I know we have our Marxist definition and all that, but it seems to be a really pervasive , everywhere I go. Some people I’ve talked to think for instance, all scientists are silver spooned and never worked a day in their life because they don’t do construction, or whatever.
How do you argue with people like this? Can you?
I think arguing isn’t the best way forward. I think helping them think through their thoughts is a better approach.
Chances are good that what they’re really trying to draw a distinction between is the working class and the professional managerial class, but without the proper framework Starbucks servers and postal workers get swept up in the mix.
In my experience it is also rhetorically helpful to establish common ground, that you also stand in opposition to the PMC.
I’ll leave this Graeber quote that I posted last week as it’s been rattling around in my brain since I read it:
…
remains great on this.
He also notes that caring labor is often what really is brought to the table in any job, especially with so much automation. Thus, even if the barista’s “manual” labor is inconsequential, the caring labor remains incredibly important.
An example he brings up is ticket takers in the London underground. Their job is primarily done now by kiosk and such, so they are a glorified security guard in some ways. However, their real job is to help the disabled, those who are lost, perhaps in distress, etc. Even if the metro functions fine without someone in the station, the system becomes crueler and unable to account for the contingencies of real humans.
However, caring work is devalued because of sexism.
Basically, read the last two chapters of bullshit jobs to create solidarity between the caring work of bartenders, baristas, and other service workers and the last vestiges of manual labor.
I mean the “PMC” are, by definition, not bourgeoisie.
Does an an occupational or physical therapist who is on their feet all day working with people hands on, but also in a management position, making 75k, renting, and not owning anything still qualify as PMC?
The usage of PMC always struck me as odd because it’s so vague. Like yeah, obviously the doctor or lawyer making 400k is definitely part of it, but what I described above fits the definition, and I would consider them as working class.
The dominant “center left” parties in all western democracies that I can think of have become parties staffed and supported primarily by those making 100k+ due to their credentials. Like it or not is a group that is dominant in occupying media and cultural space, defining western hegemony for the rest of us - which is why they’re so thoroughly despised. They have an anti-Midas effect of turning any policy they champion to shit because nobody trusts them.
If you want to have any hope of organizing an alternative to neoliberalism you need to incorporate this group into your theory, because the world doesn’t only see things split into workers and owners just because Marx did and to win you need to be able to talk to the world.
Whether you want to use the term PMC is less important I don’t really care take it or leave it.
Yeah you make some good points
I think that’s a vagarie (sp??) of English. To me, a PMC is a person whose primary profession is being a manager, not a professional who manages. In my experience people in the latter category have ‘people management duties’ or are ‘line managers’ but that isn’t their job title. I don’t know if it’s a distinction without a difference though. In my understanding PMCs as their own entity only really become a thing in sufficiently large organisations. I should read graeber lol