In 2019 workers and peasants made up 34.8% of the Communist Party, while professionals, managers, students, and Public Servants made up 37.2%. So at minimum they are outnumbered by a far more materially rich, and influential/powerful, faction within the party.
public servants are ‘workers’,
Marx wouldn't think so, the interests of civil servants are aligned with that of the state, not with those of the Proleterian and Peasantry.
The bureaucracy is the state formalism of civil society. It is the state's consciousness, the state's will, the state's power, as a Corporation. (The universal interest can behave vis-a-vis the particular only as a particular so long as the particular behaves vis-a vis the universal as a universal. The bureaucracy must thus defend the imaginary universality of particular interest, i.e., the Corporation mind, in order to defend the imaginary particularity of the universal interests, i.e., its own mind. The state must be Corporation so long as the Corporation wishes to be state.) Being the state's consciousness, will, and power as a Corporation, the bureaucracy is thus a particular, closed society within the state
Unless it can be proven that the Chinese state is genuinely a DOTP, the interests of its civil servants are opposed to those of its Proletarians and Peasantry.
You can't justifiably argue that "a large chunk of the retirees are likely former workers" when a large chunk of the active membership now are not workers.
Unless you believe that the interests of the Chinese PMC are genuinely aligned with those of its Proletarian and Peasantry, their large presence in the communist Party is counter to the interests of the Chinese proletarian and Peasantry.
Occupation of a party member. There are 6.445 million workers, 25.561 million farmers, herders and fishermen, 14.403 million professional and technical personnel in enterprises, public institutions and social organizations, 10.104 million management personnel in enterprises, public institutions and social organizations, and 7.678 million staff in party and government agencies There are 1.960 million students, 7.104 million other professional staff, and 18.661 million retirees.
Regardless, the CPC is deeply unrepresentative of the Chinese working class, as 27.5% of the Chinese labor force is Industrial workers, but they're a far smaller percentage of CPC members, at minimum they are under 7% of the party's membership. (as, the category of workers does include more than just industrial workers, and they wouldn't fall under any other category of CPC members)
China's a well managed State-Capitalist society, which has been beneficial for its working class, but the CPC is not Communist.
OK this complaint is a bit misleading, I don't think there's any prominent or effective Marxist party that still narrowly defines the working class as "workers" the way that Marx did 150 years ago. Notably absent from this conversation are peasants, who outnumber "workers" 4:1 in the party.
There are reasons to argue that industrial workers innately have greater class consciousness than peasants or gig economy "petit-bourgeois" but there are far more reasons to include almost anyone who earns a livelihood through labor rather than capital gains in the working class.
Looking at your link PMC types make up 26% of the party and college graduates around 50% of party membership, they're over-represented but far from a dominant or majority faction.
Another way to look at it is that in 2019 workers and peasants were 34.8% of the Communist Party, while professionals, managers, students, and Public Servants made up 37.2% of the membership. It's laughable to argue that such a composition could possibly create a working class vanguard party.
There are reasons to argue that industrial workers innately have greater class consciousness than peasants or gig economy “petit-bourgeois” but there are far more reasons to include almost anyone who earns a livelihood through labor rather than capital gains in the working class.
The economic class interests of Managers and the Petit-Bougroise stand in opposition to that of the Proletarian, this is true regardless of whether they earn a livelihood from their labor. If they are the dominant force in a political party (as they are in the CPC) then the party is not Marxist.
This analysis is way, way too simplistic as it ignores the realities of the 21st century economy and glosses over the compositions of each group. "Worker" has a very restrictive definition that excludes many professions, like teachers, doctors, and postal workers. I can't imagine any working class movement that aims to shut out these groups and ignores their revolutionary potential from the get-go.
By Marx's definition, Uber drivers are petit-bourgeois. Someone selling handicrafts on Etsy is petit-bourgeois. An unemployed person isn't even that, they're lumpenproletariat. Do all of these people "stand in opposition to the Proletarian"??
Even if your answer is yes by a purely textual perspective, you have to recognize that the types of "workers" that Marx talked about are a tiny fraction of the population in most developed economies and that fraction is shrinking by the day. How can this tiny fraction represent "the working class"? How can any successful revolutionary movement rely on industrial workers to the exclusion of every other type of laborer?
Occupation of a party member. There are 6.445 million workers, 25.561 million farmers, herders and fishermen, 14.403 million professional and technical personnel in enterprises, public institutions and social organizations, 10.104 million management personnel in enterprises, public institutions and social organizations, and 7.678 million staff in party and government agencies There are 1.960 million students, 7.104 million other professional staff, and 18.661 million retirees.
