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.
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.