Unveiling Class Discourse: Its Articulation and Generation in Chinese Labor Struggles

ABSTRACT

While the term “class” has largely vanished from China’s public discourse, class discourse has endured within the country’s labor struggles over the last four decades. Nevertheless, class discourse has been articulated in distinct ways across three instances of labor activism: state workers’ opposition to industrial restructuring, worker-initiated collective bargaining, and Marxist-inspired agitation, manifesting as nostalgia, collective rights, and labor emancipation, respectively. This article delves into the origins of these distinct articulations of class discourse by delineating three modes of their emergence: endogenous, exogenous, and symbiotic. It further elucidates how these modes materialize through the interplay of workers’ experiences and the roles undertaken by labor activists from both shopfloors and civil society. The article’s objective extends to evaluating the degree to which these three discursive expressions encapsulate class consciousness, while also delving into their underlying ideological implications.

KEY WORDS:

• class discourse
• class consciousness
• ideology
• labor activism
• civil society
• China

Introduction

The notion of class is not a trendy analytical tool commonly employed to assess labor resistance within the context of contemporary China’s market-driven economic transformation. This is partly attributable to the wanning prominence of class analysis in the social sciences, where some scholars deem the concept outdated in elucidating the dynamics of post-industrial societies. Furthermore, class analysis lost favor within Chinese academia after the conclusion of the Cultural Revolution in 1976. Since then, class struggle has been held responsible by the post-Mao leadership for contributing to political upheaval and social distress.¹ Nevertheless, despite the tendency of most foreign and Chinese scholars to avoid scrutinizing Chinese labor through the lens of class, there has emerged a body of noteworthy literature that seeks to reintegrate this concept into the examination of Chinese labor activism. Approaches within this realm diverge, offering distinct perspectives on how class can be applied to Chinese labor movements. Some scholars, aligned with a Marxist political economy tradition, underscore the significance of economic conditions that transform the predominantly individualized grievances of China’s domestic migrant workers into a collective force against capital. This phenomenon is exemplified by the collective bargaining that took place in Guangdong between 2007 and 2014.² Other scholars draw inspiration from E.P. Thompson’s culturalist viewpoint, which accentuates the role of class experiences in shaping class identity. Such studies delve into the daily struggles of workers in their workplaces, dormitories, and communities. These scholars explore how these struggles, coupled with workers’ participation in the production process, give rise to shared grievances, a common understanding of justice, and bonds of solidarity.³ A third approach involves an examination of class consciousness. This aspect is assessed either through analyzing organized actions undertaken by workers ⁴ or by exploring the narratives articulated by activists and rank-and-file workers.⁵ Scholars’ differing approaches showcase various ways in which the concept can be applied, from analyzing economic conditions to understanding cultural experiences and probing into class consciousness.

These studies direct our attention to diverse facets of class representation. However, scholars rarely examine how the concept of class is expressed within labor struggles and the manner in which workers, particularly those who engage in labor activism, comprehend the concept. Empirical evidence underscores that despite the near vanishing of the term from China’s public discourse, remnants of class-related talk persist within labor resistance. These remnants are manifested through a spectrum of viewpoints communicated via spoken words, written texts, leaflets, and protest slogans that revolve around the status of the working class, the dynamics of labor-capital relations, and the nature of capitalism. Class discourse, serving as a framework for workers’ demands and a rationale for their actions, constitutes a crucial element within Chinese working-class endeavors.

Class discourse within Chinese labor struggles should not be perceived as a static set of expressions with fixed meanings, as some scholars have assumed. While a shared foundation of assumptions concerning economic relationships underpins class discourse, its manifestation fluctuates across various labor contexts where workers assert distinct claims. In this regard, I delineate three specific instances of Chinese labor struggles in which class discourse has distinct forms: resistance exhibited by State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) workers, instances of worker-driven collective bargaining, and the orchestration of protests by non-worker activists who are inspired by Marxist principles. Across these instances of labor struggles, class discourse takes on distinct connotations that align with varied objectives. Consequently, it diverges into three discernible categories, each epitomizing a different motif: a sense of nostalgia, advocacy for collective rights, and the pursuit of labor emancipation.

In this paper I investigate the reasons behind diverse articulations of class discourse and their implications for comprehending class consciousness. I contend that while class discourse is intricately linked to workers’ experiences, as per findings by Thompson and scholars influenced by his insights, labor activists in both workplace and civil society spheres wield a major role in shaping and expressing class discourse. By amalgamating workers’ experiences and actions, along with the agency demonstrated by labor activists, I sketch out and describe three modes of discourse generation: endogenous, exogenous, and symbiotic. “Endogenous” pertains to discourse articulated by shopfloor activists, mirroring the experiences and worldview of SOE workers. “Exogenous” denotes discourse originating from civil society actors adhering to Maoism/Marxism, aiming to mold labor movements in line with their ideals. “Symbiotic” signifies discourse jointly shaped by workers and civil society actors. This typological approach to discourse generation not only enhances our understanding of the spectrum of class discourse in China’s labor struggles, it also underscores a vital consideration—not all discursive expressions are inherently equivalent to workers’ class consciousness due to the influence of civil society actors.

This study is based on three instances of labor resistance. The first concerns anti-privatization struggles in SOEs, specifically cases from factories in Zhengzhou and the Tinghua Steel Mill during SOE reforms in the early 2000s. I examine how shopfloor activists channeled workers’ opposition to marketization by using class-related terminology and framed their resistance through the lens of Maoist socialism. This form of class discourse, expressing SOE workers’ strong nostalgia for the planned economy, I categorize as endogenous.

The second instance revolves around the collective bargaining movement in the Guangdong region during the late 2000s. In this section I discuss Laowei, a law firm turned NGO in Shenzhen, along with other NGOs that played a key role in promoting collective bargaining for workers. Although activists affiliated with these groups critiqued labor relations dominated by capital, their focus was on enhancing labor’s influence vis-à-vis capital by advocating for collective rights rather than for calling for eliminating the market economy. Their discourse, centered on collective rights, embodies a collaborative dynamic between workers and civil society actors, thus fitting the symbiotic model.

