Who are the working class?


We did a thread on this a while ago in which I pointed out that millionaire footballers were not working class, to mixed response.
Is professional football not work?

Do you think working class musicians who make lots of money when their careers take off automatically become middle class?

john eden

male pale and stale
Is professional football not work?

Do you think working class musicians who make lots of money when their careers take off automatically become middle class?
Professional football is work, yes, in that people exchange their Labour power for a wage. :)

But if through doing that someone accumulates enough money that them and their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren etc are so economically secure that they could all easily survive without working, they are not working class are they.

Also there are many professional footballers whose income from other activities far exceeds the income they get from playing football. For example dividends on investments.

You would need to quantify “lots of money” but musicians with that may well become economically middle or even upper class yes.


Well-known member

I should say middle class activists in particular, not middle class people by way of their economic positionality, which would certainly include my family, if not myself.

When you start to advocate an activist politics you are advocating a politics of denial of the fact the middle class itself is a class with no historical future, always destined to either move up or down but never stay that way, otherwise it wouldn't be an intermediary class. Hence the pearl clutching from the likes of Blakeley et al. It's all pretty abject. Individuals do not matter in bourgeois society.

When viewed in the context of a succession of productive forms, each one replacing the one before, it will be seen that all revolutions go through a particularly dynamic stage in which the combatants, who at this point appear as the expression of socially determined forces pushing them towards a greater good, will as a general rule put up with any number of sacrifices and privations: there will be those, both in the ranks and in the higher profile roles, who will give up their lives, and their "hunger for power", whilst obeying the still un‑deciphered forces which accompany the birth of every new social form.
In the final phase of each form, this social dynamism evaporates due to the fact that a new, opposed, social form is arising within the old. At this point there appears a conservative defence of the traditional form which tends to manifest itself as an underwriting of personal egoisms, individual belly-stuffing, and open corruption; bribe-takers, praetorians, feudal courtiers, debauched clerics, and the shady speculators and corrupt accountants of today’s bourgeois regime are some examples.
But even though capitalism’s hired thugs and scullery maids may be bogged down in a social mire of cynicism and existential arrogance, the work of defending capitalism and preventing its collapse continues as before. The organised State and political party networks are strongly committed to this task, and at key historical junctures they have demonstrated that they are quite capable of welding themselves into a unified, centralised, counter-revolutionary force (and if you can see beyond all the bogus intellectual hypocrisy, this is clearly also the case in contemporary Britain, America and Russia, and not just in fascist Germany and Italy). And since they are aware that the source of our power is the knowledge we have of the ’geological stratification’ of the historical underground, they even try and steal that from us as well!
Us, of all people, should we really be so unwarlike as to dishonour the power and the form which this unstoppable energy of ours will have to assume, namely: the revolutionary party and the iron State of the Dictatorship? Within these organisational structures particular individuals will hold certainly key positions, of course, but their duty, far from engaging in personal manoeuvring and secret intrigues and conspiracies, will be to rigorously abide by the tasks which the historical process has set these organs of irreversibly revolutionising the economic and social forms.
The assertion by certain organisations, different from the party, that they can guarantee against the degeneration of leaders, or other official appointees, is tantamount to a repudiation of our entire doctrinal edifice.
In fact the network of "leaders" and "hierarchs" in these organisations is the same as in the party, and in general it isn’t even solely composed of workers. And even if they were, History has taught us the unhappy truth that the ex‑worker who leaves his job to work in the trade-union bureaucracy is generally more likely to betray his class than somebody originating from the non‑proletarian classes. Examples? We could provide thousands of them.

Last edited: