People in Managerial Positions

[Apoi_Viitor]

Are they still exploited? What is their relationship to the means of production?

[jake williams]

It's a bit complex and any sort of a general answer isn't perfect.

Generally speaking managers are workers, rather than capitalists, though there are exceptions to this. Their labour does produce surplus value for capitalists or they wouldn't be hired (and generally, unless they own stock in the company and thus are petty capitalists, they don't themselves extract surplus value).

That said, their job is typically to increase the exploitation of other workers, and their incomes are often relatively high compared to other workers. Thus both on the shop floor, and in political life, they can often be organized against the interests of other workers and are difficult strategic allies as a social strata.

It depends a lot though on the industry and the level of management. Managers basically range from big capitalists with a salary and a worker-like job title, all the way down to fast food workers with similar pay and responsibilities to other workers given a different job title as a union-busting tactic (because typically managers can't be in the same bargaining units as other workers). So there's a wide diversity.

[MuslimMarxist]

I'm a bit bothered by the idea that managers can partake in class struggle against the Capitalist elites. Managers suffer from a fair share of exploitation as well, but they are the foot soldiers for the bosses who engage in worker exploitation. In the end managers interests are not in line with the working class. Managers will side either with the bosses or with the their own ( Middle Class ), as they have more to loose than to gain in a workers revolution. I've seen managers sympathetic to the working class however when push comes to shove they will rarely side with workers. I'm speaking here about upper level management, not lower level management who are of the same class as workers and are only given their positions to make Union busting easier.

[electro_fan]

My old supervisor was on about £8 an hour, how middle class is that lol. Obviously she'd side with the owners of the means of production in a revolution lol

[MuslimMarxist]

From my previous post:

""I'm speaking here about upper level management, not lower level management who are of the same class as workers and are only given their positions to make Union busting easier.""

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It all depends on more than the label 'manager' or 'supervisor'.

Managers that have the ability to hire and fire are complicit in the exploitation of workers and are the tools of Capitalism. They are bourgeois.

There is also, I would imagine, a large crossover between upper-level managers who hire and fire and run whole departments, and ownership of the means of production. Manager level is only one level below director level, after all. They are aspiring to be the ruling class, they are bourgeois, they are Capitalists.

If you think that they would side with someone on 15k per year rather than run for their accountant's shack in Luxembourg come revolution, then you're bemused.

[noble brown]

Being a manager/supervisor and being an anarchist/communist are NOT mutually exclusive. Its in the mindset of the manager (and his/her actions). Now granted most managers are capitalist authoritarian types but that's only cause they got duped into the capitalist culture just like everyone else in the plant cause most managers/supervisors don't own a damn thing on that production floor but they'll write your ass up if the owners money is somehow threatened. They probably do aspire to be of the ruling class but so does most of the general public. What I find disturbing is that we are still talking like these individuals are the oppressors and are the enemies. Its the system itself. Casualties will occur because of the way capitalist culture socialized them not because they were bad ppl. They are not enemies but victims too. We are overturning a system not a group of ppl.

[Zealot]

If managers weren't creating surplus for the capitalist then they wouldn't be hired so in a sense, yes, they are exploited only they have a nicer title.

[PhoenixAsh]

Take it from me....management as a very, very broad group will almost never side with the workers unless its in their best interest to do so or they are threatened by the same situational measures.

Now that said. You do have to realise that management is a very broad term and applied to all kinds of functions and jobs which may or may not include a workforce to manage directly or wether or not this holds any real influence over the hiring and firing process. Their position and place in the company and the relation in the company hierarchy depend on the structure of the company.

For example...some managers have hiring/firing capacity in situations where normal behavioural norms are transgressed such as violence on the workfloor; sexual intimidation or racism but have no such authority when it comes to economic decisions or sanctions for transgressing company codes or work ethics.

As induviduals this siding with CEO and owners is not a given. And I have known managers to organise strikes even if this was contrary to their own interests or undermine company authority over workers or undermine initiatives to strip workers rights or all of the above. Or who had a fuck the rules attitude in their own spin of controll. This however is extremely rare.

In general managers can not be trusted. Will serve their own interest and carreers and will sell workers out at the drop of a hat. The best you can generally hope for is a manager who will be sympathetic.

[Desperado]

They are workers higher in the labour aristocracy (so yes, exploited) or petty-bourgeoisie owning stocks in the company. Either way (and most importantly), they are capital personified - the whips of the slave-master - and so generally an obstacle to the working class. It's not only capitalists that represent the interests of capital.

[Ocean Seal]

My old supervisor was on about £8 an hour, how middle class is that lol. Obviously she'd side with the owners of the means of production in a revolution lol
Most managers have low salaries, but the thing is that they have been conditioned to make their fellow worker more productive. They might not side with the bosses during the revolution, but they're more likely to attempt to break a strike or inform on the status of the workers to the bosses. Dealing with this kind of problem is tricky. A little bit of power goes a long way in bourgeois oppression.