The third instance spotlights radical labor activism, epitomized by a protest at the Jasic Technology Company in Shenzhen during the summer of 2018. This predominantly student-driven action offered a forceful critique of capitalism using explicitly Marxist class terminology. Remarkably uncommon since the onset of market reform, the Jasic incident’s resonance in the public sphere unveils a certain radical undercurrent that extends wider in society than solely among workers. The class discourse deployed in this protest, centered on labor emancipation, I classify as exogenous, shaped by forces beyond the immediate labor sphere.

The data I use to discuss these three cases is drawn from the spoken and written expressions of these activists. While these cases are selective and may not encompass the entirety of labor activism, they do offer a glimpse into the realm of class talk that transpired amid protest actions. Moreover, they aid us in comprehending the intricate interplay between experiences, discourse, and distinct roles that labor activists play within varying contexts.⁶

Class discourse and its generation

Students of social movements have been interested in discourse as a vehicle of social meanings that underlies collective action. Some regard it as “cultural codes for making sense of the world.”⁷ Others view it as a “commonly held vision of reality” and “the historically specific world-views” that serve as the basis for the formulation of collective action.⁸ Still others see discourse as “the set principles, concepts, symbols, and rituals used by actors to fabricate strategies of action.”⁹ Discourse is thought to influence start-up, trajectories, successes, failures, and consequences of social movements and protests.¹⁰ According to Robert Benford and Scott Hunt, the key components of discourse are diagnoses that identify problematic dimensions of power relations that are in need of amelioration; prognoses that articulate an alternative vision of power arrangement; compelling rationales for changing power relations and participating in movement drama; and strategic and tactical direction delineating the most effective means to obtain power.¹¹ The application of discourse analysis to social movements examines the process by which actors strive to “fashion shared understandings of the world and of themselves that legitimate and motivate collective action.”¹²

E.P. Thompson and scholars inspired by his seminal work on the English working-class view discourse as a crucial indicator of class consciousness, which is integral to class formation. Infusing his studies with a scrutiny of workers’ publications, letters, platforms, poems, and daily conversations in pubs, Thompson argued that discourse was the bearer of shared moral visions. He sketched the development of the moral language used by workers against industrialization and traced it to the emergence of class discourse and consciousness growing out of shared experiences and struggles in concrete communities.¹³ Focusing on the “fighting words” of English cotton spinners and silk weavers in the early nineteenth century, Marc Steinberg show how these workers produced discourse from resistance to capitalist industrialization and how they articulated their shared experiences of exploitation and oppression as well as their conception of just claim and legitimate pursuit. For Steinberg, class discourse—as an expression of workers’ sense of group purpose, efficacy, vision of a better world, and the target of their redress—shaped the structure and scope of solidarity networks and framed the possibilities for collective action.¹⁴ In his study of artisans in the French Revolution, William Sewell analyzed what he called the “language of labor” and explored how artisans in their responses to capitalist industrialization developed class discourse by combining the collectivism of the corporate tradition with the egalitarianism of the revolutionary tradition.¹⁵ This analytic tradition highlights experience, which denotes the material basis of historical development, as crucial for generating class discourse that is integral to class formation. As Thompson famously said, “class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs … ” ¹⁶ Discourse is the medium through which experience finds expression.¹⁷

Experience is crucial for comprehending class discourse within China’s contemporary labor struggles. Workers’ lived experiences are the very catalysts that give rise to their sentiments and perceptions concerning their economic surroundings. Moreover, these experiences form the bedrock upon which labor activism is built. Nevertheless, a more nuanced analysis is required to elucidate the multifaceted reasons behind the diverse articulation of class discourse in Chinese labor struggles. While the unique nostalgia of SOE workers can be readily associated with their distinct experiences, the largely same experiences shared by migrant workers does not account for the two divergent discourses fueling labor activism—one centered around collective rights and the other focused on labor emancipation. To shed light on this, I use an approach that combines workers’ experiences with the roles played by activists. I posit that activists, whether hailing from the shopfloor or civil society, are key agents for shaping discourse. The absence of a prominent role for trade unions in labor conflicts has created a vacuum within which activists can engage in labor activism. During the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, a period characterized by civil society activism, labor-concerned intellectuals and students occupied a unique position, playing a significant role in labor struggles and in shaping class discourse.¹⁸ The interplay between workers’ experiences and the agency of these non-worker activists culminated in the emergence of three distinct modes of discourse generation.

The endogenous mode

This mode captures a process wherein class discourse primarily emerged organically within the ranks of SOE workers, devoid of substantial external influence. In this context, shopfloor activists had a crucial role in articulating the nostalgia that found its roots in the experiences and sentiments of SOE workers. These workers, who had once been entrenched in socialist ideas, grappled with economic challenges posed by market-driven industrial reforms. By underscoring the stark disparities between workers’ past and present encounters, shopfloor activists crafted narratives that emphasized the capitalist nature of SOE reforms, juxtaposing these with the socialist enterprise of the Maoist era. Shopfloor activists themselves were rank-and-file workers who had experienced the brunt of extensive SOE reforms that upended their socioeconomic standing. Among them, certain individuals stood out as more politically attuned, adept at both utilizing and articulating class discourse more effectively than their peers. This heightened ability could be attributed to their prior experience as rebel activists during the Cultural Revolution.¹⁹

The exogenous mode

This mode characterizes a process wherein class discourse was introduced to domestic migrant workers by external actors—namely, civil society activists. The discourse of emancipation is a prime illustration. This discourse did not originate with workers; rather, it was largely constructed by Marxist/Maoist intellectuals and students who engaged in labor activism but generally lacked factory experience. Motivated by their ideological convictions, these activists’ discourse entailed a resolute critique of the capitalist economy, attributing it as the root cause of workers’ hardship. Their approach was Leninist, emphasizing the cultivation of workers’ consciousness from without. They aimed to mobilize workers through communist ideology, imitating the example of Marxist intellectuals in the Chinese communist movement.²⁰ However, even as these activists identified labor condition causes, the extent to which the discourse advocating for class warfare genuinely mirrored migrant workers’ comprehensions of their situations and desired solutions remains uncertain.

