Managers, Factory/Economic Administrators and Functionaries in USSR

[EL KAISER]

Hi. I'd like to know the very exact nature of those three "jobs" in the USSR. Are managers and factory administrators still porletarian? I ask because i always thought they were, given that they sell their labor-power in exchange for a salary/wage. They don't own means of production and labor-power of others. However MANY socialists claim they are/were pretty much capitalists. So,

1- Are they still part of the Working Class?
2- Are they white-collar workers? Many people seem to differentiate between the 2, something i don't quiet understand.
3- Is the working class the same as proletarian class? If not, which are the differences?

[General Winter]

The proletariat as we know is the class which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital.So the workers are the main part of the proletariat, the most mass and organized,but not the only one.

In the USSR labor was not a commodity for that very simple reason that there was no private owners who buys it,so working people wasn't that proletarian that exist in capitalist society.

Of course,managers and factory administration wasn't the part of the working class, they were the part of intelligentzia, "the black-coated proletariat".

[C. Macguigan]

the Bolsheviks had to employ many professionals and people with technical knowledge who were not 'proletarian' in origin, nor would one consider their daily work life to be at all proletarian.

[EL KAISER]

Fine. They were not proletarian in origin. But given that they sold their labor force and live off from a salary (like a worker) instead of the revenue of a mean of production (like a capitalist), they WERE part of the Working Class, right? I mean not proletarian of course, but still part of the working class, right?

[General Winter]

1.Onse again : nobody sold labor in the USSR because nobody bought it,people simply worked for society.

2. Workers are direct producers of material goods,ie the result of their work is not an idea and not a service but a material products.Managers are not direct producers,that's the different between them and workers,so they are not the part of the class of workers.

[EL KAISER]

I think you mistake "Proletariat" with the more general working class. A worker is a person that doesn't posses means of production and does physical or mental work in exchange for a wage/salary. But if you say Managers and the like are not workers, what ARE they? Because they ALSO aren't Capitalists (since they do not posses means of productions and don't live from the revenues of "their" enterprises).

[General Winter]

A worker is a person that doesn't posses means of production and does physical or mental work...

Not mental,only physical work,because as I have said,the result of it's work is not an idea but a material product.


But if you say Managers and the like are not workers, what ARE they?

They do a mental work and they are the part of intelligentsia,ie the social group that serves the dominant class.

[EL KAISER]

According to Marx Himself, these Managers are exploited by the Capitalist Class because they help (and are NECESSARY) in the extraction of Surplus Value (and therefore they generate surplus value to the capitalist) and ALSO exploitate the working class on the orders of the Capitalist (They act, in essence, as capitalists). So according to him (Marx) they are both exploiters and exploitated. Do you agree with these affirmations? What do YOU understand by "Social Group"?

[Sewer Socialist]

Where did Marx say any of that? Don't listen to General Winter; he's probably never read any Marx at all.

I don't think Marx refers to exploitation being enacted by a capitalist class, but by capital - objectified value, dead labor. The capitalist class are only its functionaries, as are managers.

what's up with your name anyway, kaiser?

[EL KAISER]

Doesn't matter anymore, i think i finally understood it, Give me your opinion:

The Capitalist OWNS a mean of production and lives off from the Surplus Value produced by the working class.
The Managers and Administrators have a dual nature:

They are Workers because:
- They DO NOT OWN the means of production, have a SALARY (Like any other worker) and they also generate surplus value, as his job is LITERALLY to produce more surplus value in a more efficient way, (that is, they are essential to the capitalist to generate more surplus value). Without them, the capitalist generates less surplus value of what could be generated (assuming the enterprise is huge and the capitalist can't administrate it all), which is why they hire Managers to help them extract surplus value, and therefore they are exploited by Capital (because of the surplus they help generate but goes to the hands of their Boss, not theirs).

And they are ALSO Capitalists because:
- They ACT like a Capitalist and they EXPLOIT the rest of the working class, beacuse again, its job consists in extracting surplus value from the rest of the workers.

So i conclude that they ARE part of the working class but under the service of Capital instead of their own class. Do you agree?

[Sewer Socialist]

i think you're not understanding what exploitation by capital means. capital isn't a person or people - it is objectified value ("means of production", as you also call it) which has been invested and reinvested in the business to reduce the necessary labor time. a huge part of surplus value must be reinvested in capital to remain competitive.

the surplus generated doesn't entirely go to a "boss" or a "capitalist". further, these days, businesses are increasingly owned not by a single person, but by finance capital (which in turn sells pieces of itself to shareholders), and sometimes in part by the workers themselves, especially in the form of a 401(k). it's mostly only the smallest of businesses that are entirely owned by a single person or family, and even then, it's often via a bank loan.

capital is also often used as collateral for a loan to reinvest in more capital. value is very circuitous, always moving from form to form.

the difference is that proletarians are forced to sell their labor power to sustain themselves, and that in doing so, they reproduce society.

maybe if you explained why you're trying to figure out what to call managers & administrators, i could be of more help...?

[ckaihatsu]

Doesn't matter anymore, i think i finally understood it, Give me your opinion:

The Capitalist OWNS a mean of production and lives off from the Surplus Value produced by the working class.
The Managers and Administrators have a dual nature:
qqqq
They are Workers because:
- They DO NOT OWN the means of production, have a SALARY (Like any other worker) and they also generate surplus value,


My understanding is that any efforts having to do with the machinations of *ownership itself* are *not* considered to be 'labor', because nothing *new* is being produced (goods and/or services).

