Marxists have always regarded professionals and intelligentsia as petty-bourgeois (as a class).
The Reddit cookie-cutter definitions of class that prevail among online “Marxists” are mainly taken from old beginner’s guides, which sophisticated Marxist analysis has never been reduced to.
The main reason has to do with the institutional rather than individual nature of the bourgeois class.
Towards the end of the 19th century, initiation into the bourgeoisie didn’t depend on ‘starting small’ as a proprietor.
That paradigm of class ascension actually came from feudalism, where the ruling class was defined by independent proprietorship in land.
In the mid 19th century, the bourgeoisie was still being critiqued not as capitalists, but as new feudal landowners - who now own discrete spaces as means of production (factories, etc) instead land.
This wasn’t a real anti-capitalist critique, it merely applied the critique of feudalism to the industrial bourgeoisie that was beginning to emerge from feudalism, still stamped by its birthmarks, which included personal proprietorship.
As capitalism matured, with the rise of the joint-stock paradigm of ownership, initiation into the bourgeoise became less about personal proprietorship and more about institutional accreditation.
Instead of ‘starting small’ as a fruit stand owner and becoming a huge industrial magnate - you ‘start small’ as a student, manager, professional, etc. - who ascends to the bourgeoise through institutional promotion.
CEO’s of companies are promoted via professional hierarchy. Startup ‘owners’ are vouched for by banking institutions, VCs and other ‘promoters.’
Nobody gets rich ‘starting small’ as a small proprietor - they get enough accreditation, either in academic or financial institutions, to be deemed competent enough to ‘own’ capital. That’s how you “join” the big bourgeoise - you get vouched for.
This has been true since the early 1900s. Today, the bourgeoise is largely gatekept and there is no real social mobility, because it has developed into a type of dynastic financial oligarchy.
But in any case, it’s absolutely correct that professors and other professionals are petty-bourgeois. Anyone who is on the institutional ladder at all (where corporate ascension or accreditation is possible) - is petty-bourgeois.
They may not be at the top but they have a stake in the institutional and economic hegemony of the bourgeoisie.
Now in the past, Leninism emphasized a strict cadre-class distinction. Cadre were largely drawn from intelligentsia since they alone had access to education and free time.
They had to renounce their class background and become initiated into the leadership of the proletariat. Contrast that to today’s self-serving petty bourgeois professionals!
In any case, even that point is moot. With the rise of the internet, anyone can learn Marxism. Including welders, warehouse workers, truckers, etc. - the petty bourgeois intelligentsia can’t gatekeep Marxist theory anymore.
So now the distinction has become more blurred. Professional intelligentsia aren’t needed anymore. The proletariat can itself crowdfund its own full-time professional revolutionaries and educators, based on direct feedback mechanisms of pedagogical competence and interest.
Tiktokers and YouTubers have made professors superfluous. They’re useless now. People whine and cry about all the “stupidity of the goyim” and professor Jiang etc because of this - but it’s too bad.
Both stupid bullshitters and knowledgeable people can use these mediums to fulfill roles that gatekeeping professionals used to. It is a fact and there’s no going back.
Grad students don’t like hearing this because it makes them feel useless. But the truth hurts. They are.