The symbiotic mode

This mode signifies a process in which workers and civil society activists jointly shape narratives centered on collective efforts aimed at labor-related concerns. Within this dynamic, workers collectively voice their claims against employers during factory-based conflicts, expressing their desire for economic justice and a shared aspiration for solidarity. Drawing from a pool of workers’ collective experiences and expressions, civil society activists construct a discursive framework. This framework not only serves to legitimize collective bargaining as a tangible approach to resolving labor disputes, but also positions it as a feasible model of class reconciliation for navigating labor-capital tension within the context of the market economy.

Table I: Generational modes of class discourse

Class discourse	Articulation	Generation mode
As nostalgia	Anti-SOE reform, anti-privatization, call for maintenance of the socialist enterprise system.	Endogenous	Constructed by shopfloor activists who articulated SOE workers’ experiences and sentiments.
As labor emancipation	Anti-capitalism, anti-exploitation and inequality, the working class as a vanguard class.	Exogenous	Created by Marxist/Maoist intellectuals and students.
As collective rights	Collective bargaining, worker representation, worker solidarity.	Symbiotic	Collaboratively constructed by workers and civil society activists.

Studying class discourse in Chinese labor struggles entails examining its connection to class consciousness. Prior research has presumed a close association between class discourse and class consciousness. The former signifies “evidence of intellectual conviction (as opposed to mere desperation),” ²¹ while the latter pertains to the movement that transcends sectional allegiance. Class consciousness implies workers’ “politicized awareness of their social positioning,” manifested in both their actions and language.²² It signifies the strategic transformation and appropriation of workers experiences, vocalized through class discourse.²³ In other words, discursive expressions of class serve as an indicator of workers’ class consciousness, alongside their collective actions. However, as evidenced by my case study, the interplay of social actors in articulating class discourse complicates a straightforward relationship between it and class consciousness. The degree to which these discourses encapsulate class consciousness hinges on whether they are endogenously, exogenously, or symbiotically generated.

These three modes of discourse generation illustrate that while labor activists have varied in their expressions of class-related ideas, a common thread has been their efforts to leverage official rhetoric in support of their own approaches. As is well known, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has undergone significant ideological shifts since the late 1970s, adapting its ideology to justify its support of a market economy while upholding fundamental principles essential for its political legitimacy. Core Marxist notions about capitalism and the role of the working class have persisted within this shifting ideological landscape. Consequently, CCP ideology has evolved into a mixture of orthodox, pragmatic, and deviant components, incorporating norms from the market economy.²⁴ This ideological fragmentation has provided labor activists with a space to navigate and exploit official narratives. The nostalgia discourse drew upon socialist ideals, a facet the party has never disavowed. Simultaneously, the emancipation discourse critiqued capitalism from a Marxist perspective, a standpoint that remains central to the official ideology. Advocates have framed their claims within the bounds of ideological tenets, making it challenging for authorities to outright dismiss them. Similarly, the collective rights discourse has aligned with official CCP concepts introduced to accommodate the market economy, including collective consultation, tripartism, and democratic management. In summary, appropriating official ideological tenets as a moral cover is a prevalent tactic employed by labor activists in China.

Class discourse as nostalgia

Once comprising a substantial segment of China’s labor force, SOE workers fell victim to the sweeping market reforms initiated in 1979. The mid-1990s witnessed an aggressive wave of industrial restructuring and privatization of SOEs that displaced millions of workers from their jobs. Faced with policies that stripped away the privileges they had enjoyed during the Maoist era and disrupted their livelihoods, many state workers took to the streets in protest. Having occupied a privileged stratum in society, SOE workers had not only reaped the benefits of a socialist industrial system that conferred pride and stature, they had also internalized party doctrines on class differences, class struggle, and the inherent conflict between socialism and capitalism. Thus, it comes as no surprise that they voiced their indignation through the political language to which they had been acclimated.

Class discourse as nostalgia encapsulated SOE workers’ interpretation of their role within the socialist planned economy and their intricate connection to the state apparatus. For these workers, the state constituted the wellspring of their class identity and social standing. The party-state had officially enshrined the working class as society’s vanguard class, a principle embedded in both the CCP and PRC constitutions. SOE workers perceived their class standing as a product of the state’s communist essence, rendering it politically unchallengeable. This perception was further informed by their privileged socioeconomic status, which set them apart from peasants. The state-guaranteed entitlements they received were the material foundation that underpinned their relationship with the state as a class. But radical industrial reforms begun after 1979 shattered the fabric of their lives. Amid these upheavals, workers voiced their discontent over the erosion of their political and economic stature, attributing the reform measures to a betrayal of the working class’s interests. One post on the Gongnong Wang (worker and peasant website) is illustrative:

The victory of the socialist revolution has made the working class control the means of production of socialist public ownership and become the Master of Enterprises and the national economy; after the two decades of Reform and Opening Up, the social status of the working class has undergone fundamental changes, and it has once again become an exploited and oppressed wage laborer, a vulnerable group in Chinese society. This is a major reversal … Chinese society has evolved from socialism to capitalism.

On a number of left-leaning social media platforms where worker activists often post their views, SOE reforms were criticized as having “not only severely weakened public ownership as the economic basis of the socialist system, but also reduced the working class, which is clearly recognized in the national constitution as the master of socialist China, from masters to wage laborers under the conditions of a market economy” and “torn apart the Chinese working class” with the layoff of millions of workers.²⁵

If mass layoffs already sparked workers’ resentment at their abandonment by the state, state-endorsed privatization of SOEs further angered workers as a total betrayal to both socialism and the working class. It precipitated the vehement reactions from workers, activating their usage of class language to condemn these schemes. For one such worker activist, “whether the enterprise is owned by the bourgeoisie or the working class is the essential difference between capitalism and socialism,” he wrote. Privatization, he argued, “change[s] state-owned enterprises into the private property of capitalists, relegating workers to be factors of production purchased by capital … ”²⁶ For SOE workers, privatization led to the collusion of the state and capital, “creating a new class of capitalists starting from scratch, as well as hundreds of millions of new proletarians like us, and intensifying class contradictions.” One commentator asked, “since property rights belong to entrepreneurs, this was the case in China before 1949, why should the CCP sacrifice millions of people’s lives to carry out the revolution?!”²⁷

During my fieldwork in Zhengzhou, Henan province, in the early 2000s I found class discourse on full display in some instances of workers’ resistance against privatization schemes. At the Zhengzhou Paper Mill, activists often used the term “class struggle” (jieji douzheng) to frame the anti-privatization protests they led. A leaflet distributed by activists called their struggle against privatization a “proletarian movement” (wuchanjieji yundong) . In a confrontational encounter, the new owner of the paper mill accused the labor activists of “engaging class struggle,” suggesting that their actions were illegitimate as the concept of class struggle had been rejected by the CCP’s post-Mao leadership. Challenging this accusation, one worker activist told me, “there is nothing wrong with class struggle,” adding, “what you are doing is class vengeance.”

