The ancient Roman origin of a term that defines modern labor
Long before Karl Marx, the 'proletariat' described a class of people whose only contribution to the state was their offspring. From Roman census records to the complexities of modern capitalism, the definition of this class has shifted from biological reproduction to the loss of human knowledge.
The term 'proletariat' finds its roots in the Roman census, conducted every five years to register citizens and their property. In ancient Rome, those owning 11,000 assēs or fewer were categorized as 'proletarii'. Because they lacked property to contribute to military service, their value to the state was recorded solely through their children—the 'proles'. These individuals were also known as 'capite censi', registered only by their existence as heads of families.
In the 19th century, the term was repurposed to describe the industrial working class. Philosophers like the Frenchman Félicité Robert de Lamennais compared these workers to modern slaves, noting that their very lives depended on the capitalist's purse. Later, the Swiss economist Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi first applied the term to the capitalist working class, a concept Karl Marx would expand into a revolutionary theory. Marx argued that this class, deprived of the means of production, is forced to sell its labor power for wages.
Modern interpretations have moved beyond economics into the realm of cognition. Philosopher Bernard Stiegler suggests that 'proletarianization' is not merely about poverty, but a loss of knowledge caused by delegating skills to machines. He identifies three stages: the loss of technical skills during the Industrial Revolution, the loss of social skills during the rise of consumer society, and the loss of critical thinking under surveillance capitalism. In this view, even high-level figures like former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan can be considered proletarianized if they no longer understand the complex systems they manage.
Source: Proletariat
