gothcactus 
Recently I watched and listened to Jacobin’s show on the Professional Managerial Class (PMC).
It’s an interesting analysis because it makes sense the current larger cultural dominance by liberal politics. It also offers a key piece that explains many of the trends taking place in the workplace.
Essentially the PMC is the “white-collar” work force that has professional degrees to qualify them for jobs. The M part attributes to people who are also in managerial positions where they supervise other employees.
Historically PMC includes people who are fairly well-off and do not have to use physical labor to earn income. So they are typically thought of as those who work in air-conditioned offices, in front of computers, indoors, etc.
In the current context, the PMC includes a wide range of professions from teachers to CEOs. The material conditions of PMC also has a wide range, making the classification rather ambiguous. The main distinguishing factor of the class from others is its non-capital owning, yet degree-earning individuals.
Yet the interesting aspect of PMC is its dominance over the larger culture of society. In the US, the PMC liberal culture has become the most influential in media, schools, and now, even corporations. It’s interesting because the PMC culture values “progress”, “change” and “individual freedom” that seem to directly fit with the American vision of “democracy”.
The PMC also has resources that expand its cultural influence in the form of money, social networks and political might. So much so that in the past decade, issues such as racial justice and LGBTQ rights are now championed by large corporations that have traditionally resisted taking political sides.
On the surface, it might seem as “progress”.
Why would we not want every part of society to champion “good” things? Even those that have historically undermined or remained neutral on such issues?
The problem is that the PMC regards all institutions, including corporations, as empty vessels that can be “good” or “bad”. There is no critique of the existence of corporations but rather that there are “good” ones and “bad” ones. In other words, they do not see corporations, or any organizations, as essentially contradictory to the very values they supposedly champion. They simply view them as individual entities that will choose to support the causes or not.
And it isn’t a surprise that their worldview doesn’t threaten corporations at the root. In fact, whether consciously or unconsciously, PMC benefits from such worldviews, as they derive material gains from corporations and organizations.
They also can feel good about themselves through “virtue signaling”, and even gain social capital by being “woke”.
Even though substantively, they make little to no difference in the issues they champion, as they make no effort to change policies or structures that will actually benefit the causes they subscribe to.
But on the surface, it seems like they are. Which is the genius of the PMC. They benefit from the cultural dominance with material gains without actually be accountable for the work.
The critique of the PMC is important because it shows their power and exposes not only the failure of the PMC to advance social change, but their OPPOSITION to progress. In short, they want to maintain the status quo, they benefit from the status quo and they protect the capitalist class.
The PMC is not our friend in revolutionary change.