Like my base assumption is that she's wrong. If you think the PMC is an actual class then you're also only one step away from 🤡
https://twitter.com/jacob__posts/status/1367492298783744001?s=19
Like my base assumption is that she's wrong. If you think the PMC is an actual class then you're also only one step away from 🤡
https://twitter.com/jacob__posts/status/1367492298783744001?s=19
Bullshit. The two class theory is not and never was true. Even Marx said it was a state capitalism was moving towards but had not achieved.
PMC isn’t really a class, especially not in the way that it’s traditionally formulated which includes teachers, nurses etc.
You either have to sell your labour to survive or you don't. You either control the means of production or you don't.
If you were fired right now and after four years and you're homeless then you're Proletariat. Even a division manager, the prototype of Professional Manager, didn't work for four years he'd be on the street.
The PMC are just members of the proletariat that are afforded a higher standard of living by the bourgeoisie in exchange for managing the day to day of their capital. This higher living standard will be stripped away due to the falling rate of profit. The capitalist won't want to afford them.
For the sake of Allah, read some actual fucking theory.
Peasants, nobility, intelligentsia, etc were all considered classes. Relations to the means of production are not binary.
Psasants owned the means of production, but still relied on their own labour. That's different than the Bourgeoisie and Proletarians. Nobility owned means of production, but in a different way and of a different type than bourgeoisie. Even slave owners were considered a different class.
Managing workers doesn't make a business owner a worker. If you manage workers as a non business owner, on behalf of the owner, you're still closer to the bourgeoisie than the workers.
deleted by creator
Is this not just describing labor aristocracy?
There's significant overlap between the ideas but they're not quite the same.
What are the differences between the two?
Labour aristocracy can refer to any group of privileged workers. In analyses of Imperialism, all white workers in the imperial core are considered the aristocracy. Other times it's the most experienced and skilled workers working to defend their status from others.
PMC is often defined by their education, but a more Marxist definition for the same group would be "people who are removed the means of production, but do not own them". As I see it, they primarily rely on their knowledge, skills, and ideas to organize capital and labour for greater efficiency, but are otherwise outside the chain of production. On a small scale, this is management. At a larger scale, it's politics, ideology, propaganda, advertising...
Even though they're not bourgeoisie, they're doing the work of the bourgeoisie. Reproducing and maintaining the systems of capitalism. They ensure profitability and success in the market place, but they do it for someone else.
Depending on who you ask, the "labor aristocracy" is anyone who lives in a Western country.
deleted by creator
In true Feudalism, they usually did not. However, they were secure in their possession of the land and inherited it generationally, so it was similar in practice.
The French Revolution gave land ownership to the peasants. Marx primarily spoke of these peasants, being small landowners. The Russian Revolution recreated these same conditions.
The Intelligentsia were never considered their own class, Lenin is very, very clear about this.
you people treat it like gospel
Sure, I, a Luxemburgist, treat Lenin as gospel.
yeah I just watched you do that
this isn’t right at all
haha you're eliding the fact that they're kapos who manage wage slaves
that hasn't happened yet, join us in reality
not true. Wages for what people consider the PMC are trending downwards and have stagnated over the last 3 decades.