Some of us have such disgust for the PMC because we are the PMC. We know our peers, and we’re frustrated with their seemingly unassailable, pigheaded lack of class consciousness.

No, because there's no clear definition of what a PMC is. Everyone has their own definition in mind, many would consider me a PMC yet I would consider the asshole managers above me PMC, some would consider the shift manager of a retail job PMC. The definition is way too loose to be useful and almost feels like am alternative for the "middle class" a class that does infact not exist nor has a concrete definition and is more a vibe.

The effects of exploitation are the same regardless of anyone in the working class. The difference being the effects of that exploitation have a delay to what would be considered PMC as opposed to those already maximally exploited. But it's happening, companies all over the world are shedding staff with impunity, teams are downsizing, performance metrics being enforced. When I joined software dev I already jumped in at min wage tiny team and unpaid overtime. Where i am now the same is happening, downsizing of teams, increase of work, having to hold multiple roles and unpaid overtime. No one is immune to exploitation and the capital owners are too fucking greedy to not take everything from everyone. Just that PMC are somewhat easier to propagandise in the current moment cos they have enough money to have a smug sense of superiority. But thats not gonna last long.

hokum terminology that's as vibes-based and unhelpful as 'middle class'.

I see "professional managerial class" as a liberal term rather than a Marxist one, and I don't think it's particularly useful to start a discussion around.

I don't find categorizing certain strata of the working class for the sake of categorization to be meaningful. The ultimate point of distinguishing different strata is to provide a general guideline of prioritizing which strata would be more receptive towards agiprop and should be a prime target for being organized. With this in mind, it should be clear that workers earning minimum wage or less would be more receptive towards building worker power through worker organization than a bunch of overpaid clerical workers all other things being equal. However, to say that the so-called PMC (really labor aristocrats) are inherently reactionary is to say that all forms of labor aristocrat organization must be dismantled because reactionaries should be deprived of political power, which comes out of organization. In other words, to say labor aristocrats are inherently reactionary is to say that a software dev union should be treated in the exact same way as a pig union or a Pinkerton branch or an oil cartel or the MIC, which would be an absolutely wild thing to say. You definitely could have a hypothetical software dev union that proves itself to be reactionary to the point where the Pinkertons beating the shit out of those union members are the lesser of two evil, but as a general rule? Of course not.

So thats what they mean when they say PMC. But I will continue reading PMC as "private military contractor".

They're only inherently reactionary if they're DSA Karens.

Yes. Seeing the amount of abuse and overwork my parents endure as blue collar workers, and working in retail and manual labor myself during school, I would choose being a useless PMC sitting in a cubicle for 8 hours any day.

The software industry is notorious for being the most cocky and often times most privileged out of the ‘ordinary’ careers, so suggesting to organize is taboo.

Chicken and egg situation. It's more likely that reactionaries are drawn to those positions if they lack capital to live passively off of but enough wealth, borrowed or inherited, to pursue professional training and education.

PMCs in politics are more likely to be reactionaries since they understand their social and class privileges stem from capitalist exploitation and status quo power relations rather than creating mass politics. e.g: Corbyn's Labour camp undermine him to his own detriment, or Kyrsten Sinema being a social worker before being a US senator.

Ironically, it is these people that also make revolution possible and happen. These professionals are compensated so well because they are the very administrators of capital, of empire, of the machines of production, distribution, and consumption. If they lose faith in the system, not necessarily by a crisis of conscience, but by which means they no longer see a viable future for themselves and their kin/progeny/colleagues, then revolutionary moments gain the possibility of becoming realized and fulfilled.

Which is why the state also increases its own powers to monitor, spy, and repress when targeting dissidents and enforcing internal discipline.

No, it depends on the state. Although you will have to purge the previous bureaucracy.

yes they is

yes and i think we should all be killed

Yup

The PMC strata is very inclined towards petit-bourgeois class consciousness, and perhaps even PB aspirations, but it really depends on how far down you go on the level of "management"; upper management? Definitely. Shift supervisors with the title of manager? Much less so.