More privilege discourse, no growth, bodies and spaces.
This is why the PMC isn't a thing.
Love to work without owning the means of production and having the surplus value I produce expropriated because of it. Definitely wouldn't identify with people who do the same but in shittier jobs, because those poors deserve to suffer!
The article is good and is literally research that confirms what people here all the time complain about with regards to relatively well off liberals and warren types telling poorer people they can't have healthcare "yet". Saying "well ACKSHUALLY they're all working class" does not remotely refute or address what is being discussed here, which is materially significant differences between someone who makes £80K+ a year vs someone on universal credit and how the former frames that because they don't want to be forced to recognise it and how it's used to cover for someone saying "I don't want my taxes raised".
Literally in the last election a guy on Question Time (show where a few politicians and commentators talk about The Issues) insisted Labour were lying about raising taxes only on the top 5% a year because his taxes would be raised, only to find he was making £80,000 a year and inexplicably refused to understand that put him in the top 5% of earners (or was trying to lie about it).
But should we think of these as misidentifications? After all, these people correctly identify the socio-economic conditions of their working-class ancestors and simply argue it is the legacy of that history that scaffolds their identity. In some ways, they’re right. Research shows that the class position of our grandparents does, on average, have an effect on our own destinations.
Yet we shouldn’t overstate this. The “grandparent effect” on life outcomes is small in comparison with that of our parents. It is also telling that it was only those from privileged backgrounds who reached back in this way, and there was often a certain awkwardness, even defensiveness, when they did.
Take Ella, an actor who was conscious that her claim to a working-class identity might be undermined by her middle-class accent (“I consider my background to be a working-class one even though I don’t sound like that”). She also tried to play down her private schooling (“one of the small ones, quite cheap”). Or Mike, a partner in an accountancy firm who gave a long family history when asked about his background, focusing less on his father’s career as an architect (“he was a technician made good, really”) and more on his grandmother, who had worked in a mill as a child.
In our report, we argue that these intergenerational understandings of class origin should be read as having a performative dimension; they deflect attention away from the structural privileges these individuals enjoy, both in their own eyes but also among those they communicate their origin stories to in everyday life. At the same time, by framing their lives as an upward struggle against the odds, these interviewees misrepresent their subsequent life outcomes as more worthy, more deserving and more meritorious.
If said professionals primarily sell their labor for a living - especially if they don't earn extra for managing and directing the labor of other professionals - they're still at least within the periphery of the working class. Income is only a crude proxy for class, one that breaks down among those considered PMC, petty bourgie, or "middle class".
True, professionals mostly perform what should be considered 'mental labor.' However, due to them usually holding higher salaries and social indoctrination that mental laborers are superior to physical laborers, they usually side with the bourgeoisie in class conflicts. However, due to the fact that they are still proletarian in nature, they will still naturally grasp the essentially of Marxism but still resist accepting the logical conclusion as socialism holds a perceived threat to their position in society as socialism would elevate the position of physical labor to be more equitable with mental laborers.
/r/criticaltheory ate this shit up like cake. Hardly anyone questioned the assumptions that the middle class even exists or that the working class isn't often defined by leftists as "anyone who doesn't own the means of production." They just love the ideas of performativity and personal blame. There's a lot to the idea of pretending to be poorer than you are but this is not the way to talk about it at all.
I am once again asking you to include the linkAlso, I love how it at no point defines what working class or middle class mean lol
Professional-managerial class, which is essentially a way for self-conscious middle-class podcasters to call others middle-class. It offers absolutely nothing useful that petit-boug didn't already. (It's also arguably a vulgarization of Marxism, like all these other theories that purport it "needs updating", but I digress.)
Exactly. It's not like there weren't any floor managers when Engels was owning his own factory.
petit-boug
I thought PMC was analogous to "labor aristocracy", AKA workers but well-off, and not petty-boug, aka poorer owners of the MoP.
Professiomal-Managerial Class.
This group of middle class professionals is distinguished from other social classes by their training and education, typically business qualifications and university degrees, with occupations including academics, teachers, social workers, engineers, managers, nurses, and middle-level administrators. The professional-managerial class tends to have incomes above the average for their country.
Where's that definition from? I wouldn't consider teachers, social workers or nurses to PMC(and I don't think most people would when they use the term on here)
This was me a year ago, it's good, means we're getting lots of new people that want to learn
I'd rather not have the brain poison that is PMC discourse in my head tb quite h.