So no, the PMC in the CPC are not actually Uber drivers, and regardless 27.5% of the Chinese Labour force are industrial workers so even by the most reductive definition for "Workers" possible, which is not the definition that the CPC uses, CPC membership is still vastly non-representative of the Chinese working class. It is however, like the National People's Congress, disproportionally representative of Chinese billionaires, which I fail to see as a good thing in a purportedly "Communist" party. That certainly isn't Marxism.
But if you find evidence that the CPC is actually including millions of Uber drivers and corner store owners in their definitions of Managers, and Professionals, I'd be happy to hear it.
I support the PRC, but this dosen't mean I'm blind to the composition of the CPC.
I stand by my definition of "the working class" as anyone who makes their livelihood through labor rather than capital gains. Jack Ma could never work another day in his life and still make more money than 99.999% of the population so I think he fits squarely in the latter category.
It states right there in your quote "7.104 million people employed in other fields" (其他职业人员710.4万名). It doesn't imply that they're PMC, only that they're employed in fields that don't qualify them as workers, farmers, professional/technical personnel, or managers. Given that there are millions of "petit-bourgeois" delivery drivers alone in China, I don't see why you find the idea that some of them are members of the party to be absurd.
The CPC definition of worker (工人) is also fairly restrictive and applies only to industrial workers, although the inclusion of skilled and technical workers (工勤技能人员) means it includes people like welders. It absolutely does not apply to taxi drivers.
Honestly I'm not quite sure what you're arguing, I never once said CPC membership perfectly represented the class and strata breakdown within the PRC, only that it's a working class party and most party members are working class. The vast majority of party members are not billionaires and only a small fraction are managers, most are or were working class people.
I think you could make a strong argument that the CPC is not (or should be) a working class party but a "whole of society" party given its priority of economic development but that requires a much more in-depth and nuanced discussion than looking at party membership and calling anyone who isn't a worker or peasant bourgeois.
My argument is that the CPC is unrepresenatative of the Chinese labour force, given its underrepresenation of industrial workers, peasants, and almost certainly other informal workers, and overrepresentation of Professionals, Capitaliststs, and Managers.
This is a fact, even if the CPC is not wholly dominated by the latter, membership is still disproportionately held (in comparision to their share if the overall population) by those who are opposed to the interests of the working class.
The construction of the CPC as an elitist and exclusionary organisation is bad, and should be changed such that it's genuinely a force for socialism that is not undermined by its membership including figures like Jack MA.
I know more working class Chinese people who have the class consciousness to better process the political economy (that’s what Marxism is called in China) education than the “elite” party members.
That's a point in China's favor in it's own right. American working class people and elites, alike, think Marxism is when you are a totalitarian dictator of a large caribbean island.
deleted by creator
Yeah it's impossible to say the CPC is "the vanguard of the Chinese working class,” (as its constitution states) when, in 2019, there was more than 4x as many Managers/Professionals than actual workers among its membership .
Read the billboard:
https://wuyihk.org/Main_Diy/diymodule/puc/term/a5cbe658aca3eaecce7fc37160f866ac.jpg
deleted by creator
In 2019 workers and peasants made up 34.8% of the Communist Party, while professionals, managers, students, and Public Servants made up 37.2%. So at minimum they are outnumbered by a far more materially rich, and influential/powerful, faction within the party.
Marx wouldn't think so, the interests of civil servants are aligned with that of the state, not with those of the Proleterian and Peasantry.
Source
Unless it can be proven that the Chinese state is genuinely a DOTP, the interests of its civil servants are opposed to those of its Proletarians and Peasantry.
You can't justifiably argue that "a large chunk of the retirees are likely former workers" when a large chunk of the active membership now are not workers.
Unless you believe that the interests of the Chinese PMC are genuinely aligned with those of its Proletarian and Peasantry, their large presence in the communist Party is counter to the interests of the Chinese proletarian and Peasantry.
Look at the CPC's own breakdown of the occupations of their members (translated)
Regardless, the CPC is deeply unrepresentative of the Chinese working class, as 27.5% of the Chinese labor force is Industrial workers, but they're a far smaller percentage of CPC members, at minimum they are under 7% of the party's membership. (as, the category of workers does include more than just industrial workers, and they wouldn't fall under any other category of CPC members)
China's a well managed State-Capitalist society, which has been beneficial for its working class, but the CPC is not Communist.
It is absolutely a DOTP
That's an incredibly broad spectrum of people. And it isn't clear what divides these people from "workers" dialectically.
It's beginning to sound like the anti-union line, where you try to claim organizers aren't Real Workers.
deleted by creator
OK this complaint is a bit misleading, I don't think there's any prominent or effective Marxist party that still narrowly defines the working class as "workers" the way that Marx did 150 years ago. Notably absent from this conversation are peasants, who outnumber "workers" 4:1 in the party.
