Are managers workers?

[spartan]

So are managers workers in the sense that the labour they provide is exploited by their employer?

I just thought of this and i am not so sure as they are employed (Like any worker is) but unlike workers they are employed to do basically what was the bosses (Bourgeois) job of managing the business.

Instead the very "successful" bosses (Like the lazy shits that they are) employ people to do their job of managing the business that they own, whilst they still get the biggest amount of money for basically doing nothing!

So are managers workers being exploited for their labour?

Or are they something else entirely from your normal worker?

[spartan]

*Bump*

Anyone?

[Coggeh]

I think you make a good point ,when you say that their being employed to do the managers job and still earn only a wage .

But their value of their labour is non-existent , they create no value and do not earn their wage in the same sense as an average worker does .

A confusing one indeed......

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is a confusing question to answer.

Their profession essentially adds value onto the final product, since many work with their fellow workers, but they do the authoritative work of the capitalist.

[Ismail]

I would say that they are a unique version of the petty-bourgeois, more in common with the handicraft worker than the small-shop owner. Their main problem seems to be that they would be normally disconnected from the whole class struggle since they don't work with the workers but manage them.

[Dr Mindbender]

So are managers workers in the sense that the labour they provide is exploited by their employer?...

It depends what level of management you are referring to. If you mean the company owners or big CEO's then of course not, but if you mean middle management, they could be classed as workers in the 'petit beourgoisie proletarian' sense.

[Winter]

It depends what level of management you are referring to. If you mean the company owners or big CEO's then of course not, but if you mean middle management, they could be classed as workers in the 'petit beourgoisie proletarian' sense.


I agree with Ulster, I think there is many different layers and levels of "management".

For example, I'm technically a manager at my job but by no means am I different from my co-workers, I just have a different function but work just as much as they.

For the most part, I think your common manager, a large majority, would be labeled as a proletariat.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The retail store shift "managers" (and I'm assuming you are one such "manager") would indeed be proles.

The question of CEOs depends on the size of the company, since many petit-bourgeois small-business folks incorporate their businesses.

Obviously, the former Disney CEO Michael Eisner would be a bourgeois CEO, or, in the words of Marx and quoted by Luis Henrique, a "functioning capitalist."



The tough question, though, is that of middle managers in medium-to-large organizations:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html

I dare to posit here that they are indeed a separate class.

[which doctor]

For example, I'm technically a manager at my job but by no means am I different from my co-workers, I just have a different function but work just as much as they.
Don't give us that shit. You are different from your co-workers. Since you are a manager you have certain duties that regular employees do not have. You have to make sure that certain stuff happens, that the regular employees actually do what they are supposed to do. On the larger scale your interests might not be that different from your employees, but at the workplace, they are.

[Winter]

Don't give us that shit. You are different from your co-workers. Since you are a manager you have certain duties that regular employees do not have. You have to make sure that certain stuff happens, that the regular employees actually do what they are supposed to do. On the larger scale your interests might not be that different from your employees, but at the workplace, they are.

When I say I'm no different from them I mean we are both lower income working class folk. And I did say I have different functions than they.

[kromando33]

As always spartan, you are infinetely vague, 'managers' isn't so easily defined. Once the bourgeois apparatus of labor is abolished, the 'manager' you are thinking of would cease to exist, workers would simply work in contrast to their talents (so those trained in different areas of industry would have different job, e.g this doesn't mean anyone is controlling anyone else, it simply means you do a different thing so to coordinate your labor with other works under the principle of solidarity).

[Taboo Tongue]

I say they are workers, and because of this I won't join the FPM. But often are removed from the proletariat's ideology.
As I said on an earlier thread:
"While many managers want to believe they have the same interest as the small business owner. In the end... They are not a business owner, and have to get up and sell their time just like the rest of us. A dog can want to be a cat and get on the furniture, but the real life fact is he is still a dog and still remains on his rug (which is sorta like furniture right?)."
I find Marxist Internet Archive's Encyclopedia entry on the Petty-Bourgeois (http://marxists.architexturez.net/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#petty-bourgeois) to be informative on this.
2. Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.
While these workers are a part of the working class because they receive a wage and their livelihood is dependent on that wage, they are seperated from working class consciousness because they have day-to-day control, but not ownership, over the means of production, distribution, and exchange

[The Feral Underclass]

Someone who has the ability to hire and fire is not a worker...