In my interviews with worker activists, some of them openly expressed a belief that their fight against privatization was a clear manifestation of class struggle. They believed that oppression and polarization inevitably culminate in class struggle. During months of protests, workers occupied the factory and set up picket lines to prevent the private entrepreneurs who had bought the factory from entering the premises. The worker activists called their actions “a struggle to defend our homeland and lifeblood,” which vividly expressed workers’ strong sentimental attachment to SOEs. Workers believed that their protests were justified, not only because they were supposed to be “the master of the enterprise,” as the CCP once claimed, but also because they had legitimate shares in factory property which they earned through their lifelong labor. As one worker leader declared, “We built the enterprise, we can’t watch the enterprise be taken away by private companies!”

As privatization policies heightened workers’ discontent, they began to question the fundamental nature of the socialist state. As one worker activist from the paper mill remarked, “we workers have despaired of the government. We just don’t believe that they still represent workers’ interests.” Another contended:

The reform must rely on the working class. Isn’t the purpose of the party to rely on the working class? But now the Party has relied on a handful of people rather than on the working class. The Party’s nature and the purpose have changed.

A anonymous flyer that circulated during the days of protest captured the workers’ understanding of their class status under market reform:

Today’s industrial foundation in China has been established at the cost of the blood and lives of workers spanning multiple generations. The Chinese working class actively participated in the Revolution to gain control over the means of production, encompassing factories and equipment. This control exerted by the working class over the means of production has significantly influenced the character of our nation. However, government officials are currently urging us to relinquish ownership of the factories and hand over the means of production to capitalists, all the while labeling this arrangement as socialist. This portrayal is a blatant deception, grossly misleading the people … .²⁸

The privatization protest that unfolded at the Tonghua Steel Company in 2009 offers an additional example of class discourse. The general manager who had been appointed by the private interests that had bought the company was killed in a chaotic attack by angry workers. The violent clash eventually forced the new owners to withdraw their privatization scheme. The protest was saturated with the use of class language. Worker activists called it “a battle between working class and capitalists,” “a struggle against the restoration of capitalism,” and “signifying the rise of workers’ class consciousness.” Mr. Wu, one of the key leaders in the protest, stated that the root cause of the tragedy was the suppression of workers by a “new type of capitalist,” namely, former factory cadres who embezzled state assets. According to him, this new type of capitalist was more vicious, ruthless, and greedier. Workers’ anger at privatization plans were exacerbated when they learned that the new general manager’s annual salary was three million yuan, not counting shares and bonuses, in sharp contrast with workers’ average salary of 3,000 yuan per month. For Mr. Wu, because workers had lost the “status of masters, it was useless for them to say anything [against privatization]” and hence (he implied) violence was justified to stop the privatization scheme.²⁹

The nostalgia discourse highlights the profound longing felt by state workers for Maoist socialism, which was deeply rooted in what an activist referred to as the “SOE complex.” According to this activist, this sentiment was not only markedly evident among the Tonggang workers, it was also shared by workers from other SOEs. As a worker leader in Zhengzhou asserted:

The Mao Zedong era was the most remarkable time period in Chinese history … Mao’s establishment of a worker-peasant regime centered entirely around serving the people, devoid of any self-interest pursuit … Thus, it is not surprising that the working class expressed profound longing for Mao and the socialist economy.³⁰

The nostalgia discourse reflects workers’ strong reaction to neoliberal SOE reforms that drastically altered their circumstances. In this discourse, the term “class” encapsulates their perceptions of their socio-economic and political standing, their relationship to the state that was supposed to represent them, and their resolute resistance to market-driven industrial changes. Conversely, this discourse also expressed workers’ defensive reaction to the losses they had incurred because of market reforms and their longing for reinstating an economic system that had faltered.

Class discourse as collective rights

In contrast to the above, labor struggles in private and foreign-owned enterprises in coastal areas rarely express class discourse in Maoist language. Migrant workers from the countryside had no experience of paternalist state enterprises under Mao’s socialism, nor had they been exposed to ideological rhetoric about the working class. For the first generation of migrant workers in the 1980s, protest actions largely targeted discrimination they faced, and their language was less related to class.³¹ Nevertheless, newer generations of migrant workers, who are relatively more educated than their predecessors, have recognized the opposition between labor and capital and developed a sense of the necessity of collective rights, such as the right to organize, strike, and bargain collectively. Their demands for collective rights can be read as an awareness of their own weak position and a desire for class solidarity. In the meantime, there has been an increasing number of labor-concerned intellectuals who view the labor question from perspectives highlighting the antagonism between labor and capital, though not necessarily framing this in explicit Marxist language. Their view is close to and inspired by the international labor movement. While most of these activists have not explicitly used the term “class,” their approaches clearly justify labor power derived from labor solidarity as indispensable for countering capital and protecting workers’ interests.

