>Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I had practical purposes (analyzing X to do Y, for instance to decide whether or not to work harder organizing small shop-keepers in Japan) in mind, rather than arbitrarily chosen analytical purposes (analyzing X to do nothing in particular, at least in immediate terms). Perhaps, for some sort of political organizing, it may occur to some to wish to know what factors matter most when determining "whether a person is a 'capitalist,'" but I don't know what sort. For what practical purpose would you want to know that (not a rhetorical question)?
Yes, that's precisely why class definitions are relevant. From a strategic point of view, since the central strategy for achieving the defeat of capitalism must be an organised working class with that purpose, it is obviously necessary to know what we mean by "working class".
Incidently, the greater proportion of the population is working class, the better for us.
So if you were considering the tactic of organising small shopkeepers, you must of course determine whether this tactic is consistent with overall strategy. If small shopkeepers are capitalist, then clearly the tactic of organising them is inconsistent with the central strategy. Strategy must take precedence over tactics, because even if the tactics promise immediate gains it is always a serious mistake to do something which undermines our only realistic strategy for victory in the long term, for short term gains.
According to my analysis and definition of class, small shopkeepers are objectively working class. So organising them is strategically sound. Though there is still the issue around which they organise which needs to be weighed strategically.
I should say that I would have some doubts about whether it is tactically sound.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas