I didn't say that it was exactly the same as the English system (I'm not even British), I said class - as a system that socially divides people as well as exploits - exists internationally. The English didn't invent class, class shouldn't be viewed purely by English standards.
A system of servants and slaves still exists. The government's acceptance of it (which I would argue it does accept, as it does so little about it and tries to benefit from it as much as possible by not protecting people or giving access to enforcement of rights for those in that situation, particularly as that main reason the government stepped in on either was economic reasons) has nothing to do with whether or not it is a real system or whether their existence affects society and the existence of class.
Income, possessions, and the perception of a person's worth by their access to these is what class is, any formal system is built on top of that and is not required for class to exist. Class is allowed to divide socially, allows and encourages, if not requires, the exploitation of others, and effects people's life chances. That is what class currently does to society. We can call it whatever we like, academically it's called class, we can call "upper class" people snobs or aristocrats or bourgeoisie or hipsters, we can call all "lower class" proletariat, chavs, the underclass, dossers, but it doesn't change the system as it's core. The core is that class exists internationally and still harmful. Whether or not the government tries to legislate one subsection does not affect the whole.