I know that he was a statist, and he supported inflation (which shorts creditors) but was he really pro-middle class?
If I were to guess, he didn’t care about creditors or debtors, but simply increasing the power of the state. However, I can’t say with >[50 + (1 x 10^-oo)]% certainty, so that’s why I’m asking.
Also, was he against charging interest for loans?
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/04/conservative-case-for-keynesianism.html
This article mentions how his policy implications were to bvenefit of debtors. But i think the whole stimulus-approach benfits debtors, because you borrow X dollars on year and 10 years down the road, it take the same amount of dollars to pay the debt, but from inflation, the debtor gets a nice discount.
I have not read any Keynes but AM told that he was not infavor of sustained public indebtedness, he supported taking on government (Public) debt when Aggregate Demand was determined to be low. BUT…He supported paying off government debt when Aggregate Demand was determined to be high.
Of course the NeoKeynesians of today have completely ignored the BUTt (Pun intended) of the statement and have conglomerated to drive the economy of the greatest lending nation in history into the exact opposite condition of being the greatest debtor in history.
Hayek says in a few interviews that Keynes would probably be against modern Keynesian Theory because Keynes did recognize the problem of growing inflation that some seem to ignore because they are blinded by Aggregate Demand 
Don’t you think that maybe asking this question on a Keynesian forum would produce a more accurate representation of what they believe?
That’s not to say that the guys here are necessarily wrong, just that it is important to learn about different viewpoints from the horses mouth and not second hand via a school of thought that is hostile to keynesianism.