Introduction
Inasmuch as we can establish a history of ideas throughout the biblically-proportioned tragedy of the American left, the Judas appears as Barbara Ehrenreich (and her husband, John). In their diagnosis of a juvenile, middle-class ‘left’ hopped up on Evil Professional Commodities, they are often credited with the defeat of the new left itself.
During the days of the American new left (a colossal waste of time, to spare the unacquainted), there was the very obvious reality that they were all ‘middle-class’ lifestylists who were not really getting anywhere with class mobilisation. One could conclude that this is probably down to the obsession Americans hold with their supposedly unique national property (and its rather banal descent from the real position of America as a ‘superpower’ that influences other cultures in its image and cries bloody murder when this doesn’t just produce little Americas), or one could fetishise the ‘middle class’ as the real thing impeding progress.
Our good friends B&J decided upon the latter, and published a very long Textwall in Radical American that Barbara later conceded was only dry and theoretical to appease “the Marxists”, a tradition to which she claimed her and her husband had adhered to at the time. This makes sense, because the entire thesis is presented as a second-order rationalisation of a mere intuition, that cleverly masquerades as real Truth.
Inasmuch as you want to know what Barbara thought of her Deviant love for a transient historical instance, you can read her 2013 retro-analysis here. If you want any more revisiting for later historical developments, you might need a Ouija board because Barbara Ehrenreich died in 2022.
The task of engaging with her Idea now falls to us, the forgotten children of modernity, who must always be couching ourselves in the words of the dead.
Nevertheless, B&J’s conclusion is remarkably straightforward: that the American middle class is divorced from communist class politics because its essential interest is in management, but not ownership, of capital, and this ‘Professional-Managerial Class’ now deluding itself with an imaginary proletarian status is probably not going to be building any class organisation because it is actually a movement for itself, not class abolition as such.
This, alike Trotsky’s desperate attempts to assign the Stalinist ‘degenerated workers’ state’ with a ‘class-independent bureaucracy’, is about inventing things to justify priors to keep yourself sane in times of apparent retreat. Unlike Trotsky, B&J are not subtle about doing this, which makes sense in the context of academic culture: something very much in the tradition of trying to say something long enough that it becomes true.
The spectre of the PMC, regardless of Barbara’s admission of its ‘ruin’ in 2013, has achieved incredible purchase among many self-professed historical materialists, because like all pseudoscience, it sounds intuitively true even if it isn’t. Not even Maoist-Third Worldists are spared the spectre, and indeed it is very helpful for them to conclude that the mechanisms of empire are not down to the need to structure and maintain globalised commodity exchange, but actually empire is the fault of white women in Human Resources. Nowhere is this idea more ascendant than with the American Maoist-Third Worldists, who graciously self-flagellate themselves in an act of penance before the global masses they crackerously oppress with their American Ideas.
But in a moment of crisis, something curious happens to class politics: the PMC’s oft-touted shackles evaporate, and the working class starts developing notions of organisation. The PMC merely appear as more autonomous proletarians, and we see our managers as idiots just like us who are now having to split ends on their tiny fucking wages to find a shoebox it’s affordable to live in.
Marx described all this false consciousness and its alleviation way back when and it happens every fucking time like clockwork, but people still cannot retract themselves from their present historical instance, a fetish object so abused it’d instantly kill any psychiatrist it vented to.
So come the negation of the ghosts, the spectres, and the banshees, and we emerge, like a clearing mist, in our wretched totality: the lucid, living doctrine of our time.
If B&J’s poltergeist still remains in any substance, let loose the proletarian exorcists, who may banish it for good.
I
Let us start with where B&J’s investigation begins.