Migrant workers’ collective actions usually are provoked by their demand for ensuring their interests. Numerous strikes have taken place in the Guangdong area, especially since the Asian financial crisis in 2008.³² These strikes are caused by factors such as wage and pension arrears, unpaid overtime, and factory relocation plans. Much frustration is aimed at repressive management. After a strike at the Yuyuan Shoes Factory in Dongguan, Guangdong Province, in 2014, one of the biggest strikes in the country in the past decade, one worker expressed his anger at their working conditions:

For a long time, the employees’ meals are inferior to pig and dog food; workers are forced to work overtime without pay and take inexplicable salary deductions; abusive management does not treat employees as human beings; benefits are getting less and less. Long-term repression caused anger … in such oppressive slave-style sweatshops, employees have had enough! The strike is the result of years of being oppressed, exploited, and enslaved!³³

Disgruntled workers not only have launched strikes, they also sought to collectively bargain with employers. In fact, collective actions to force employers into negotiations have often occurred in Guangdong since the early 2010s. As part of this process, workers select representatives to present their demands, which is evidence of workers’ awareness of collective power. This was dramatically captured in the slogan “Long Live Worker Solidarity” chanted by strikers at the Deli Shoe Company in Guangzhou in 2014. In the same year, protesting workers at the Shengmeida Electronics Company in Guangzhou even tried to form an independent union to enhance their collective bargaining power and protect worker representatives. In this case, migrant workers expressed their class experiences and demonstrated their understanding of labor–capital relations as well as their awareness of the necessity of organizing and solidarity.

During periods of collective labor struggles, labor NGOs have been instrumental for advancing collective bargaining, with intellectual activists assuming a critical role in shaping the discourse surrounding collective rights. This discourse has drawn on west industrial relations theory and social democratic principles, encompassing three distinct narrative threads. First, it underscores the important role of labor power within the framework of a market economy. Mr. Duan, an ardent proponent of collective bargaining and a lawyer at the Laowei Law Firm in Shenzhen, maintained in an interview that as China’s market reform accentuates the schism between labor and capital, collective bargaining has become imperative to empower workers to, in his words, “unify their efforts against employers to secure improved labor conditions.” However, for effective collective bargaining to occur, workers must first, he argued, possess the “right to solidarity,” which stands at the core of their collective rights.³⁴

Second, recognizing the inadequacy of trade unions in effectively representing workers during labor disputes, advocates of collective rights champion a concept termed “worker representation.” This loosely structured process enables workers to deliberate on their demands, elect representatives, and engage in negotiations with employers.³⁵ Proponents contend that this practice, encompassing both procedural and substantive aspects, fosters solidarity and empowerment, thereby serving as an alternative to certain functions typically attributed to trade unions.

Lastly, this approach views collective rights and collective bargaining as imperatives not solely for addressing specific demands but also for achieving economic fairness within labor relationships. Mr. Duan argued that wages are not only determined by market forces; these are also shaped by the equilibrium between labor and capital power. According to him, a truly equitable wage is an outcome of negotiations between workers and employers, thus making collective bargaining an essential tool for addressing issues of societal distribution.³⁶

Collective rights and collective bargaining have found further endorsement within the context of social democracy’s premise of class compromise. Mr. Wang, a resolute advocate for labor and a labor scholar, championed narratives aligned with this viewpoint. In his publications he echoed sentiments shared by fellow activists, contending that within a capitalist framework, labor-capital conflict is an inherent consequence, with struggles over economic disparity, labor exploitation, and suppression arising due to workers’ absence of collective rights to counterbalance employer dominance. Nevertheless, he did not believe that class contradiction necessarily culminates in class antagonism, given the intricate interdependence between labor and capital within modern industrial systems. This intricacy results in the coexistence of class struggle and class compromise, engendering cooperation. From his perspective, collective bargaining is a manifestation of class compromise, and serves as a mechanism to alleviate class conflict by instituting a framework of regulations and protocols that address disputes between workers and employers.³⁷ However, the realization of class compromise mandates a pre-established organization of the working class. In light of this, Wang fervently champions worker representation as an alternative means to facilitate the organization required for collective bargaining.

Nevertheless, as an imported concept and practice, collective bargaining is viewed by the Chinese government and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as ill-suited to China’s particular circumstances. To legitimize their arguments, intellectuals concerned with labor matters have endeavored to establish a connection between their narrative and official directives concerning “tripartism” and “collective consultation on wages,”³⁸ highlighting their harmonization. They have argued that the narrative of “worker representation” is relevant to statutes such as Article 8 of the Labor Law, which mandates laborers’ involvement in democratic management through various mechanisms, thereby ensuring equitable consultations with employers for safeguarding legitimate labor rights and interests. Similarly, Article 33 of this law mandates that in enterprises lacking trade unions, collective contracts must be negotiated by representatives endorsed by workers and the enterprise. Intellectual activists also have evoked the Civil Law, which stipulates that parties engaged in joint actions can elect representatives to litigate on their behalf. ³⁹ Furthermore, they assert that “worker representation” is consistent with the principles of “democratic enterprise management,” an official institutional framework for worker participation within workplaces. According to a Laowei staff member, “worker representation” effectively embodies a fresh form of democratic enterprise management, empowering workers to exercise their rights to information, participation, expression, and oversight⁴⁰ in alignment with official discourse.⁴¹ He contends that enterprise democracy entails the organized sharing of managerial authority among workers.

Constructing a collective rights discourse upon the foundation of workers’ collective struggles, Laowei activists have established direct connections with workers. Laowei staff have trained over 2,000 workers in the art of “worker representation” and collective bargaining, a portion of whom have transitioned into activists catalyzing collective endeavors. Additionally, the organization has facilitated collaboration with labor-oriented NGOs, imparting to them both conceptual understanding and practical skills to bolster their support for collective bargaining. Laowei also launched its own magazine in 2010, titled “Collective Bargaining Forum,” which featured articles on the historical background, rationales, and case studies of collective bargaining. They have also organized forums and workshops.⁴² These platforms have brought together scholars, union officials, and NGO activists, fostering discussions on the feasibility and effectiveness of collective bargaining.⁴³

Class discourse as labor emancipation

The emancipatory discourse aligns with the orthodox ideological principles and anti-capitalist convictions evident in the nostalgia discourse of SOE workers. However, the former emanates more from the aspirations of radical intellectuals seeking a Marxist labor movement than from the organic expectations of migrant workers themselves. This sets it apart from the latter, which has emanated from workers’ own worldviews forged by a combination of ideological indoctrination and personal experiences.

