Doubt all you like, but both the WPK and CPC are overwhelmingly proletarian parties in states where the commanding heights and backbone of the economy are publicly owned at a minimum.
Public ownership + a proletarian ruling party ≠ the working class controls the state.
State ownership is not automatically worker control. Even if a ruling party genuinely represents the working class, that does not by itself establish that ordinary workers possess meaningful power over the state or over the party leadership.
You’re drawing a hard line within a class, which is more of an obfuscation of class analysis than a coherence towards it. Further, yes, both the WPK and CPC do engage with and are representative of the broader working classes.
X to doubt.
Doubt all you like, but both the WPK and CPC are overwhelmingly proletarian parties in states where the commanding heights and backbone of the economy are publicly owned at a minimum.
Public ownership + a proletarian ruling party ≠ the working class controls the state.
State ownership is not automatically worker control. Even if a ruling party genuinely represents the working class, that does not by itself establish that ordinary workers possess meaningful power over the state or over the party leadership.
You’re drawing a hard line within a class, which is more of an obfuscation of class analysis than a coherence towards it. Further, yes, both the WPK and CPC do engage with and are representative of the broader working classes.