Lady, EVOLVED 
is there a name for the kinds of people that capitalist society props up with a bourgeois lifestyle even tho, analysing their relationship to labour, they are not actually bourgeois?
trying to negotiate dual feelings of “ugh why are you listening to this bourgeois thinkfluencer and not real organizations of real labourers” and “actually, this person owns approximately zero of the necessary means for any of their labours”
@Lady it’s not proper marxist class analysis according to orthodox marxists, but it’s been described in usonian political literature as the professional-managerial class
@narylis the professional-managerial class isn’t really what i’m talking about though; e.g. a professional speaker who gets paid lots of money to write books and headline conferences is not managerial in any sense of the word, and “professional” only in a loose, vibes-based sense (conference headlining and writing both are clearly trades). however, having a member of the proletariat headlining your conference of bourgeoisie and bourgeois-enforcers (managers cops etc) is a social faux-pas (because the proletariat is too low-class to be present in such a space), so there is an active effort to produce individuals who LOOK bourgeois (have bourgeois lifestyles etc) even as they perform literally-proletarian trades
perhaps i am just disagreeing with “modern leftists” here and think that “professionals” and “managers” are NOT collapsible into a single category (and protest the use of the word “professional” as a category of leftist analysis in general), but even explicitly allowing for and setting aside “professional” fields such as office workers, educators, and lawyers, it feels like there is something very different going on here compared to those situations
i’m thinking of like, professional speakers and high⹀end consultants here, to be clear; professions where social pressures demand bourgeois hires despite it not actually being a bourgeois role