[The Feral Underclass]

So are managers workers in the sense that the labour they provide is exploited by their employer?

They aren't exploited in the same way as a worker. A manager does not produce goods, they ensure that the policies of capitalists are implemented effectively and efficiently and that those who are producing goods, i.e. the worker are doing so in the best and most efficient way.

Mangers maintain capitalism on behalf of those who generate profit. Indeed, they ensure, on behalf of capitalists, that the system of profit works and works as well as they can make it.

[VukBZ2005]

The majority of the responses to the question that this thread puts forth is something that is indicative of a theoretical analysis that lacks any real materialistic basis in reality. The reason why I said that is because it has to be understood that class is not a subjective relationship; it is an objective relationship that operates on three bases of human reality; the relationship of a socio-economic group to property, the relationship of a socio-economic group to the production of Capital and the relationship of socio-economic group to the means of production, something that I have mentioned many times before.

And, when you go off of that criteria, and when you apply that criteria to the framework of the corporation, then it becomes obvious that this term, the term of "manager", can only be understood from the following viewpoint; if you are talking about people who actually supervise the extraction of surplus-value, then, they are workers, because they do not have own private property, they do not control the means of production, because for them to do so, they would have to have some kind of share in the private property upon which the means of production located upon, and they do not actively produce Capital, for, as was stated almost immediately, they do not have shares from which they can actively obtain Capital through the production of surplus-value. All that these individuals do is just to supervise the human labor that produces surplus-value, on behalf of the Small Capitalists and Capitalists that actually controls private property, that actually controls the means of production, and actively produces Capital.

If you are talking about those that actually are involved in the production of Capital, that actually have control over private property, and actually has control over the means of production, then, these people are either Small Capitalists or Capitalists, but, their positions in either of those classes totally depend upon on how important their levels of control over the production of Capital, over private property, and, the means of production are.

I will respond further, only after I see others do the same, in reciprocation.

[phoenixoftime]

I would've said that if said manager exerts meaningful control over the means of production, they are part of the bourgeoisie, but if this isn't the case - like the falsely-glorified retail 'managers' - then they are a proletarian.

Too simplified?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Under socialism, and possibly under Communism, there will be need for certain people or preferably collective groups that will carry out some of the practical functions of a manager(obviously these people should be held accountable to workers as they often were in socialist countries). However, one might also point out that businesses today create many different kinds of managers and jobs that have absolutely no value in a society not based on class exploitation. Think of all those HR consultants for example. They make tons of money developing all kinds of crap that helps a business learn how to better screw over their workers, while making the workers happy about it.

[spartan]

This is something that i have always wanted to know but have never been able to properly find out:

Were managers elected by the workers in the USSR, Eastern Bloc, China, Cuba etc when they called themselves Socialist?

Or were they appointed to their position by the party?

[jake williams]

Managers (for purposes - an idealized manager who is employed by a factory owner and whose sole duties are the management of the factory) "work", and indeed they sell their labour, assuredly, but it's work with a special character. Moreover they're not the only people who are technically "workers" in this strict economic sense, but the nature of the work they do gives it special properties in relation to society. In particular, they are given power over others, and this changes the character of what they do.

Also, yes, they do a job that contributes to the final product, it's a special type of intellectual and social work which is probably quite a bit "easier" than many jobs which pay substantially less. And much of what they do is unnecessary, self-justification. But at least some people fulfilling some sort of a "management" role would not disappear in a communist society - we'd just have to keep them in check, lest the by-nature dominance character of their job damage, solidarity and all that.


ed: (To expand a bit, some other probably necessary/necessary jobs which have a special character and need to be considered as such: teachers; academics; political representatives; economists in particular; and several others I can't think of off the top of my head. Also, even among an approximate mass that can be considered roughly "homogeneous" for purposes of Marxist analysis there are still substantial differences between jobs in terms of what they demand from the worker and what they give to the worker.)

[Demogorgon]

As some people have pointed out, it depends what you mean. Manager managers, the ones that run the companies obviously aren't workers. But lower level people, the sort you would call "the boss", the ones in charge of day to day organising and that sort of thing, sometimes with silly titles like "team leader" and so forth are obviously workers. Such people often gain the position automatically from seniority. And if anyone wants to suggest that a worker can become bourgoisie simply by dint of working at any given place long enough, well that is so stupid it doesn't warrant response.

