cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/3190259
To me they’re like mere servants of the State, like Lenin talked about in “2. What is to Replace the Smashed State Machine?” in his writing “The State and Revolution”
Under Capitalism, they are its privileged knights that try to deflect and control, if not defend directly its image as “the only option”, who have their incentive in doing so, with their class status stake being in their duty to shepherd the means of production and its resulting benefits
However, they don’t own the means of production, as they merely manage it for the landholding, industrialist, and financier capitalists
On the other hand, under Socialism, while its privileges will be probably be done away, the PM class on its own would innovated upon, for their new duty of overseeing, managing, and reporting the collectivized cooperatives and state-owned enterprises…
Until the final stage of Communism arrives, I think they’re pretty handy
I say this, because I hear such disgusted sentiment in Hexbear against them
Note: I know a bit about the bazingo techbro culture that the PMC is associated with, please don’t criticize them solely on those vibes…
I mean, it is a technical term that describes its role within
That being said, I guess it has to be more specific…
Yes but generally no one uses it according to its technical term. PMC specifically defines people who have an active role in the management of capital but no ownership, or atleast direct ownership of the capital they manage. So like my lab manager is a member of the PMC. How people often use it though is just anyone who is a knowledge worker or has some advanced degree, so because i work in a lab a lot of people refer to me as part if the PMC even though i am just a lab technician because i do a realitively complex job for a reasonable amount of compensation. Now that I think about it people basically use PMC to mean labor aristocrat, but even then labor aristocrat is a kind of vague terminology because it is also often used just to mean “workers I don’t like/disagree with.” I guess whatbi am saying is that it is a useful term in an actual academic debate, but like it us usually just used as a slur, like when morons online call baristas PMC’s because they have a college degree.
As to your original question, I would say ‘no’ not inherently reactionary, but definitely conservative and 100% liberal. Their material interests are based in their place within the structure of capitalism so they would seek to maintain it. That being said, there is definitely a tendency to break towards passivity in the face of reaction when the system is threatened.
Generally the heart of reaction in the liberal social formation is the petite bourgeois and the security service. These are the people who’s direct experience with the exploitation of capital, and enforcement of capital social relations, as well as their precarity, breeds the sociopathy required for fascism.
most people do not use it according to its original discription, or their prescriptions are completely out of step with that analysis. here’s an article that basically explains the development/discourse on the term (but concludes its still worthwhile in its original form)
but even when you go to the effort of making that original, well-defined argument for PMC, i’m still in favour of the older concepts that don’t have to do strained taxonomies of contradictions rather than simply describing them