the struggle continues and is, unfortunately, dictated by top-level party bureaucrats more than a robust people’s movement
This is true to a degree. Although I'd say it's quite over-stated in the CPC. The Party is a robust peoples' movement. It has 90 million members and millions of organizations within it, which represent labor, the peasantry, and countless advocacy groups.
The CPC released the class characteristics of their party not too long ago. It showed that the vast majority of the party's 90 million members were peasants. The white-collar bureaucrats made up a slim minority in the party. I'm trying to find this data right now.
When compared to the classic example of bureaucratic rot in a Communist Party, mid-to-late era CPSU, the CPC is in a much better position. In 1956, the CPSU was 51% bureaucrats, 32% proletariat, 17% peasants. These percentages did not change much for the rest of thee party's existence. [1]
From Khrushchev to Gorbachev, political power in the CPSU was expressed through bureaucracy and back-door deals. As a result, the party became unpopular and alienated from the masses. In contrast, the CPC has been carrying out a massively popular line.
Capitalist reforms are justified insofar as China's national bourgeoisie can learn from the capitalist West's technology and expertise. As China becomes moderately prosperous & independent on the capitalist west, the national bourgeoisie no longer serve a use, and must be marginalized.
One would assume if the reforms strengthened the bureaucratic hold on the CPC, we would see accelerated capitalist reforms as China's national wealth increased, since the bureaucrats are easy to buy. Instead, we are seeing continued marginalization of their bourgeoisie.
I'm hopeful that their organs of mass participation in the party continue to direct the party in a direction popular with the workers and peasants.
A caveat is that membership in the CCP does not imply power.
I'd say being a member in the Party implies more power than not being a member.
There is a reason that the CPC's support with peasants and workers continue to rise, while the CPSU's fell. The most obvious explanation is that these parties are beholden to democracy (which, they are). The CPC has a membership which represents the country at-large, whereas the CPSU represented white-collar bureaucrats.
you’re not seeing increased worker ownership, workplace democracy, worker collectives, unions, or local planned economies.
The membership of their national trade union has increased 250% since 2006 [1]. I don't know where to read about worker ownership or local economic planning in China. Where did you read that there was no progress on these fronts?
I kinda think you just made that up, since their unionization rates have skyrocketed, and you said that was not happening...
But not any significant amount over top leadership, which is what I’m talking about.
There is democracy in China, but its primary influence is at the local and county level, and even that is something that was established from above.
What are these claims coming from? Their democracy stops at the county level, but the national politics continues to represent the Democratic will of the people. ???
There’s a lot more going on than democratic interests alone. Party membership is also tied to being generally in good standing, it has ties to career paths, etc.
Yes, I'm not saying the CPC is a perfect democracy. I'm saying that they are a mass political party with millions of grass-roots organizations within it. And their national party line represents the masses better than any ruling political party, demonstrated by their +90% approval rating. These are related. The organized masses are more capable of advocated for their class.
This is not relevant to the point I’m making
Here is exactly what you said:
Increasing party power over a company is one lever for controlling aspects of capitalism, but you’re not seeing increased worker ownership, workplace democracy, worker collectives, unions, or local planned economies. Instead, the reforms addressed by the article are centralized through that top-down bureaucracy and are a subtle (and effective) means for directing production towards projects deemed to be in the national interest.
Most people, myself included, would read this statement as: The CPC is consolidating their political control over major industries, however, they are not pursuing other means of worker power.
In reality, both are happening. The Party is strengthening their control over industry, while strengthening organized labor. That is relevant to the point you are making. The changes in China are not just top-down bureaucrats enforcing their will.
In addition, that national trade union does not actually represent workers’ interests so much as act as a national HR program.
Are you going to substantiate that claim? I do not trust the organizations pushing that line.
US-China Business Council mentioned it, and they are a US-based NGO which has a pretty clear motivation for undermining the ACFTU.
China Labor Bulletin is a Hong Kong-based NGO, whose founder was an NED funded "labor leader". Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions - the largest federation of trade unions in the region - is extremely supportive of the CPC and their relationship with AFTCU.
