Professional-Managerial Class?
Over the past few decades, there’s been a growing trend, especially among a specific
section of left-liberals, to refer to what they call the “PMC” or “Professional-Managerial
Class”.
The term was coined by John and Barbara Ehrenreich in the 1970s and is perpetuated by modern
social democrats like Adolph Reed Jr.
Use of the term bears the attractive characteristic of appearing at a cursory glance to be rooted
in a systemic Marxist class analysis, but without the baggage that “proletariat”
and “bourgeoisie” carry.
Indeed, it is used by some erroneously as synonymous for the term “petty-bourgeois”.
But what does it actually mean?
According to the Ehrenreichs, The Professional-Managerial Class are “salaried mental workers who do
not own the means of production and whose major function in the social division of labor
may be described broadly as the reproduction of capitalist culture and capitalist class
relations”.
But is it fair to exclude from the proletariat heavily exploited public sector teachers,
nurses and other professionals who often make less than minimum wage, are forced to work
excruciatingly long hours (often unpaid), and are often at the forefront of militant
workers’ struggles?
Actually, forget the question “is it fair to exclude them?”
Instead we have to ask, does it make political sense to do this?
Whose interests might it serve to cordon these workers off from the rest of the working class?
I’ll assume you’ve heard of “divide and conquer” strategy.
Furthermore, this is fundamentally at odds with the Marxist analysis of class, which
is defined by people’s material relationship to the means of production.
The bourgeoisie, or capitalist ruling class, owns the means of production.
It makes its living by virtue of that.
The proletariat, or working class, doesn’t own the means of production, and instead needs
to sell its labour power in order to survive.
And there are, of course, various substrata of each class.
As we can see, the PMC largely fit into the latter, the proletariat (with the exception
of some rich professionals like lawyers or doctors who both work, and maybe have a private
practice where they hire a small number of employees – in which case they would have
the dual-class character of the Petty Bourgeoisie).
In 1997 Michael Parenti recognised the error in the line of thinking that led to the designation
of the “PMC” grouping.
“Class gets its significance from the process of surplus extraction.
The relationship between worker and owner is essentially an exploitative one, involving
the constant transfer of wealth from those who labor (but do not own) to those who own
(but do not labor).
This is how some people get richer and richer without working, or with doing only a fraction
of the work that enriches them, while others toil hard for an entire lifetime only to end
up with little or nothing.
Both orthodox social scientists and "left" ABC [Anything But Class] theorists treat the
diverse social factions within the non-capitalist class as classes unto themselves; so they
speak of a "blue-collar class," a "professional class," and the like.
In doing so, they claim to be moving beyond a "reductionist;' Marxist dualistic model
of classes.
But what is more reductionist than to ignore the underlying dynamics of economic power
and the conflict between capital and labor?
What is more misleading than to treat occupational groups as autonomous classes, giving attention
to every social group in capitalist society except the capitalist class itself, to every
social conflict except class conflict?
Both conventional and "left" ABC theorists have difficulty understanding that the creation
of a managerial or technocratic social formation constitutes no basic change in the property
relations of capitalism, no creation of new classes.
Professionals and managers are not an autonomous class as such.
Rather they are mental workers who live much better than most other employees but who still
serve the accumulation process on behalf of corporate owners.”
Parenti was correct in calling out the “blue-collar class”, the “professional class”, and
so on.
The same level of scrutiny should be applied to other terms used by liberals such as the
“welfare class” and “political class”.
Put simply, these aren’t classes.
Just like the Professional-Managerial Class isn’t.
In fact, Karl Marx himself discussed the roles of managers and professionals as part of the
proletariat in the appendix to Capital Volume 1; “Some work better with their hands, others
with their heads, one as a manager, engineer, technologist, etc., the other as overseer,
the third as manual labourer or even drudge.
An ever-increasing number of types of labour are included in the immediate concept of productive
labour, and those who perform it are classed as productive workers, workers directly exploited
by capital and subordinated to its process of production and expansion.”
As we see, it's clear that managers as well as most professionals are part of the proletariat
from a Marxist perspective (unless they own the means of production).
Any so-called Marxist who tries to tell you otherwise should be treated with deep suspicion
and prodded on the subject.
Indeed, we should also prod the Ehrenreichs on how they came to the conclusion that the
PMC was a separate class to the proletariat and bourgeoisie.
Let’s examine their understanding of “class”: “…a class is characterized by a coherent
social and cultural existence; members of a class share a common life style, educational
background, kinship networks, consumption patterns, work habits, beliefs”.
Forget your relationship to the means of production – your consumption patterns and kinship
networks are the true determinants of your class.
Let’s not forget your educational background, because the people who receive free third-level
education in socialist countries, and even social democracies, are all just PMC…?
Why stop there?
Why not suggest that class is determined by your accent?
Or by whether or not you enjoy Classical music?
As we can see – clear as day – there’s no place for such liberal analyses as the
Professional-Managerial “Class” within Marxist class analysis.
However, that’s not to say that we should discard the notion that there are certain
higher-up groups within the proletariat that may be inclined to work against their own
class interests and support the bourgeoisie.
Lenin himself wrote about these potential class traitors when he described “a certain
strata of the working class who have been bribed [with] imperialist superprofits and
converted to watchdogs of capitalism and corruptors of the labour movement.”
This is definitely an issue, and it’s been addressed at length already within the Marxist
canon.
You can look into the Labour Aristocracy and related groups for more on this.
To wrap up: not to be too rude, but the PMC is divisive pseudo-Marxist nonsense.
You should be sceptical of any so-called “intellectuals” you hear peddling this narrative.
Now, that’s not to say you shouldn’t discuss professional-managerial types – but it IS
to say that they aren’t a CLASS in the Marxist sense of the term.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks to Michaela Schmid, Rare Hero, Luke Anokhin, William Leetch, and the rest of my
Patrons.
If you have a dollar or two to spare, please consider donating on Patreon.
Cheers everyone.
Slán go fóill.