raging against "managers" is an infantile anarchist or ultraleft program, isn't that Dilbert's whole thing? Managers are fine, it is capitalism that ruins the natural and normal human ecology of business administration.
Communists want to do business, but the mediator class literally spends their time means testing and putting obstacles in the way of workers getting power. Wage theft can open happen in the dark, don't let the woke utopian reformers hide the truth with their attempts to reconcile the contradictions of class society
Part of this is I think that the left definitely overuses the PMC term. We often use it to describe some middle manager, university professor, or skilled professional who is still selling their labor in order to live - and the best term for these people in my understanding is "labor aristocracy". Personally I like to reserve "PMC" for the enforcers of capital - the CEOs and c-suite executives who make hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars every year. They are still selling their labor, too; but they are directly responsible for enacting the will of capital.
I really do like your point about manager/worker relations. Like even under socialism, we still need some organizational structure in enterprises. The difference is, under socialism a manager really does serve the greater good. When you remove a manager's ability to hold someone's livelihood over their head, act like an abusive jerk, or earn significantly more than those who report to them, the entire dynamic changes.
In the soviet union management were often paid less than the people working for them
And throughout the eastern bloc, workers could potentially have a manager fired if they were incompetent or corrupt (with corruption often leading to criminal charges). Workplace democracy ftw.
I mean I think we maybe overuse that term too.
Yes. Though I wish there was a good term for a class of people who sell their labor to capital but overall are comfortable and are beneficiaries of the current system to the degree that a change over to socialism could potentially be a hit to their material conditions, either in real terms or simply in their own perceptions.
I mean, the term for that is labor aristocrat, issue is some people here seem to think a UPS driver who can afford an XBox and has a dish washer in his apartment is a labor aristocrat that will need to be sent to the coal mines after the revolution for reeducation.
I've seen people argue that all settlers are labor aristocrats at minimum lol
I mean I think that referring to divided "Professsional and Managerial" classes helps things along. Professional isn't quite sufficient cause it alludes to the type of labor being performed rather than the relationship of the laborer to the means of production, but 90+% of the time the person you describe above is a professional. Managers are basically the same, but they have some amount of power given to them that they wield against the worker. It would be nice to have an updated vocabulary that better describes modern class relations.