One thing I find very slippery about class is pronouncements like “if you work, you’re a worker”. John Howard ‘works’, but is he “working class” or something else? I suspect that this line is a sneaky way for middle class unionists who earn heaps to get in on the class issue. On the other hand, I work in an office job which I quite enjoy most of the time - which doens’t fit into mouldy workerist conceptions of the proletariat either.

I can identify the middle class by their born-tosucceed airs but that’s about all. I don’t think that its enough to idenitfy classes by the kinds of work people do, or whether or not they do work, or their salaries. To do so is obviously limited and will never lead to any kind of solidarity. Jordan calls it the ruling class vs the ‘disposessed’, which I think is a bit too slippery, but it has a social/psychological basis which might be useful. On the other hand saying that you’re working class is you ‘feel working class’ doesn’t have an economic basis.

The wobblies use the “power to hire and fire” as a line in the class sand. But, I’m not sure its all that useful - ultimately those at the bottom of the hire and fire pile are workers too and gain little priviledge from their power. Or do they? I don’t know.

The “struggling mums and dads” of Howard’s Australia - are they working class? They might have a small business but are in the shit financially. Traditionally, these petty bourgeoisie have been the enemy/scapegoat/convenient target of the working class. Whether they’re workers per se, I don’t think they form the ‘real enemy’ and might be co-opted to the struggle. They work long hours underpaid and have a consciousness of themselves as small fry versus the big banks - they might be struggling to get out of the working class, but I doubt they’re there yet.