Theoretical confusion about class is endemic among all parts of the left. Some leftists (mainly associated with the “new communist movement”) describe students, professionals, and other educated workers as “petty bourgeois,” though more as a put-down than as a defensible analysis. Other contemporary leftists describe all salary and wage workers who do not own the means of production as “working class.” The working class so conceived is a near-universal class, embracing all but the actual capitalists and the classical petty bourgeoisie (i.e., small tradesmen, independent farmers, etc.). But this group, too, finds its definition practically untenable. In practice, and conversationally, these leftists use the terms “working class” and “middle class” with their colloquial connotations, knowing that the distinction is still somehow a useful one. Yet this distinction cannot be pursued in theory: the prevailing theoretical framework insists that all wage earners are working class and that the notion that some workers are “middle class” is a capitalist-inspired delusion.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: I’m not going to be polite here: this is empiricism. “Having sensed something, the truth is indeed in that sensation.” As someone who is schizophrenic, I presume, the goal here is to convince me that when my imaginary friends make me sense something which isn’t actually ‘real’ to anyone else, I am actually catching a glimpse of true reality. By this ground of epistemic authority, I should be able to change matter itself at will.
But no, B&J’s imaginary friends are superior to mine, because mine have voices. Only they can change matter with the will of their thoughts, through the cacophonous silence of their skulls.
In any case, you are not some fucking firebrand radical for recognising that there are people often called ‘middle class’. Marx and Engels did this too, as did almost fucking everyone who talked about class politics because the ‘middle class’ is very demonstrably a real social force, but the point of a Marxist doctrine is to demystify social forces for what they really are. If you start your investigation from the mysticism itself, and not its rational solution in practice, you will do nothing but theology. Again, Marx described this. Marx described it very well. Cast off your saints, he tells us. Face the real world.
“No,” say B&J. “More saints please!”
Meanwhile, the rotting pile of dead saints steadily grows.
This stuff hits a nerve with the American left because at some level they understand there is an ideological barrier whereby they are kind of divorced from ‘reality’, ‘real work’, ‘proper class-consciousness’. They operate under the belief the class leads them, and that they do not lead the class, and in doing so entrench a middle-class mysticism that must apologise for pretensions of a Leninist vanguardism they have not once attempted.
All understandings like this fucking evaporate when conditions suddenly change, developments these idiots are incapable of taking as anything but supervention, which sometimes develops into the strange American belief that Trump came about as an unknowable infliction of Satan, and not the asymmetrical ladder toward American politics we can historically see him climbing. The American left attempts to address this stupidity with their own stupidity, and ultimately this results in Hasan Piker–a man who, and I cannot stress this enough, will tell you to vote for Jon Ossoff and Graham Platner–calling for a “dictatorship of the proletariat” at Yale.
This kind of aura-farming is what people do when they abandon politics entirely and become a fandom. We resolve the strength of the movement into Hasan Piker, and if B&J had their way they’d resolve him into the PMC, and resolve the PMC into revolutionary inertia, and thus conclude that we are blind to the developments before our very eyes.
But B&J are off with God now, so we can instead resolve Hasan Piker into a twitch stream and try not to worry about him too much. The sigh of relief from our Sensitive Communist Youth is palpable; the priests and preachers are not around to gaslight them.
II
Descending further into the article–something very careful to attribute qualifications, if-statements, ‘blurred lines’ to its assuredly conclusive analyses, as stating things directly would reveal the futility of the whole exercise–we come across the actual criteria used by B&J for class.
The Professional-Managerial Class (“PMC”), as we will define it, cannot be considered a stratum of a broader “class” of “workers” because it exists in an objectively antagonistic relationship to another class of wage earners (whom we shall simply call the “working class”). Nor can it be considered to be a “residual” class like the petty bourgeoisie; it is a formation specific to the monopoly stage of capitalism.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Take this brief pause to remember these people still, allegedly, considered themselves Marxists when writing this.
[…] if we were going to fully and properly define a Professional-Managerial Class, we would not be able to restrict ourselves to a picture of this group as a sociological entity; we would have to deal, at all stages, with the complementary and mutually interacting developments in the bourgeoisie and the working class […]
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Indeed, I suppose if you were to fully and properly define a PMC you would have to do all of that. The conclusions you drew would not be historically useful, but they’d make a neat little journal article.
Anyway, after all of this arse-covering from anyone who would dare assail their saintly intuition, these idiots finally get to the fucking point:
However, the relation to the economic foundations of society is not sufficient to specify a class as a real social entity. At any moment in its historical development after its earliest, formative period, a class is characterized by a coherent social and cultural existence; members of a class share a common life style, educational background, kinship networks, consumption patterns, work habits, beliefs. These cultural and social patterns cannot be derived in any simple fashion from the concurrently existing relationship to the means of production of the members of the class. […] In addition, the social existence of a group of people is determined not only by its experience at the point of production, but by its experience in private life (mediated especially by kinship relations, which, in turn, are at most only distantly related to evolving relations of production) […]
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Breathtaking. You see, this kind of ‘modernisation’ is classic because it takes something useful for socialism (an analysis of classes orchestrated around productive relations and their historically-consistent properties) and justifies itself via a deeply perverted transhistoricism into something manifestly useless.