There are reasons to argue that industrial workers innately have greater class consciousness than peasants or gig economy "petit-bourgeois" but there are far more reasons to include almost anyone who earns a livelihood through labor rather than capital gains in the working class.
Looking at your link PMC types make up 26% of the party and college graduates around 50% of party membership, they're over-represented but far from a dominant or majority faction.
Another way to look at it is that in 2019 workers and peasants were 34.8% of the Communist Party, while professionals, managers, students, and Public Servants made up 37.2% of the membership. It's laughable to argue that such a composition could possibly create a working class vanguard party.
The economic class interests of Managers and the Petit-Bougroise stand in opposition to that of the Proletarian, this is true regardless of whether they earn a livelihood from their labor. If they are the dominant force in a political party (as they are in the CPC) then the party is not Marxist.
This analysis is way, way too simplistic as it ignores the realities of the 21st century economy and glosses over the compositions of each group. "Worker" has a very restrictive definition that excludes many professions, like teachers, doctors, and postal workers. I can't imagine any working class movement that aims to shut out these groups and ignores their revolutionary potential from the get-go.
By Marx's definition, Uber drivers are petit-bourgeois. Someone selling handicrafts on Etsy is petit-bourgeois. An unemployed person isn't even that, they're lumpenproletariat. Do all of these people "stand in opposition to the Proletarian"??
Even if your answer is yes by a purely textual perspective, you have to recognize that the types of "workers" that Marx talked about are a tiny fraction of the population in most developed economies and that fraction is shrinking by the day. How can this tiny fraction represent "the working class"? How can any successful revolutionary movement rely on industrial workers to the exclusion of every other type of laborer?
That isn't Marxism, it's dogma.
Is Jack Ma a worker?
Here's the CPC's own occupation breakdown of the party (Translated)
So no, the PMC in the CPC are not actually Uber drivers, and regardless 27.5% of the Chinese Labour force are industrial workers so even by the most reductive definition for "Workers" possible, which is not the definition that the CPC uses, CPC membership is still vastly non-representative of the Chinese working class. It is however, like the National People's Congress, disproportionally representative of Chinese billionaires, which I fail to see as a good thing in a purportedly "Communist" party. That certainly isn't Marxism.
But if you find evidence that the CPC is actually including millions of Uber drivers and corner store owners in their definitions of Managers, and Professionals, I'd be happy to hear it.
I support the PRC, but this dosen't mean I'm blind to the composition of the CPC.
I stand by my definition of "the working class" as anyone who makes their livelihood through labor rather than capital gains. Jack Ma could never work another day in his life and still make more money than 99.999% of the population so I think he fits squarely in the latter category.
It states right there in your quote "7.104 million people employed in other fields" (其他职业人员710.4万名). It doesn't imply that they're PMC, only that they're employed in fields that don't qualify them as workers, farmers, professional/technical personnel, or managers. Given that there are millions of "petit-bourgeois" delivery drivers alone in China, I don't see why you find the idea that some of them are members of the party to be absurd.
The CPC definition of worker (工人) is also fairly restrictive and applies only to industrial workers, although the inclusion of skilled and technical workers (工勤技能人员) means it includes people like welders. It absolutely does not apply to taxi drivers.
Honestly I'm not quite sure what you're arguing, I never once said CPC membership perfectly represented the class and strata breakdown within the PRC, only that it's a working class party and most party members are working class. The vast majority of party members are not billionaires and only a small fraction are managers, most are or were working class people.
I think you could make a strong argument that the CPC is not (or should be) a working class party but a "whole of society" party given its priority of economic development but that requires a much more in-depth and nuanced discussion than looking at party membership and calling anyone who isn't a worker or peasant bourgeois.
My argument is that the CPC is unrepresenatative of the Chinese labour force, given its underrepresenation of industrial workers, peasants, and almost certainly other informal workers, and overrepresentation of Professionals, Capitaliststs, and Managers.
This is a fact, even if the CPC is not wholly dominated by the latter, membership is still disproportionately held (in comparision to their share if the overall population) by those who are opposed to the interests of the working class.
The construction of the CPC as an elitist and exclusionary organisation is bad, and should be changed such that it's genuinely a force for socialism that is not undermined by its membership including figures like Jack MA.
There are zero capitalists in the politburo
This isn’t even inherently true in a capitalist country, let alone a socialist one
Peasants don't exist in China as feudal relations have been abolished. So yes, they're workers.
deleted by creator
That's a point in China's favor in it's own right. American working class people and elites, alike, think Marxism is when you are a totalitarian dictator of a large caribbean island.