This is something I've been thinking about with regards to the whole "co-ordinator class" thing. It's often said by opponents that the capital relationship requires two classes - a capitalist and working class, and that no more and no less than these two classes can exist in the capital relationship. But what about worker co-operatives where capital is collectively managed by the workers, where's the bourgeoisie there?
It depends whether you're adjusting your lens to the manager in the office, or the chairman of the central bank. Taxes have to go to somebody other than a fellow worker; rent for the property still leaves their hands. One might be able to create models alternative to bourgeois management, but they still remain interconnected into capital. In fact, as long as there is capital, the bourgeoisie will be there.
Good points
"The existence of capital vis-Ã*-vis labour requires that capital in its being-for-itself, the capitalist, should exist and be able to live as not-worker" K. Marx. Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...risse/ch06.htm