I would like to remind our Sensitive Communist Youth that lots of academics do this shit too and you are not obliged to necessarily take them seriously because of their institutional authority; I call Communism the real movement that confounds and frustrates academia. But do not be anti-intellectual, either! You only negate these Textwalls in your mind-palace once you have the words to dismiss them. They represent real forces to be studied. Just don’t get caught up in their ideology soup, because Marx gave you a fork, not a spoon. Trying to eat the ideology soup with this fork probably won’t get anywhere and will definitely make you look like an idiot.
Regardless, let’s stop laughing at these idiots and get into what they’re saying.
However, the relation to the economic foundations of society is not sufficient to specify a class as a real social entity.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: When B&J say “economic foundations of society” and “real social entity” they are not referring to historical society, as in, a self-developing system measurable by a doctrine that has a base order it must necessarily fall to in moments of crisis. They are referring to the 20th-Century United States and history’s persistent refusal to produce ‘working-class’ socialists out of thin air, something B&J take to be a development of the left’s attempts to lead the working class, and not the fact the left is fucking terrified of doing precisely that.
[…] a class is characterized by a coherent social and cultural existence; members of a class share a common life style, educational background, kinship networks, consumption patterns, work habits, beliefs.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: B&J, while acknowledging that a coherent social and cultural existence is preconditioned on relationship to production, very curiously fail to successfully, lucidly explain the procedural relationship between these things. This is because the procedural relationship between reality and ideology is actually incredibly simple on the conceptual level (“spades do not have souls” is probably a logical fallacy or another, but is also self-evidently true to most people), and as such when applied in theory demands a bit of coherent doctrinal practice to make sense.
As B&J astutely note, the doctrinal practice of the American left is worker-fetishism. They then shrug their shoulders and conclude there is nothing left to do but fetishise another spectre of their historical instance. Where we learn to laugh at the noble savage-adjacent proposal that certain peoples have essential “ways of knowing and being”, the giant pyramid scheme of U.S. intelligentsia is an elaborate sophistry in pursuit of creating a mythology of Americanised ways of knowing and being; that there is something extraordinary about Americans, that Homo Americanus is a new taxonomical category.
These cultural and social patterns cannot be derived in any simple fashion from the concurrently existing relationship to the means of production of the members of the class.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: While there is humour in B&J’s admission that they are looking for a “simple fashion” here, i.e. simple answers in lieu of the more painful ones, the Idealism here is particularly stunning because it is effectively admitting a rejection of the Marxist precept that material reality is self-evident and social production is the first use-value of social life. This ‘dogmatic’ assertion, defiant before ‘real history’, is nevertheless laid fairly bare in moments of crisis, but many self-proclaimed Marxists will descend from heaven to the workers here, and tell them they are anything but proletarians.
Personally, I think what these people do is tantamount to counter-revolution, and the revolutionary history will damn their memories.
[…] the social existence of a group of people is determined not only by its experience at the point of production, but by its experience in private life (mediated especially by kinship relations, which, in turn, are at most only distantly related to evolving relations of production) […]
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Jaw-droppingly ridiculous. Having returned to the hearth, the homestead, the family, we have a ‘private life’ that is clad in a mysticism so arrogant it borders on gnosticism. Marxist-gnostics believe that the introduction of some unknowable property has occurred over modernity, and that this dark energy, inflicted by the demiurge, is what perverts the perfect world of Saint Marx, God, the LORD.
So they may now, in an extreme arrogance, claim that ‘kinship relations’ are “at most only distantly related” to ‘evolving relations of production.’ That the relationship between families, which involve making children, and the way you work is now almost irrelevant to this new class. I take it we shouldn’t be giving these people maternity/paternity leave, then, because they’ve actually got a big baby generator that is completely extricated from their lived existence.
