: The difference between a proletarian and a capitalist can be quantitatively determined.
: As a general rule,
A QUANTITATIVE determination that has as its first premise a GENERAL rule?
> a proletarian buys items that are consumed completely. For example: groceries, rent, heat, clothes, and medical care are all things that, once consumed, are gone and must be purchased again in order to reproduce those items' use-value.
: A capitalist, on the other hand, buys items that are consumed productively.* For example: plant facilities, raw materials, machines, and labor are all things that, once consumed (in the production process), become items retaining their previous value as well as possessing added value (if not, why bother to be a capitalist?).
It is not necessary to read any more of this post. It has already become nonsense, based on a faulty definition of "consume".
Anything, once it is consumed, is "gone and must be purchased again" whether it is food, clothes, plant facilities, or labor, and each of these goods produces something of value while it is being consumed. The only important difference among them is that some take a longer time to consume than others. Food is consumed immediately. Clothes are consumed over a long time, (producing something of value each time they are worn,) as are plant facilities and labor.
Stoller would have us believe that plant facilities, raw materials, machines and labor all "retain their previous value as well as possessing added value." Again, obviously false. Each time any of these goods is used to produce something, they lose a little bit of their value. Otherwise, they'd last forever. The only difference between these and the goods which Stoller would like to classify as proletarian goods are the span of time it takes to consume them.
I'd like to pose a series of questions which I've asked many socialists in many arguments and to which I've never gotten satisfactory answers: Is a toaster a factor of production? (Or, in Stoller's terms, is a toaster a proletarian good or a capitalist good?)
If it's a capitalist good, then why do so many proletarians (yes, even the working class ones) own them?
If it's a proletarian good, then does it remain a proletarian good when I make toast for a friend? If not, why not?
If so, then does it remain a proletarian good when I make toast for someone I don't know and give it to him for free? What if I give it to him in exchange for a spoonful of his homemade jam? What if I give it to him in exchange for a piece of paper which he, my other neighbors, and I have agreed is worth a certain amount of any item the neighbors might choose to exchange?
What if I agree with my jam-making neighbor to help him make jam for 4 hours a day, if he helps me make toast for another 4 hours a day?
What if I agree with my jam-making neighbor to give him a certain number of the exchange certificates (from 2 paragraphs above) if he'll help me make toast for 4 hours a day?
If you've come this far, (At some point along this line of questioning, any socialist eventually realizes he's trapped and starts evading the questions. Try it! It's fun!) you'll notice that the toaster has magically turned into a mode of production, or capitalist good, and the toast-making proletarian has transformed into a capitalist. At what point? Wish I knew. Only a socialist could claim to know for sure.