[The Feral Underclass]

The majority of the responses to the question that this thread puts forth is something that is indicative of a theoretical analysis that lacks any real materialistic basis in reality. The reason why I said that is because it has to be understood that class is not a subjective relationship; it is an objective relationship that operates on three bases of human reality; the relationship of a socio-economic group to property, the relationship of a socio-economic group to the production of Capital and the relationship of socio-economic group to the means of production, something that I have mentioned many times before.

And, when you go off of that criteria, and when you apply that criteria to the framework of the corporation, then it becomes obvious that this term, the term of "manager", can only be understood from the following viewpoint; if you are talking about people who actually supervise the extraction of surplus-value, then, they are workers, because they do not have own private property, they do not control the means of production, because for them to do so, they would have to have some kind of share in the private property upon which the means of production located upon, and they do not actively produce Capital, for, as was stated almost immediately, they do not have shares from which they can actively obtain Capital through the production of surplus-value. All that these individuals do is just to supervise the human labor that produces surplus-value, on behalf of the Small Capitalists and Capitalists that actually controls private property, that actually controls the means of production, and actively produces Capital.

If you are talking about those that actually are involved in the production of Capital, that actually have control over private property, and actually has control over the means of production, then, these people are either Small Capitalists or Capitalists, but, their positions in either of those classes totally depend upon on how important their levels of control over the production of Capital, over private property, and, the means of production are.

I will respond further, only after I see others do the same, in reciprocation.

If working class is defined as someone who creates surplus value and managers do not create surplus value then they are not workers. Equally, as you say, if they do not own the means in which that surplus value is created they are not a part of the bourgeoisie, either

I understand that there is a lot of contention over the use of the term "petite-borugeoisie"; the AF for example attempt to try and no associate people with that analysis. I don't really understand why; a group of people exist within the framework of class that are not applicable to either of the above definition, so "petite-bourgeois" makes sense in those terms.

Marx defines class, which is what you're trying to get at here, as a relationship to the means of production or as you call it the creation of 'surplus value'. The worker creates that value, the bourgeoisie control it. A manager, again as you say, supervises the extraction of that surplus value - this makes their relationship to the means of production neither worker nor capitalist and whether you like to call it the petite-bourgeoisie or not, they are a division of labour that does not relate directly to the creation or control of the means of production.

In any case, whatever they are they are not workers in a Marxian sense, which is what you're essentially arguing.

[VukBZ2005]

If working class is defined as someone who creates surplus value and managers do not create surplus value then they are not workers. Equally, as you say, if they do not own the means in which that surplus value is created they are not a part of the bourgeoisie, eitherThey do produce surplus-value; but the surplus-value that they produce originates solely from the management of those human beings, within a particular corporation, that are involved in both labor-intensive and Capital-intensive activities that extracts their energy (a.k.a, surplus-value) from them, energy that eventually becomes Capital. In other words, the energy that the manager puts into his job is just added on to the actual energy that is being extracted from those that are involved in both labor-intensive and Capital-intensive activities, that is, during the transference of that energy to the upper classes.

If the manager does not do his job*, then, the manager will lose his job, just as any worker would, because they are not fulfilling their main function.

*The job of the manager is limited in its scope, that is, when it is compared to the administrative tasks of both a Capitalist or a Small Capitalist. the reason why it is limited to its scope is because it is subordinate or subjugated to that of the higher classes; that is, everything that the manager does has to be approved by his superiors.


I understand that there is a lot of contention over the use of the term "petite-borugeoisie"; the AF for example attempt to try and no associate people with that analysis. I don't really understand why; a group of people exist within the framework of class that are not applicable to either of the above definition, so "petite-bourgeois" makes sense in those terms.The exact definition of the Small Capitalist class is a class that owns private property, which puts them in a controlling position over the means of production, and thus, over the production of Capital through the extraction of energy (a.k.a, surplus-value).

Apparently, this can not be applied to the managers of which you speak of, because, again, they do not control private property, they do not have control over the means of production (which is what the term "relationship to the means of production" means, the level of control that a group which is socio-economical has over them), and, they have no actual control over the process of Capital production and accumulation.