B&J are secretly keeping advanced biotechnology in their home and they are using it to make good professional children at an industrial scale, to eradicate vulgar class-essentialism for good. This is what they must have meant when they said:
“Services” which had been an indigenous part of working-class culture were edged out by commodities conceived and designed outside of the class.
Whereas without the blinding light of Barbara Ehrenreich Thought we would have simply concluded this entire sentence is fucking nonsense and commodities don’t actually have souls that are special to the working-class, that working-class life is not a cultural essence but simply the fact some madman has you chained to a production line and will now wring you dry of your surplus value.
But because we have Barbara Ehrenreich Thought, we can now see clear the materialist truth: these nefarious extraneous commodities are in fact the PMC’s biovats, weaved into existence by ‘kinship’.
III
Let’s look at how our poltergeists define their fetish object in relation to their gnosticism.
We define the Professional-Managerial Class as consisting of salaried mental workers who do not own the means of production and whose major function in the social division of labor may be described broadly as the reproduction of capitalist culture and capitalist class relations.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Any basic understanding of Marx’s critique of political economy readily presents us with the fact that ‘salaries’, for one, are merely labour-power purchased either in advance or in bulk. Any attempt to divorce this from a wage relation is a return to mysticism.
We know that wage-labour is alienating, that professionals and managers can and do experience sadness, burnout, ennui, et cetera because they are not capitalist Stakhanovites they are human beings with emotions.
We know, then, that even if the job of the manager is the ‘reproduction of capitalist culture’ through ‘mental labour’ (the vagaries of the text yet again doing heavy lifting with their inability to say anything of substance), the class-interest of the manager, assuming their relationship to production is ultimately the same as their workers, is ultimately determined in the direction of social-revolution; that they appear less likely to do this is explained through their autonomy within and management over facets of civil society in much the same way you would a cop or professional soldier.
Just because the ‘PMC’ will frequently act like pernicious petty-bourgeois fascists does not, in truth, mean they necessarily are; you know, Daniel Craig is not literally James Bond. The initial structure incentivises behaviour distinct from real interest. The Marxist says professionals are probably stepping on a rake here, the Marxist is ignored, and when all the professional jobs are evaporated by a crisis, the Marxist is proven correct. The idealists, for their part, probably believe this unforeseeable crisis to be alike Noah’s Ark, and sent by God.
I remind our Sensitive Communist Youth that these people may sound very confident in what they say; it does not make them any less fucking wrong.
The PMC, by our definition, includes people with a wide range of occupations, skills, income levels, power and prestige. The boundaries separating it from the ruling class above and the working class below are fuzzy.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Yes, it is hard to give shape to a ghost.
Second, occupation is not the sole determinant of class (nor even the sole determinant of the relation to the means of production).
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Qualifiers like this appear quite a lot in the text, where B&J will re-iterate their positions as if it makes the analysis any less useless. This axiom in particular (what they’re saying is that the way you make money is not the determinant of your relationship to production; it’s actually some other, shady thing, “kinship relations”, “PMC culture”, all now self-developing things) is basically a reminder that their whole Textwall is entirely predicated upon a notion of a self-developing family largely alien from production.
The positive Marxist writes for the peaceful times, when nothing much seems to happen (things do happen, they just aren’t socialism); this makes their theory a comfy opiate for disillusioned socialists, and a complete liability when the times run sour. It’s religion.
[…] the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has developed to the point that a class specializing in the reproduction of capitalist class relationships becomes a necessity to the capitalist class. That is, the maintenance of order can no longer be left to episodic police violence.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Even though I’ve already read this Textwall, I really spat out my beer when i re-read this bit.
“A class specialising in the reproduction of capitalist class relationships” is just one of many sentences of pure air that B&J assail us with, but what’s so funny about it is they think people can consciously specialise in generality and have this be a class-basis, no less; that these people are trained by the witch doctors of capital to think hard enough that they can control the masses better than any cop.
Here we must ignore the episodic police violence that has been going on since America’s inception, and generally forms the line of order when this psychotronica fails.
