Managers: Proles or Bougies?

Are managers part of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie or a separate class of their own?

They are proles in that they have to exchange their labor power for a wage as any other employee. They are bougies in that they manage private property and appropriate surplus value in the process just like their boss.

Which is it?

Managers are elected.

Never mind, I was just reading the thread title.

They work for a wage, they are proles. They do not own the capital.

Some layers of the proletariat are more priviledged than others.

Don't they often get paid in stocks?

Some of them are paid in stocks… But also so are some workers.
Also, more likely they're paid in "stocks"

Don't CEOs technically "work for a wage" too?

Managers are proles. In the service industry they barely get more money. Also, the managing of large amount of people is a socially necessary part of the labour force. For any large scale operation they are as indispensable as a labourer. They are no more or less valuable however. Each necessary part is equally as valuable.

It really depends if they have the commanding stake in the company.

For most companies, the CEO and maybe one or two other partners will have maybe 20-30% of the shares between them, the rest split between the middle management, the commanding share though, like 51% will be owned by whatever 'investor' (pork) put up the money to start the thing in the first place, a conglomerate, a hedge fund, a rich individual, what have you.

CEO is a top of the line manager, usually that involves some ownership, but never usually the commanding share.

The only truly bourgeois is he who only owns and collects and owes no debts, asks permission of nobody and commands permission of all.

This is why even CEO's are getting fucked. The bourgh is truly a handful of people and they have well over half the wealth of the world now.

Many are labour aristocrats, proles who's class interests have been aligned with the bourgeoisie by porky so as to swell the number of his supporters.

Anyone who privately owns capital and extracts the surplus value of laborers is part of the bourgeoisie. That some porkies have transcended their kin to become porky gods does not make all the lesser porkies innocent or less likely to try to stop the workers from seizing control.

Depends on specifics.

I say, if we are talking sufficiently high up chain of command, they are Petit-Bourgeois. Those select few on the very top are Capitalists.

Skills of professionals are their Capital.

Managers are proles AND class traitors.

Managers are proles who betray their fellow workers in exchange for petty authority to enforce bourgeois interests.Their "management" often contains little more than spurring similarly qualified workers into meeting progressively more unreasonable goals imposed by their superiors by penalties or layoffs.

Managerial hierarchies sometimes run parallel to the workforce organization, meaning that managers need not be qualified to do or even understand the labor of the workers they rule over.They often DO require *certification* but only nominally.

Managers are petty, opportunistic traitors that deserve the same attitude as the power they represent.

I swear you are slowly turning into capitalist when you drink.

Most 'professionals' are proletarians in terms of their relationship to production. Even someone who won a million dollars in the lottery would still be a proletarian in that sense. But they can certainly have petty-bourgeois characteristics.

Class in the Marxist sense is soley based on ones relationship to production.

that's retarded

What the fuck are you doing

Okay. Here are my posts that include assumption that skills, position, connections, and reputation can function as means of production (yes, Capital) and - effectively - let person assume the role Petit-Bourgeoisie (and be influenced by its class consciousness, yes):

If there is something wrong there - and there has to be, if my assumption is wrong - please, explain (actually explain, not "read bordiga" explain or "ur dumb" explain) how and why it is wrong.

Chief executive officer. The key concept being they are officers of the company. They are appointed by the holders of capital to execute and administer the business. They work for a wage (and other benefits) but their job involves their being given wide latitude to run the business in the interests of its stakeholders.
If the CEO besides that has enough in assets to survive without working, then he's a bourg who happens to work.
Naturally, due to socialization of labor, we will have managers under a socialist mode of production as well. The difference is between whether these "offices" are democratic or autocratic

That's not what that means, unless you're talking about them as holding significant share of the company while still needing to work.

Kind of a grey area

Managers in a restaurant for example are an integral part of the work force. A kitchen manager that isn't an idiot is just as much a worker as any line cook, they just hold a different position. There's a hierarchy in place but ideally not an economic one.

The problem is that most managers are idiots that don't recognize their position in relation to the -real- bosses

Yes, but they also have wage setting and decision making powers. Perhaps not to a totalitarian degree if the company is on the stock market, but they have a vastly disproportionate amount of sway in their industry compared to a worker, and they benefit directly from pro-capitalsit government policies.