In my comment I raise two main questions about the Eley/Nield essay.First, I express some doubts about whether the issues discussed in their essaycan be unproblematically transposed to historiographical debates in areas beyondWestern Europe and North America. Certain themes, such as the need toreemphasize the political, are hardly pressing given the continual emphasis onpolitics and the state in Latin American labor history. Closely related to this,I question whether the state of gender studies within labor history can be used,in the way these authors seem to be doing, as a barometer of the sophisticationand vitality of labor and working-class history. Despite recognizing thetremendous contribution of gendered approaches to labor history, I expressdoubts about its ability to help us rethink the category of class, and evenexpress some concern that it might occlude careful consideration of classidentities. Instead, pointing to two pathbreaking works in Latin American laborhistory, I argue that the types of questions we ask about class, and primarilyabout class, can provide the key to innovative scholarship about workers even ifquestions such as gender or ethnicity go unexamined. Finally, I point out thatclass will only be a vital category of analysis if it is recognized not simplyas “useful,” but as forming a basis for genuinely creative andinnovative historical studies.