The penetration of working-class life by commodities required and continues to require a massive job of education — from schools, advertisers, social workers, domestic scientists, “experts” in child rearing, etc, […]
EXORCIST’S NOTE: This is where the professional psychics are actually presented in evidence, that the aforementioned tainted, ‘professional’ commodities through distinct ‘professional’ services are done through ‘professional’ education. This fetishised mental labour is presumably what confers upon the commodities their ‘professional’ stamp. By managing capital in a very banal sense, at some point, the ‘PMC’ has learned to contort the soul and shape of the commodity itself.
Because, as B&J remind us consistently, the ‘PMC’ has no good beginning or end point and is not coterminous with any real and defined boundary in evidence, we also can’t actually find a definite grouping of people who are contorting the precious working-class commodities.
We can conclude, then, commodities are contorting themselves, folding gelatinously over each other, and the ‘PMC’ is spat out of all this.
Or we can dismiss this fad as it passed us by.
Thus the relationship between the PMC and the working class is objectively antagonistic. The functions and interests of the two classes are not merely different; they are mutually contradictory. True, both groups are forced to sell their labor power to the capitalist class; both are necessary to the productive process under capitalism; and they share an antagonistic relation to the capitalist class. (We will return to this point in more detail later.) But these commonalities should not distract us from the fact that the professional-managerial workers exist, as a mass grouping in monopoly capitalist society, only by virtue of the expropriation of the skills and culture once indigenous to the working class.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Here, again, we see depicted an ‘expropriation’ of the (American) working class’ ways of knowing and being. What the B&J are describing here is that yes, the working class in America did certain jobs that are now professionalised. This fairly useful observation is transformed into a weapon of the bourgeoisie when B&J say the commodity-spirit has been perverted by insidious professional-managers.
But for me, as a traditional wage-labourer (albeit British, so perhaps Homo Americanus simply eludes me through a failure to conceive of its higher consciousness), I am somewhat uncertain as to what this professionalisation means in relation to my class-interest other than the introduction of some more petty tyrants (something my life is already in abundance of). B&J tell me that it’s actually a warping of the traditional wayfaring established and passed down to me by my worker ancestors, carried down a ley line of wisdom via an indigenous oral tradition.
One forgets we’re reading something produced by people who consider themselves ‘Marxists’–it comes across as little more than Volkisch mysticism.
We should add, at this point, that the antagonism between the PMC and the working class does not exist only in the abstract realm of “objective” relations, of course. Real-life contacts between the two classes express directly, if sometimes benignly, the relation of control which is at the heart of the PMC – working-class relation: teacher and student (or parent), manager and worker, social worker and client, etc. The subjective dimension of these contacts is a complex mixture of hostility and deference on the part of working-class people, conterapt and paternalism on the part of the PMC.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Here, the teachers and students, managers and workers, social workers and clients, etc. are taken as antagonistic to each other not because it’s annoying when some idiot tells you what you ought do, but because the middle class professionals are annoyances in themselves. The means of transfer (the social relationship) are disregarded here for being inconvenient to the project of American leftist self-flagellation.
We can talk all we want about why the middle class is so fucking annoying, and we’d basically be performing Hermeticist divinations because ‘annoyance’ isn’t a historical thing. The fact that I find the middle class annoying is probably not the engine of history, it’s more likely the social relations which presaged our meeting in the first place.
The classical petty bourgeoisie lies outside the polarity of labor and capital. (It is made up of people who are neither employed by capital nor themselves employers of labor to any significant extent.)
EXORCIST’S NOTE: Here we kind of see part of this modernisation’s fatal flaw–a disconnect from Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach, which by all accounts are the base instructions for Marxist doctrinalism and the order from which positive Marxism must stray at some point.
When you have decided that ‘labour and capital’ itself is a polarity in contradiction; that labour is something itself employed, that capital is something that itself employs, and take this as an article of faith rather than a rhetorical flourish, you have essentially made a capitalist and a proletarian essence that can be transposed between individuals rather than studying these essences as they exist: an ensemble of the social relations.
The fact is that labour and capital, in their real forms under capitalist production, are measured in social relations. Form-fetishism, of treating labour and capital as anything but this, is among the highest defects of positive Marxism; of using the language Marx used, but with the bourgeois definition of this language; that the ‘capital’ and ‘labour’ he spoke of are not used in the context of their real doctrine but are projections into the future, where bourgeois economists for the most part take them as things-in-themselves.
