2/ch06.htm ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm ) (4) “Of course he (the capitalist) can, like her labourer, take to work himself, participate directly in the process of production, but he is then only a hybrid between capitalist and labourer , a ‘small master’.” Marx. Capital (Vol 1) . https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm ) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#6076): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/6076 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/80241551/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
