Well… I have a friend who is a landlord and after mortgage fees and all other fees, all that he gets are 300 dollars and he lives in California, so it depends on where the landlord lives and where the property home is.
My question is, let’s say that someone owns private property yet, still has a paying job unrelated to the private property because the surplus value extracted from the private property is not enough for this person to live. Does the fact that this person needs to also sell their labor make them a proletariat or does having any sort of private property make someone a petit burgeois?
Just another instance of class mobility. If for instance this person has to rely on the rent for their main income but works a casual job to supplement it, then their interests lie in protecting that rent.
You remain a proletarian so long as you have to sell your labor power to eat
Even if you are also a landlord?
I don’t think landlords have to sell their labor power to others to eat, since they receive rent
Well… I have a friend who is a landlord and after mortgage fees and all other fees, all that he gets are 300 dollars and he lives in California, so it depends on where the landlord lives and where the property home is.
Don’t see any labor being done… Doesn’t matter where the home is. Same applies to shares.
My question is, let’s say that someone owns private property yet, still has a paying job unrelated to the private property because the surplus value extracted from the private property is not enough for this person to live. Does the fact that this person needs to also sell their labor make them a proletariat or does having any sort of private property make someone a petit burgeois?
Just another instance of class mobility. If for instance this person has to rely on the rent for their main income but works a casual job to supplement it, then their interests lie in protecting that rent.