In other words, it is urban vs suburban and rural. That defies the received Marxist wisdom of class being a major factor in political behavior. It means one of the following two things. 1. Socio-economic class does not matter that much; or 2. socio-economic class matters, but it is defined in manner different from that of the received Marxist wisdom.
I am inclined to go with proposition 2. What I think defines socio-economic class includes, in the order of importance: 1. Socio-cultural identity 2. Institutions reproducing and representing socio-cultural identities 3. Occupational status 4. Level of education 5. Income
Socio-cultural identity is "socially constructed" from several elements, including geographical proximity (i.e. what kind of household and neighborhood a person lives in) and reference groups a person identifies with.
Institutions reproducing and representing socio-cultural identities include civil and political society associations (to use Gramsci's terminology) such as unions, employers' associations, think tanks, or political parties, as well as cultural institutions such as the media, cultural production organizations, or organized religion.
Occupational status means the type of occupation and its social standing, which includes a combination of skills and social perceptions of the value of those skills.
Level of education and income are self explanatory.
The combinations of these five elements offer a very different picture of class divisions than the received Marxist wisdom holds. And they explain far more than the conventional marxist concept of class.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."