I would not dismiss the concern of an administration being seen as a class onto itself, with its own discretionary powers and interests, out of hand. This isn’t too distant from clerics that were/are the law, and acted in their own interests in times present/past. They speak for their gods, so of course they must be right in their righteousness.

By using definitions to declare that an administrator or other principle executive of an organ of power, as being a member of the working class (therefore: you see comrade, they cannot possibly be a class on to themself as they are part of the working class) skirts around the concern of the anarchist.

It seems to trivialise the notion that others can act in their own interest, in the interest of their office, or even in the perception of their office, or that responsibilities and powers given to those bodies, and the corruptibility of those powers, and the entrenchment of those bodies against the perceived enemies of those offices, can never be used against the interests of that of the working class as naïvety is itself naïve.