Maoist student groups emerged on Chinese campuses in the 2000s amid the ascent of the “new left” in China’s intellectual circles.⁴⁴ The revitalization of orthodox communist ideology under Xi Jinping since 2012 has encouraged students to embrace Marxism and the Maoist legacy to criticize contemporary capitalism. They have joined the critique of neo-liberal ideology and policies, denouncing these for intensifying economic inequality, labor exploitation, and environmental damage. Students organized Marxist study societies at Beijing University (Weiming She and Marxism Study Society), Renmin University (Xinguang Pingmin She), and Beijing Language University (New-New Youth), to name some well-known ones. Others have disseminated Marxist and Maoist ideas online, where they have discussed socioeconomic problems ranging from inequality, poverty, and labor exploitation to the marketization of education and healthcare.

Following Mao’s teachings, Maoist students immersed themselves in factories and villages to gain a deeper understanding of the conditions of workers and peasants. Students from Tsinghua University conducted an investigation into working conditions of migrant workers on construction sites,⁴⁵ while members of Peking University’s Marxist Society undertook a similar study involving logistics workers on campus.⁴⁶ They shared their findings in an online report, shedding light on the challenges faced by this specific group within the larger labor force. Revealing workers’ dire economic conditions, the second report concluded: “While China is getting stronger and its society has become richer, the country still relies on exploiting workers to create prosperity, treating migrant workers only as cheap labor, and ignoring their rights and interests in all aspects.”⁴⁷ Some college graduates joined NGOs to provide services and educational programs aimed at cultivating workers’ class consciousness. A small number of students went further, going to work in factories after graduation. In Guangdong, radical approaches to labor struggles had been simmering prior to the eruption of the Jasic protest. During the surge of strikes in 2010, a period marked by the prominence of the collective rights discourse, instances of radical class discourse occasionally emerged on social media platforms. For example, the 2014 Yuyuan Shoe factory strike was interpreted through the lens of class struggle by various individuals. Some perceived it as a manifestation of “prolonged bourgeoisie exploitation culminating in a significant uprising of grievances.” Others viewed it as an escalation in China’s ongoing class struggle, discerning within it the potential for triggering a broader social revolution.⁴⁸

However, it wasn’t until the 2018 Jasic protest that Maoist students significantly engaged in labor action. Prior to this, their direct involvement had been limited, with the notable exception of a 2014 strike by sanitation workers in Guangzhou University Town, which garnered substantial support from students in the city.⁴⁹ NGO activists occupied a more conspicuous role in fostering bargaining and worker representation. This dynamic shifted following the government’s crackdown on these NGOs in 2015.⁵⁰ The resulting vacuum presented an opportunity for Maoist activists to step into the labor struggle arena, filling the void left by the departure of liberal inclined groups that had been advocating for collective bargaining rights.

In May 2018, a labor dispute stemming from unreasonable regulations erupted at the Jasic Company in Shenzhen. Several worker activists spearheaded a demand for unionization, resulting in their dismissal and subsequent arrest while protesting. As additional workers joined the fray, seeking the release of these activists and an enhancement of management conditions, a group of Maoist students transformed this dispute into an ideologically charged protest.⁵¹ The intricacies behind the orchestration and coordination of the action remain shrouded in obscurity, given the secretive nature of their strategies.⁵² Nevertheless, it is evident that due to a lack of effective mobilization among workers, the protests were predominantly driven by students and framed within the contours of Marxist class discourse.

In this case, class discourse revealed the Maoist students’ interpretations of the prevailing economic structure, workers’ position within this, and the role of the working class. Drawing a parallel between contemporary Chinese society and the capitalist system, a student activist asserted in an online post, “Today's society is exactly like the capitalist society depicted by Marx in On Capital, exploitative and repressive … ”⁵³ Another post emphasized that China's economic success had been propelled by workers who made immense sacrifices and contributions, but now found themselves relegated to the role of cheap labor.⁵⁴ The Jasic Company’s managerial practices, characterized by prolonged overtime, arbitrary fines, pension delays, and an array of restrictive measures, were portrayed as instances of capital’s intensified exploitation of workers.⁵⁵

Similar conflicts had sporadically arisen in previous labor demonstrations. However, seldom had these been couched in Marxist/Maoist ideology. Alongside referencing Article 3 of the Trade Union Law, which provides the right for workers to engage in and establish trade unions in accordance with the law, Jasic activists demanded unionization rights. A post on the website “Jasic Solidarity” emphasized:

The ongoing struggle for trade union formation holds immense implications. It’s being closely observed by workers and capitalists across Guangdong. A success would set an example for workers in other factories; a failure would shroud the working class in darkness once more. Both workers and employers think that they cannot afford to lose the battle.⁵⁶

When local authorities and Jasic management moved to establish a “yellow” union (i.e., a union controlled by the employer), one activist retorted, “the trade unions we workers will create are genuinely dedicated to the interests of the working class, constituting the fundamental organizations that safeguard the working class as the vanguard of socialist China … ” ⁵⁷

Concurrently, activists rallied workers using the militant language of class warfare. A post remarked, “the boss epitomizes capitalism and the bourgeoisie, which are utterly irreconcilable with the working class. Unless we inflict pain upon them, they won’t bestow us with anything benevolent.” The anonymous writer cited instances illustrating how “offensive” strikes compelled concessions from employers, whereas “defensive” strikes faltered. Employing a metaphor used by Lenin, the commentator likened the strike to a training ground, preparing workers for future struggles.⁵⁸

Student activists hailed the Jasic protest, largely spearheaded by their own efforts, as a significant moment that “ushered in a new era of conscious resistance by the contemporary Chinese working class against social oppression.”⁵⁹ They resurrected the rallying cry of “Labor is Sacred,” which had ignited China’s labor movement in the 1920s, reasserting the Marxist concept of the working class as history’s vanguard. Embracing this viewpoint, an open letter by Peking University students, endorsed by an additional 1,600 signatories from various universities, depicted the Jasic protest as an embodiment of “the working class’s disciplined organization and fearless spirit of sacrifice,” heralding an epochal transformation and the pursuit of class liberation. Another missive by Shanghai students celebrated the Jasic protest as “a resplendent act of the proletariat, with reverberating ramifications,” adding that “failure holds no sway over the proletariat.” Students at Jiangxi Normal University issued a call to “oppressed compatriots to unite, dismantle all unjust systems, fulfill the legacy of the martyrs, and forge an enduring red nation.”⁶⁰ Finally, student activists expressed their strong desire to ally with the working class and be part of its cause. In an open letter, one activist wrote:

