Professional Athletes? Class?

[ВАЛТЕР]

What class would they be considered? I mean, would they not be a proletariat in the sense that they are selling their skills and labor in order to entertain?

Also, in a Communist society would it be acceptable for a person to simply be an athlete? Since they do work hard and offer entertainment for people.

I'm just thinking out loud trying to get an idea what you guys think.

[tfb]

They are just like artists. Except they can get injured, physically and mentally. And they have shorter careers.

[Rodrigo]

What class would they be considered? I mean, would they not be a proletariat in the sense that they are selling their skills and labor in order to entertain?

So, we have to answer: To whom they are selling their skills and labor? Let's find out.

1) The sponsors;
2) The organizers of the sports event;
3) The team's owners, presidents, etc;
4) The stadium's owners;
5) ...

Also, in a Communist society would it be acceptable for a person to simply be an athlete? Since they do work hard and offer entertainment for people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_athletes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...orean_athletes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuban_athletes

http://www.google.com.br/search?q=co...iw=636&bih=622

Just to begin with.

[ВАЛТЕР]

So, we have to answer: To whom they are selling their skills and labor? Let's find out.

1) The sponsors;
2) The organizers of the sports event;
3) The team's owners, presidents, etc;
4) The stadium's owners;
5) ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_athletes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...orean_athletes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuban_athletes

http://www.google.com.br/search?q=co...iw=636&bih=622

Just to begin with.

So proletariat is right, they just happen to be well payed proletariat . I figured so, but had to ask other people's view on it as well.

I know the Soviets and Cubans took good care of their athletes, and I agree with comrade tfb's statement that they are like artists.

[DarkPast]

I'd also say they're, as a rule, proletariat. Of course, if they own a company or rent real estate on the side it's a different story. But if they don't do that, then their only source of income is the "cut" the ruling class assigns to them (after all, the ruling class could decide to cut their salary). It's all about who owns the means of production.

In a communist society I think it would be best if the dull, menial jobs were shared by all. Our technology allows for these to be done far more easily than in the past. The rest of the time could be spent doing whatever job you want and - if applicable - are qualified for (though I guess the society should require a certain number of people to work as doctors and similar high-education but necessary professions).

[Rising Sun]

Yeah. Alex Rodriguez who plays for the Yankees making $32 million a year is just a "well-payed proletarian".

Ha Ha Ha Ha

[eric922]

Yeah. Alex Rodriguez who plays for the Yankees making $32 million a year is just a "well-payed proletarian".

Ha Ha Ha Ha

From what I understand money does not define class, relation to the means of production defines class. The idea that money defines class is a bourgeois invention.

[Apoi_Viitor]

From what I understand money does not define class, relation to the means of production defines class.

That's probably true up to a certain point, but if you're making millions of dollars a year, a socialist revolution is certainly not in your interest.

[piet11111]

But what if a celebrity has to hire a manager that works exclusively for the celebrity ?
Or a personal assistant ?

Somewhere there has to be a line because at one point they can be like Oprah who is a full capitalist.

[EvilRedGuy]

Petty-Bourgeois, like some artists are. Mainstream musicians, All athletes, etc. All petty-bourgeois. They are self-employed and get paid from doing a non-productive work. Scum that does no actual work. When someone gets paid millions for playing football and not working something is seriously wrong.

[xub3rn00dlex]

We also have to take into account that not all sports reward their athletes for performance. Take bodybuilding for example, the guys who are professional top level competitors don't actually make all that much from competing, but rather from sponsors of different supplement companies. So I'd assume this would still be selling their labor to companies producing supplements?

[piet11111]

We also have to take into account that not all sports reward their athletes for performance. Take bodybuilding for example, the guys who are professional top level competitors don't actually make all that much from competing, but rather from sponsors of different supplement companies. So I'd assume this would still be selling their labor to companies producing supplements?

I would tend to agree with you but for millionaire soccer players just the amount of money they make even if it can be considered a wage puts their interests outside our proletarian class interests.

[xub3rn00dlex]

I would tend to agree with you but for millionaire soccer players just the amount of money they make even if it can be considered a wage puts their interests outside our proletarian class interests.

You see while I understand your reasoning, I'm having a hard time deciding whether or not them being millionaires has anything to do with negating their place in the proletariat. Even in a communist society I would view sports more as "hobbies" rather than actual productive labor, but because of how communist societies would function economically becoming successful in sports would be much easier when compared to capitalist society.

Having millions in bank accounts in my opinion simply makes them less prone to advocate revolution. Would a laborer making 2 million a year make him any less part of the proletariat than a laborer making 50,000 a year? No it would not, since both would still be selling their labor to a capitalist class, and neither would own their own means of production. The former laborer would be more financially secure, and I guess his reasons for revolution would be far less out of necessity than the latter.

[Rodrigo]

That's probably true up to a certain point, but if you're making millions of dollars a year, a socialist revolution is certainly not in your interest.

Certainly, but they're still proletarian; alienated, but proletarian...

[eric922]

I'm sorry to derail this thread, but I don't know if this warrants a new thread or not, but if people want I can start a new one. Where do authors fall? I mean Stephen King is a muti-millionare, but doesn't he have to sell his work to publishers?

[graymouser]

I'm sorry to derail this thread, but I don't know if this warrants a new thread or not, but if people want I can start a new one. Where do authors fall? I mean Stephen King is a muti-millionare, but doesn't he have to sell his work to publishers?

Petty bourgeois, he is doing his work himself and not working for a salary.

As for athletes: if you started this year as a player in the NFL and worked at league minimum for the average 3 years, you would make $1,470,000 in those years. That is all the money many players will ever make from football. If you averaged that amount out over 43 years (working from 22, when you graduate college, to 65), that would be about $34,186 per year, not really enough to escape the working class permanently. Most football players (and I'm using football as an example because it's the one I've looked at the figures for the hardest) really are highly paid members of the working class.

Players who are highly paid superstars, can become organically detached from the working class and move into the ranks of the petty or even the haute bourgeoisie. But it's not all that common, and most professional athletes do not get the outrageous salaries of the most conspicuous.