Left wing parties love to say they are ‘fighting for the working class’. It’s an easy slogan, but it leaves them open to criticism. A column in the Wall Street Journal is a case in point (it’s located here and here is an archive version).

“With manufacturing now less than 10% of total employment, who is working-class these days? Should classes be ranked by income, power, connections? Blue vs. white collar? It’s confusing.”

It is confusing, especially since much of the putative ‘working class’ doesn’t actually ‘work’ – this includes children, the elderly, welfare recipients, etc.

The WSJ article also plays around with definitions based on income. “the income ranges of the upper middle class are wide enough to drive a truck through, from $109,000 to $326,000 for a family of two and $154,000 to $462,000 for a family of four.”

Of course the WSJ is just playing with disinformation to confuse the ground. Its writers know perfectly well what people like Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mean by the working class. But readers being subjected to this might not.

I’ve criticized the NDP in the past for the focus on the ‘working class’ (and, indeed, ‘class’ politics generally) because of things like this.

But let’s clear up the confusion in a way that makes sense. The ‘working class’ in an economy can be distinguished from the ‘ownership class’. If you’re not in one, you’re in the other.

It’s based on how you earn your living. Members of the ownership class earn money based on what they own. Their income comes from rent. It may be from ownership of property (the original ‘owner’ class) or the (famous) ‘means of production’. If your income does not come from ownership, you are a member of the working class.

These days, being a member of one class or another isn’t binary. Many people own their own homes, a large number own stocks, and many own their own businesses. Those that own any of these may actually work as well, either at jobs, or self-employment, or to run their business.

So people may have conflicted interests. They want to earn as much employment income as they can, but if they own stocks the benefit when employment income in general goes down. They want affordable housing, but if they own a house they benefit if housing prices continue to increase.

Every time a ‘worker’ manages to (in one way or another) ‘seize the means of production’, they migrate a little bit from the ‘worker’ side of the class divide to the ‘owner’ class.

And – let’s face it – very few people actually want to depend on being a ‘worker’ for their income. All things being equal, it is preferable to be an owner. And the core problem facing workers is not the tiny income they make from working, it’s the barriers that prevent them from owning.

That’s what makes articles like the WSJ’s so seductive – it forces people ask the question, “am I really working class?” and “are working class parties really defending my interests?” The more they identify 9either in ambition or in fact) as ‘owners’ the more the answer to that question is ‘no’.

Having this kind of clarity is vital for left wing parties. The left needs to be crystal clear about who it supports and how it supports them. People don’t want the party to turn on them once they begin to be successful – but that’s what a ‘working class’ party seems it might do.

In an ideal world, nobody should have to work for a living. We should work because we want to, because it makes us better, and it makes society better. That’s an outcome that can include everybody, and that recognizes the legitimate ambitions of the people who work every day, their dependents, an their supporters.