Living in a period of drastic social change, we Peking University students should open our eyes and look at this world—the reality of heavy suffering and human exploitation, and the all-round encroachment of power and capital on people … As a group, we and their (workers’) past and present are inextricably linked and so will be our future … We should resolutely integrate with the most suffering and fighting working class, for their own emancipation and for the progress of history … ⁶¹

Maoist students seemed confident that they occupied the political and moral high ground, as their actions were built on Marxism and CCP ideological tenets. A New York Times reporter wrote:

Carrying portraits of Mao and singing socialist anthems, they (protesters) espoused the very ideals that the government fed them for years in mandatory ideological classes, voicing grievances about issues like poverty, worker rights … some of communism’s core concerns.⁶²

Their confidence in the ideological tenets they proclaimed was strengthened by Xi Jingping’s reiteration of Marxism as the party’s guiding ideology. As one student claimed, “what we are doing is completely legal. We are Marxists, we praise socialism, we stand with the working class. The government cannot target us.” ⁶³ Yue Xin, one of the leading student activists of the Jasic incident, even wrote to Xi Jinping in an attempt to convince him that their actions followed what he called “the original intention” (chuxin) of adhering to Marxism and the stand of the working class.⁶⁴ However, despite its Marxist/Maoist stance, the Jasic protest failed to garner official sympathy and support. Any public protest in China, regardless of its ideological basis, violates the CCP’s bottom line and faces suppression.

Class discourse, class consciousness, and ideological contentions

These three distinct instances of Chinese labor struggles share certain viewpoints in regard to class struggle. All recognize injustice and inequity within labor relations; all identify the capitalist economy and the government’s pro-market policies as the principal triggers of workers’ hardships; and all acknowledge the need to safeguard workers’ interests. However, due to the diverse contexts in which these discourses emerged, coupled with varying interactions between workers’ experiences and the roles of labor activists harboring distinct ideological orientations, these discursive manifestations offer different perspectives concerning the status of China’s working class, its connections with the state and capital, and pathways toward change.

Class consciousness?

The presence and use of class discourse does not necessarily amount to class consciousness. In the absence of a structured labor movement, the development of class consciousness among Chinese workers faces challenges. Such a movement is crucial for collective representation, empowering workers, educating them about their rights, and countering exploitation and inequality. Despite this, while class discourse in the context of labor struggles may not directly equate to class consciousness, the unique articulation through the three distinct modes I have outlined above provides an avenue to examine the constituents of class consciousness and to gauge whether these discursive expressions genuinely reflect it.

The nostalgia discourse intertwines workers’ divergent past and present experiences, and their deep faith in Maoist socialism. This can be interpreted as a form of class consciousness, as it demonstrates workers’ recognition of their class identity in socialist China and awareness that mass layoffs and privatization harm their class interests. This discourse spurred collective action among SOE workers, who vehemently protested against SOE reforms and state-endorsed privatization schemes, viewing these as a betrayal of the working class. However, this brand of class consciousness differs from that of labor movements in capitalist countries. The latter is born not only from workers’ experiences with capitalist production, but also their struggles for labor union and political rights.⁶⁵

A significant portion of laid-off SOE workers had never encountered capitalist wage-labor dynamics before the commencement of market reforms. They had assumed that their social and economic status was safeguarded by the state, and they viewed the state as a patron morally obligated to safeguard their interests.⁶⁶ Their perception of capitalism had largely been shaped by state propaganda and ideological indoctrination during the Maoist era. In essence, their class consciousness was a fusion of their class identity, socialist experiences, and instilled anti-capitalist ideology. This consciousness came alive as workers confronted an abrupt collision between an unforeseen, harsh reality and their past under socialism, coupled with their perception of capitalism. Consequently, they tended to blame the government for their worsening economic circumstances.

The discourse of collective rights emerged from workers’ encounters with conflicts involving employers. These experiences unveiled the unequal power dynamics between labor and capital and underscored the significance of collective action for advancing their demands. Workers articulated their perspectives on labor-capital struggles and their yearning for labor unity, signifying the initial stages of class consciousness. This mirrors the early phases of capitalist industrialization in other societal contexts.

Civil society actors interceding in labor actions constructed a discursive framework that articulated workers’ experiences and demands. By linking collective rights discourse with social democracy theory, activists endowed it with a discernibly ideological lens on class and class relations. This provided a rationale for advocating for workers’ collective rights. The collective rights discourse fortified workers’ consciousness and encouraged them to act collectively for their interests. For example, supported by civil society groups, sixteen strikes in 2013 and 2014 involved approximately 58,000 workers demanding wage increases and the settlement of overtime and pensions arrears via collective bargaining.⁶⁷ During these actions, workers elected representatives, devised strategies, and solidified their demands with civil society activists’ assistance.

The emancipation discourse shares the anti-capitalist tone of the nostalgia discourse. However, the latter was articulated by SOE workers, whereas the former was framed by idealistic Maoist students with no economic stake in labor relations. These student activists drew inspiration from Marxist theory, which posits the working class as a revolutionary force, and Leninism, which asserts that workers’ consciousness should be cultivated externally. These student activists envisioned mobilizing and enlightening workers to pursue just economic relations, akin to their communist predecessors during the Chinese Revolution.

However, it remains unclear the extent to which workers embrace this discourse or perceive their economic situation in ways similar to student activists’ preaching. While there were Maoist believers among migrant workers, few of them have engaged in agitation or aided collective actions. Little evidence show that migrant workers use Maoist/Marxist language to assert claims or justify strikes. Even during the Jasic strike, most workers showed limited interest in Maoist discourse. On one occasion, student activists’ public display of Mao’s portrait left workers perplexed and questioning what it meant. One observer noted that “Pearl River Delta workers are generally indifferent to Mao.”⁶⁸ The lack of resonance of Maoist discourse is evident in the fact that less than ten percent of workers agreed to sign a petition for setting up a union union, and even fewer partook in the month-long protest.⁶⁹ In fact, the majority of protesters at Jasic were students and like-minded citizens. Prominent Maoist activists from various spheres in the country reportedly endorsed the protest.⁷⁰

Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that although the Jasic protest was sparked by workers’ grievances, the emancipation discourse didn’t resonate with them. These migrant workers preferred to frame their demands in terms of legal or straightforward economic justice, aligning them closely with the collective rights discourse. Despite the initial involvement of a handful of workers, the Jasic incident evolved into a social protest by Maoists advocating for workers, rather than an action primarily driven by the workers themselves. This suggests that the emancipation discourse reflects Maoist activists’ aspirations to mold the working class in accordance with their own ideas, more so than serving as an expression of workers’ class consciousness.