Lastly, I saw the International Trade Union Confederation pushing this line. They are an anti-communist confederation, which has only ever been led by people from the Global North. They do not recognize the trade unions in Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, or China as legitimate.
Other unions are banned.
Good.
Labor unions are more successful when all branches of labor are united. Allowing unions to split into regional unions or trade-specific unions without a unified organization is disastrous to labor's political power.
Anyone who recognizes the working class has a shared interest in challenging capitalism should advocating for one big union. This has been the case in every single communist country. This has been advocating by radicals in the Global North, such as the Wobblies.
This is true to a degree. Although I'd say it's quite over-stated in the CPC. The Party is a robust peoples' movement. It has 90 million members and millions of organizations within it, which represent labor, the peasantry, and countless advocacy groups.
The CPC released the class characteristics of their party not too long ago. It showed that the vast majority of the party's 90 million members were peasants. The white-collar bureaucrats made up a slim minority in the party. I'm trying to find this data right now.
When compared to the classic example of bureaucratic rot in a Communist Party, mid-to-late era CPSU, the CPC is in a much better position. In 1956, the CPSU was 51% bureaucrats, 32% proletariat, 17% peasants. These percentages did not change much for the rest of thee party's existence. [1]
From Khrushchev to Gorbachev, political power in the CPSU was expressed through bureaucracy and back-door deals. As a result, the party became unpopular and alienated from the masses. In contrast, the CPC has been carrying out a massively popular line.
One would assume if the reforms strengthened the bureaucratic hold on the CPC, we would see accelerated capitalist reforms as China's national wealth increased, since the bureaucrats are easy to buy. Instead, we are seeing continued marginalization of their bourgeoisie.
I'm hopeful that their organs of mass participation in the party continue to direct the party in a direction popular with the workers and peasants.
deleted by creator
I'd say being a member in the Party implies more power than not being a member.
There is a reason that the CPC's support with peasants and workers continue to rise, while the CPSU's fell. The most obvious explanation is that these parties are beholden to democracy (which, they are). The CPC has a membership which represents the country at-large, whereas the CPSU represented white-collar bureaucrats.
The membership of their national trade union has increased 250% since 2006 [1]. I don't know where to read about worker ownership or local economic planning in China. Where did you read that there was no progress on these fronts?
I kinda think you just made that up, since their unionization rates have skyrocketed, and you said that was not happening...
deleted by creator
What are these claims coming from? Their democracy stops at the county level, but the national politics continues to represent the Democratic will of the people. ???
Yes, I'm not saying the CPC is a perfect democracy. I'm saying that they are a mass political party with millions of grass-roots organizations within it. And their national party line represents the masses better than any ruling political party, demonstrated by their +90% approval rating. These are related. The organized masses are more capable of advocated for their class.
Here is exactly what you said:
Most people, myself included, would read this statement as: The CPC is consolidating their political control over major industries, however, they are not pursuing other means of worker power.
In reality, both are happening. The Party is strengthening their control over industry, while strengthening organized labor. That is relevant to the point you are making. The changes in China are not just top-down bureaucrats enforcing their will.
Are you going to substantiate that claim? I do not trust the organizations pushing that line.
US-China Business Council mentioned it, and they are a US-based NGO which has a pretty clear motivation for undermining the ACFTU.
China Labor Bulletin is a Hong Kong-based NGO, whose founder was an NED funded "labor leader". Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions - the largest federation of trade unions in the region - is extremely supportive of the CPC and their relationship with AFTCU.
Lastly, I saw the International Trade Union Confederation pushing this line. They are an anti-communist confederation, which has only ever been led by people from the Global North. They do not recognize the trade unions in Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, or China as legitimate.
Good.
Labor unions are more successful when all branches of labor are united. Allowing unions to split into regional unions or trade-specific unions without a unified organization is disastrous to labor's political power.
Anyone who recognizes the working class has a shared interest in challenging capitalism should advocating for one big union. This has been the case in every single communist country. This has been advocating by radicals in the Global North, such as the Wobblies.
deleted by creator