To descend to Earth with this understanding, labour is not a quantity instructed by capital, but the life that is lived for workers, that their real life is robbed from them by alienation, that capitalist labour is not labour, that exchange is a social property that you nevertheless experience in a real sense; that capital itself is the mere social relation of domination expressed in money and commodities, which, once fetishised, may generate a system of political economy that understands itself and only itself, and as such cannot fit the missing part (real labour) into the equation.
The petty-bourgeoisie employs its own labour and is employed by its own capital and as such is directly related to the ‘polarity’ of labour and capital because it is operating in a system of exchange with capital accumulation concentrating in monopoly; something we all know is bad for small businesses!
Where us Marxists applaud the cruel and iron hand of capital for sweeping these Hitlers from their pedestals, we do so with a wink: you’re stuck with us now, mom and pop! And as capital’s iconoclasm sweeps the saints from our walls, we may one day look upwards, in lieu of anything else, and decide that there still remains one more God to be tossed from heaven.
In this understanding, we can apply a self-sealing logic that might get us somewhere. Or we could chase ghosts, in rapt allegiance to the shepherds of the coming crisis.
IV
Now, finally, we should talk about the fetish object’s historicisation by our poltergeists.
It is mostly a decent history, of course, somewhat cheapened by the non-existence of its subject matter; but there are a few things to contend.
But the conflict between the PMC and the capitalist class went deeper than the issue of occupational autonomy. Early PMC leaders envisioned a technocratic transformation of society in which all aspects of life would be “rationalized” according to expert knowledge.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: B&J tell us that the PMC is antagonistic to the capitalist class. They then tell us that this cause lies in factors other than value extraction, that actually the raw ideas and visions of the classes are, in fact, the engine of class struggle, and not the class’ real existence, which derives itself from things other than the essential soul of that class’ ideology.
These idiots unironically think that there is a klassengeist then articulated, rather than identifying the klassengeist as a spectre of the articulation itself. In doing so they perform a sort of deranged mysticism that actually posits civic technocracy as an interest in itself, rather than an infliction of positive interests. This entire ‘PMC’ is built on the corpses of saints.
Specialization was the PMC member’s chief selling point, the quality which justified his or her claim to a unique niche in society, but it acted as a centrifugal force on the class as a whole.
EXORCIST’S NOTE: This Deviant fetishisation of the PMC has thus allowed B&J to take ‘the class as a whole’ as something acted upon by its Essences, and through clever sophistry present this as its real Essence. The problem is that the class they have identified, established, and defined, is not actually a product of any Essences but a matter of autonomy under capital.
The endeavour to do anything other than chase ghosts is the logical conclusion of any positive Marxism.
Conclusion
The ‘PMC’ mythology was useful for as long as the ‘PMC’ existed. Now it doesn’t exist, we are left with ghosts.
I do not preclude the notion that B&J were trying to answer the questions of their time. The problem lies in how this extends beyond their time; that the postponement of revolution is often invoked by the moral authority of a spectre which no longer exists.
If we try and analyse doctrines in relation to our real situation in the here and now, we are disturbing saints; that their positive, bastardising shibboleths do not extend to today. Take their opinion on ‘unproductivity’; that the ‘PMC’ is unproductive because it is not producing ‘real’ commodities.
The main crux of B&J’s theory is the ridiculous notion that the experience of professional work is heterogenous, and its occupations do not cohere people in the same fashion as conventional wage labourers. The ability to navigate the ‘PMC’ stratum is depicted as a matter of familial networking, of background, of lifestyle—the occupation is contextually important, but it is not what solely defines their class.
This idiosyncrasy falls back on itself when you then ask the question: so how does one become PMC? The response from this theory is necessarily incoherent, dependent on a totality of factors of which profession is important but not the whole story, that it depends on who your parents are and who you know and how you live your life and whatnot, all flattened by the ‘condition’ of an ‘essentially nonproductive’ professional class.
The idea that ‘production’ can be social, and not immediate, is completely beyond this frame of reference.
We ought move beyond this nonsense, and truly regard the real conditions of our time.
And for that, I do not think we ought return to the provincial invocations of B&J Ehrenreich.
Leave a Reply