Ok, I have been all over the place a bit, point taken. Instead of arguing more I am just going to go by the lines, hoever arbitrarty they may be, that if you are a professional you are middle class and shouldnt be part of day to day anarchist organizing unless a group I am in or I feel that this person is somehow worthy of it. If not I will just choose not to organize with em. Furthermore, I think you can be middle class if you were born working class but you will always have that class as a cultural background which will make you more palatable than a straight up middle classer but still middle class....and I will just go from there and you folkz can think whatever makes you happy.



Can comment on articles and discussions
It does seem like you have no real idea of what 'middle' or 'working' class is except some arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. The problem is that not only are these lines complete fiction when drawn against real situations and real people, but that they are meaningless in even a theoretical way.
There is no consistency to (for example what John pointed out), or in saying that how working class you are comes down to birth, because some of the biggest arseholes in the business world came from down and out roots. Over here Sir Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and a host of less well known faces are among the wealthiest in the world and cause more damage than a teacher could manage in a lifetime. Roman Abramovich, one of the world's wealthiest men, came from nowehere in deepest poorest Russia. Kruschev himself was the son of a fucking peasant farmer. On the other side, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, and Emma Goldman came from extremely wealthy backgrounds, and are some of the most celebrated figures in the movement, forming the backbone of its theory and indpiring some of its greatest heroes. Durruti himself was a highly skilled worker who in todays terms had the capability to earn as much as any teacher.