So the tasks of managers and administrators would *not* generate surplus value -- ownership would rather not have to deal with such duties of capital *at all*, and would rather that surplus value could be harvested 'purely' -- M-C-M' -- without *any* expenses attached to the position of ownership.





as his job is LITERALLY to produce more surplus value in a more efficient way, (that is, they are essential to the capitalist to generate more surplus value). Without them, the capitalist generates less surplus value


The only way to *increase* surplus value -- without losing too much of it in the process of internal transactions, upkeep, etc. -- is to exploit more workers.





of what could be generated (assuming the enterprise is huge and the capitalist can't administrate it all), which is why they hire Managers to help them extract surplus value, and therefore they are exploited by Capital (because of the surplus they help generate but goes to the hands of their Boss, not theirs).


Managers / administrators are not a *source* of surplus labor value, they are a *cost* to the business. (If ownership could do everything the same, but without requiring their efforts, then they would.)





And they are ALSO Capitalists because:
- They ACT like a Capitalist and they EXPLOIT the rest of the working class, beacuse again, its job consists in extracting surplus value from the rest of the workers.


But if the managers / administrators are not also owners / co-owners then they themselves are not *receiving* any surplus labor value from the labors of the workers -- they are most likely paid a fixed salary. It's the *capital* itself that's extracting surplus value, which is available to ownership as liquidity and/or for re-investment.


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

http://s6.postimg.org/dkv92iinl/23_A_Business_Perspective_on_the_Declining_Rat.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/yuivdcyy5/full/)





So i conclude that they ARE part of the working class but under the service of Capital instead of their own class. Do you agree?


From the *labor* point-of-view, yes, they are being exploited, and are working class, if they're only paid a salary / wage, and are not receiving anything like profit-sharing (an interest in the business itself).

From an *ownership* point-of-view they're a *cost*, so as to service owned capital -- a cost like the bricks-and-mortar building, or rent. In this sense they're *not* working class because surplus labor value cannot be expropriated from them since they're not actually producing anything that can then be sold for a profit.

[EL KAISER]

Well in the majority of sources i have read (i mean other web pages about this topic) these managers and administrators are between the 2 classes and are both exploited and they also exploit. So you can consider them either workers and capitalists both (because they share characteristics of both) or you can consider them NEITHER workers nor capitalists because they are not FULLY capitalists nor workers. From my point of view, i consider them "workers who exploit other workers" or "workers who serve Capital". Besides, i still think they produce Surplus Value. They DO (through their labor) extract more surplus value. If it weren't from them, the Capitalist would retrieve LESS surplus value, so it helps generate it, even if their work consists of exploiting other workers (because through THAT, they ARE, through their JOB, generating more surplus value for the Capitalist).

[Sewer Socialist]

it's impossible to both exploit workers and produce surplus value.

are you asking about this in an attempt to analyze the society union or what?

[EL KAISER]

Well i think it's possible. If the capitalist NEEDS YOU (the manager) to generate Surplus Value, then you DO generate Surplus Value by virtue of your job (by telling the other workers what to do). Without you, Surplus Value cannot be generated in the enterprise (because the other workers don't have anyone to tell them what to do). Marta Harnecker wrote in 1972 in a work called "Social Classes and Class Antagonism" (or something like that...) that these particular group of workers (managers) have a contradictory nature, because their work is technically necessary for Surplus Value to be produced, and therefore, Surplus value cannot be produce if they are not there doing their job, but that at the same time they exploit other workers and CLEARLY work IN THE INTERESTS of the Capital, and therefore cannot be considered workers nor Capitalists.
What i mean is, a Manager does not produce Surplus Value in a DIRECT manner, but THROUGH them, Surplus Value IS generated, so their work is necessary to generate Surplus Value.
And i was trying to "confirm" if these Managers and Administrators are or not workers. But like i said , after reading a lot now i think they are...

[ckaihatsu]

Well in the majority of sources i have read (i mean other web pages about this topic) these managers and administrators are between the 2 classes and are both exploited and they also exploit. So you can consider them either workers and capitalists both (because they share characteristics of both) or you can consider them NEITHER workers nor capitalists because they are not FULLY capitalists nor workers.


I would tend to agree that they're 'in-between'.





From my point of view, i consider them "workers who exploit other workers" or "workers who serve Capital".


I don't think that it's the *managers* who are exploiting workers -- rather, it's that they're *facilitating* ownership's role in the process of exploitation. (Ownership could maintain the private conditions to continue to exploit labor *without* using managers, but then the owners would have to do the duties of management themselves, for a much-smaller enterprise than they would prefer to have.)

Strictly speaking, it's the *capital* that exploits surplus labor value from the workers, empowered as such by the prevailing (bourgeois) social norms throughout the world's society.





Besides, i still think they produce Surplus Value. They DO (through their labor) extract more surplus value. If it weren't from them, the Capitalist would retrieve LESS surplus value, so it helps generate it, even if their work consists of exploiting other workers (because through THAT, they ARE, through their JOB, generating more surplus value for the Capitalist).


I'll *contend* this point -- you're arguing for the synergistic effects of bureaucratic coordination among managerial staff, but I still maintain that even seemingly greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts returns / efficiencies should still fundamentally be seen as a *cost* to ownership. If ownership could just bring on more laborers and somehow expropriate surplus labor value *without* requiring managerial staff, then it would. (Consider a small-scale, mom-and-pop operation.)

In other words the extent to which managers are utilized and paid-for is just a cost of doing business, like buying wooden long-handled saw-tipped pickers to get the bundles of cash off of the money tree (a mythical example). Again, managers don't *produce* any of the goods or services that the company is known for, so there's no surplus value to be gotten from them. Either the spoils of exploitation (of *real* workers) are collected appropriately, as like a harvest, or they're not -- you can't lose what you never had to begin with.





it's impossible to both exploit workers and produce surplus value.


No, actually, those two dynamics are *synonymous* -- exploiting workers produces surplus labor value.