Marx defines class, which is what you're trying to get at here, as a relationship to the means of production or as you call it the creation of 'surplus value'. The worker creates that value, the bourgeoisie control it. A manager, again as you say, supervises the extraction of that surplus value - this makes their relationship to the means of production neither worker nor capitalist and whether you like to call it the petite-bourgeoisie or not, they are a division of labour that does not relate directly to the creation or control of the means of production.From what I am getting from you, it is your belief that managers form a class that has no relationship to the structures and institutions of Capitalism and is nothing more than a parasite that feeds off of the real productive forces that exist, not just the working class, but the Capitalist classes. If that is the case, then I have to say that this assertion of yours is absolutely ridiculous. If that was the case, why is it then that these managers are getting payed a wage? Does that not validate the assertion that I made before?

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you should assess your hostility. Your attitude does not motivate me in wanting to talk to you. If you re-read my post, what you will find is that I have not given managers any distinct class name; in fact I was clear to point out that there is a contention in doing so. However, I have also said that, according to Marx, managers are referred to as petite bourgeois. My claim that managers neither create surplus value nor control the means of production is not an inference that they are anything. I am simply stating what they are not.

When I am interested to do so, I will re-read your post and if appropriate I may respond to your other points, which, regardless of the obvious chip-on-the-shoulder hostility, are quite interesting.

[black magick hustla]

marx said in the manifesto that foremen were petty bourgeois.

neverthless, i think the overanalysis of an individuals class position is silly at best. some managers are going to be in the side of workers when the barricade gets erected, most of them would obviously be in the other side. The marxist analysis of clases is useful to understand society and its inner conflicts in the grand scheme of things, but it wasnt made to zoom in at people.

also depends on the managers. some managers do add intellectual labor to the commodity, while others are simply mediators between the bourgeosie and the workers. the former ones do make surplus value.

[A.J.]

Managers are non-proletarian workers.

Petty-bourgeois employess so to speak.

[Winter]

neverthless, i think the overanalysis of an individuals class position is silly at best. some managers are going to be in the side of workers when the barricade gets erected, most of them would obviously be in the other side. The marxist analysis of clases is useful to understand society and its inner conflicts in the grand scheme of things, but it wasnt made to zoom in at people.

also depends on the managers. some managers do add intellectual labor to the commodity, while others are simply mediators between the bourgeosie and the workers. the former ones do make surplus value.

I agree. When it comes down to it, on the verge of a workers revolution, I believe the vast majority of managers will join the proletariat if they have not already.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Normally, if you visit a fast-food restaurant or any other facility in the service sector, you would discover that the manager normally works alongside his or her fellow workers, and that they still carry out the manual tasks that they were originally trained to carry out.

Through greater automation and mechanization, the capitalist has to promote these managers to do their authoritive work (i.e. layoff workers, discipline disobedient workers, report to regional headquarters). In the experience of the Industrial Workers of the World and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, their labor agitation was conflated by the management at Starbucks and Burger King. Though their economic power is limited, they act as spies for corporate leadership, who wish to haunt away any unsavory disturbances.

[Floyce White]

There are many previous threads that address this topic.

In short, managing v. being managed is not the social relationship that defines class. Family ownership of the things used by others, or not, is the relationship that defines class.

[kromando33]

Managers are non-proletarian workers.

Petty-bourgeois employess so to speak.
Well I think the point to be made is this, under socialism the petty bourgeois (ie the class whose job it is not to produce capacity but to control their workers for the bourgeios) would not exist.

[Entrails Konfetti]

As for non-productive sectors, I think it's really a work-place by work-place case basis.

There are some managers who can't fire/ hire people, and do the same jobs as everyother worker but work extended hours, and are supposed to snitch to the boss about whose not doing this or that.

[Entrails Konfetti]

marx said in the manifesto that foremen were petty bourgeois.

neverthless, i think the overanalysis of an individuals class position is silly at best. some managers are going to be in the side of workers when the barricade gets erected, most of them would obviously be in the other side. The marxist analysis of clases is useful to understand society and its inner conflicts in the grand scheme of things, but it wasnt made to zoom in at people.

also depends on the managers. some managers do add intellectual labor to the commodity, while others are simply mediators between the bourgeosie and the workers. the former ones do make surplus value.

Actually, this makes the most sense.