Is this not one of the (foreseen) outcomes of twentieth century social democracy- that the consequence of class weakens as social conditions improve? (It is not eliminated, the consequences are just less severe.)

So in terms of constructing a democratic- or even a revolutionary- political movement of justice, that shift and fragmentation of identity must be acknowledged. What do someone who is long-term unemployed, someone who is a worker in a factory/ call centre/ warehouse, a low pay public sector worker, a member of an ethnic minority in an inner city, or a self-employed plumber or van driver, have in common?

Well, as Paul suggests rather more than they care to think. However, in political terms, they may well make- and do make- very different political decisions as they perceive their place in the world differently. Is it not the function of the left to find where there is common ground amongst them to advance justice further rather than try to construct a new over-arching class identity?

And I too like the notion of working classes- which in fairness is where Hobsbawm was coming form…..

That's a useful feed in to debate, and I like the shorthand distinction between working class and working classes. Certainly i think this whole area of what it is to be working class, and according to whom (hegemonic discourse of what class is and all that) has been underdeveloped in last few years, so I look forward to engaging on it.

Defining a working class as one which does not own the means of productions is very useful, and probably the most accurate way of doing so. However, it is not necessarily the most useful when discussing a subject, analysing a situation or planning a course of action.

Different working classes may not have interesting which are aligned with one another. For example, in the early 19th century the hand loom weaving industry was flooded with new labour which suppressed wages. The weavers agitated for protection, ther best interest was not in the interest of the portion of the working classes which was currently out of work. However, if more sections of the working classes of the time had pulled together everyones lot may have been improved.

When it comes to political strategy it has to be made clear to the working classes that although individually action may not be in their interests, collectively it is. This would even be true for the "middle" working classes.

If you'll bear with me, I'll cover this in detail in a post to come shortly.

Best

Paul

Your definition would apply to anyone who doesn't have ownership over their means of production- almost everyone…..

The problem is in political terms, it doesn't work anymore to appeal to that large group as a homogenous whole. So what's needed is a degree of understanding modern Britain socio-demographically. If the left doesn't, then it will be irrelevant. But that is a very different thing from saying that the next Labour party must be a reincarnation of new Labour. That particular conclusion doesn't follow.

There's still a working class. They're the people whose surplus labour is skimmed, whether or not they define themselves as worknig class. Most don't, either because of middle class aspiration, or because the've never worked.

The challenge is not to adopt a more plural politics, but to redescribe what it is to be working class in a way the working class can identify with.