Mark Sapsford refers to the dispersal/fragmentation/outsourcing of aspects of the production process, into smaller units where communication between individuals is restricted by draconian management methods (with the toilet example being one). With irregular working hours it is difficult for working people to meet together, as they would often do in the pub after a shift, to discuss work issues.

Social media seems to me to be one way of enabling these separated individuals to initiate, sustain and develop arguments. On its own it is not THE ANSWER but, it facilitates debate and organisation. Strikes and demonstrations have places too, as do electoral politics. However, as it currently exists, the Labour Party is not the vehicle it was around 1900 (even I was not around then!). It is undergoing some kind of seriously contested realignment since Mr Corbyn arrived, but, it is still substantially tribal. Parties like SNP, Greens, PC, SF are better organised, as are LGBTI+ groups, and feminists and various ethnic/religious organisations. However, Labour wants them ‘to put aside foolish things’ and join Labour and, as a result, they might, but only ‘might’, get some of the things they desire, but only if these are consistent with what Labour deems to be the ‘true path’.

Breaking the UK will result in breaking the vehicle of the financial interests of the City of London. Labour does not want that as can be inferred from Mr John McDonnell’s overtures at Davos.

The main difference I can see is that at some point in the past this may have all been done under one or two roofs with lots of workers in one place together and possibly organising into unions etc etc.

Let me stress our pay was low, our working conditions were poor( the air vent above the solder bath was tiny compared to the much larger one in the bosses office, Signs on the toilet doors about loitering and to hurry up back to work etc.

I used to think of it as an extended production line across borders in a trade union free zone but where we any less Working Class? Ablsolutely not. I remember their being a strong feeling about the NHS due to the nurses strike that happened at the time but beyond that politics were just not raised at all.

I see a similar pattern today with many zero hours care workers etc working individually against unscrupulous bosses making money out of a care system and the many small workplaces and retail in its that litter our out of town areas.

In this case in my opinion getting caught up in looking at it electrorally will always make you think that socialism is as far away as ever. We may have reached peak Corbyn as things stand but only if we don’t try to reach out to the unorganised working class

On the other hand, as I’ve made plain previously, I’m no fan of Mason’s theory of the ‘networked individual/generation’ either. If not primarily in the workplace or online networks where then should the emphasis of organising and struggle lie? In my opinion, to make it as broad, deep and potentially radical as possible, it should primarily be based in real world social movements formed around reproductive and inclusionary struggles e.g. around housing, education, culture and leisure, public transport, public and community health, non-employed income/UBI, and, more broadly, community development. It is not that class should be overlooked or ignored in these movements – indeed the class aspects of their struggles should be constantly emphasisedwhile their ‘membership’ should be broadly conceived and aim to be as open as possible. Connections between such movements and workplaces/trade unions should be constantly sought and developed. But for pity’s sake let’s stop being dogmatic about the leading role of the organised working class in the workplace!

There are two distinct struggles: one is the socialist struggle to replace the political systems that involve power wielded by a ruling elite, no matter how benevolent they may be, and their replacement by systems that are egalitarian and, above all, fair “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” The other struggle is that of the working class against economic and social exploitation by a moneyed, property and business owning class. There is clearly a huge overlap between the two, but they are not identical and should not be confused.

One example may make this clearer. At the 2016 Labour Conference a GMB spokesperson enthused about the Hinkley C project and the very large number of jobs this would provide for their members. This was clearly their job, to organise labour with collective bargaining to get the best deal possible for their members. Most socialists are, however, alarmed at the prospect of such a large investment in nuclear fission power when, arguably, a much better result, including a comparable number of jobs, could come from spending the same amount on renewable energy systems. Not to mention, of course, the potential problems of such a nationally sensitive part of our infrastructure being effectively controlled by foreign governments. Even if all Trade Unions saw the class struggle as a part of their brief, their overriding concern must always be the best deal for their members. Game theory shows us that when individual players try to maximise their return, the overall result for everyone may well end up far from ideal.

We are entering a period of profound change in the way we work. Despite the many contradictory statements, nobody knows the extent of job losses due to automation, or whether UBI or its equivalent will become essential to maintaining a stable society. The only certainty is that change will come in copious quantities! Trade Unionists, like everyone else, will want to emphasise the continuing requirement for workers and their representatives; others will emphasise the properly managed move to shorter hours, part time work and alternative mechanisms for contributing to society. What remains vital is the concentration on the core of both struggles which is the removal of the unholy cabal of bankers, bosses and landlords who currently run society for their own benefit and their replacement by governments in all countries who are prepared to work democratically with everyone to build something better.