Ideological schism

Like labor movements in other social contexts, Chinese labor struggles are ideologically divided. As the above analysis shows, the nostalgia discourse that emerged beginning in the 1980s was an ideological backlash by state workers against neoliberal reforms that dismantled SOEs, and a desperate attempt to reassert Maoist socialism to counter capitalism. Nevertheless, this discourse ebbed as the state gradually absorbed the consequences of SOE reform around the first decade of 2000.

The collective and emancipation discourses represent two opposing ideological positions that have long existed in labor movements: reformist and revolutionary. Modelled on the ideology of liberal international labor movements, the collective discourse did not challenge the legitimacy of the market economy but attempted to “transform certain dominant values, and add a few of its own, such that greater equality can be fought for within the rules of the established order and without destroying the system.”⁷¹ Activists who adhered to this discourse believe that collective rights, crystallized by collective bargaining and worker representation, can check capital power and managerial malpractices, striking a balance between labor and capital. This discourse echoes social democracy theory, which regards class compromise as a path to fair and just labor relations. Activists who promoted this discourse have been arguably too optimistic about collective bargaining as a solution to class conflict. Although collective bargaining can improve the position of workers, it does not address underlying issues of power and inequality. Instead of challenging the market economy and viewing labor-capital conflict as a zero-sum game, the discourse calls for institutional changes that empower workers and provide legal and institutional frameworks for the settlement of labor-capital conflicts.

The emancipatory discourse has attacked the development of a capitalist private economy, viewing this as the root cause of workers’ conditions. It advocates a holistic change in economic relations rather than piecemeal policy measures designed to correct various deficiencies in a market economy. Thus, unlike the collective rights discourse, the emancipatory discourse offers few practical solutions to redress workers’ specific grievances. In fact, Maoist activists have dismissed collective bargaining as acquiescence to and even encouragement of capitalist exploitation.⁷² During the Jasic incident, student protesters rejected a proposal by liberal activists to negotiate with the company’s management. Instead, viewing class struggle the inevitable pathway to workers’ emancipation, they chose to engage in militant confrontation with both the company and local authorities, recklessly turning the workers’ demand for rights and interests into a political struggle regardless of the reality.⁷³

A common dilemma

Each of these class discourses encounters its own difficulties. The nostalgia discourse assumed that the privileged status of the working class was supposed to be protected by the state and criticized the state for abandoning its patronage role and embracing market reforms. However, the nostalgia discourse failed to redefine workers’ interests in the market economy; instead, nostalgic demands trapped labor struggles in a direction that cannot produce any significant positive outcomes for the working class, as a return to the Maoist command economy is no longer possible. Similarly, while the emancipation discourse has offered a sweeping critique of capitalism, its ultra-leftist rhetoric and tactics remain unpopular among workers, even if these resonate with radical (non-worker) citizens. The collective rights discourse seeks to settle labor–capital conflicts through institutional arrangements empowering workers, which requires granting the latter collective rights. However, calling for workers’ collective rights is doomed to futility in a society in which liberal political rights, such as the rights to organize, assemble, and express critical opinions, are severely restricted.⁷⁴

Nevertheless, each of these approaches encounter a common challenge: as they all justify labor organizing and collective action, they run counter to the government and CCP’s emphasis on channeling labor disputes through official procedures and discouraging open confrontation. Indeed, the government cares less about what discourse labor protestors use than it does about whether worker actions threaten social stability. Consequently, any type of labor activism, whatever its theoretical and discursive basis, is likely to be repressed as long as the CCP and the state perceive it as disruptive of social order. Protests led by laid off workers are frequently forcefully dispersed, and their leaders detained and prosecuted. Labor-oriented NGOs were ruthlessly crushed in 2015 and 2019, when their leaders were arrested and imprisoned, leading to the closure of most labor NGOs. The Jasic protest culminated with the detention of student activists,⁷⁵ some of whom were coerced into making confessions on television.

Conclusion

This study highlights the enduring presence of class in contemporary labor struggles in China, despite its gradual disappearance from public discourse since the Cultural Revolution. Class discourse equipped activists on shopfloors and in civil society groups with a conceptual framework and vocabulary to articulate grievances, mobilize workers, and critique labor relations dictated by market forces. The articulation of class has varied across different instances of resistance, influenced not only by workers’ distinct experiences but also by the involvement of civil society participants with diverse ideological orientations. Beginning in the 1980s and continuing until the Xi era, synergy between workers’ lived realities and the input of ideologically driven activists generated three distinct forms of class discourse that permeated labor protests in China. These varying expressions of class discourse have led to different diagnostic and prognostic assessments, resulting in distinct demands and assertions. Although the nostalgia discourse waned with the conclusion of SOE reforms, the divergence between the collective rights and emancipation discourses continued to shape labor activism until 2018, when all forms of labor activism were suppressed. These discourses offered contrasting lenses through which to view China’s labor challenges. The former resonated more with workers, while the latter had greater appeal among Maoist-leaning segments of society. Regardless, their shared focus on organizing labor and collective action on the basis of a shared class interest has subjected both to the same constraints within China’s current political framework.

Acknowledgements

I am sincerely appreciative of the valuable feedback provided by three anonymous viewers; their comments have helped enhance the paper.

Funding

None reported.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Feng Chen

Feng Chen is professor emeritus at Hong Kong Baptist University and has published extensively on Chinese labor and politics, including Economic Transition and Political Legitimacy in Post-Mao China: Ideology and Reform (SUNY Press 1995).

Notes

1 For the Post-Mao leadership’s critique of Mao’s theory of class struggle, see Communique of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in 1977 and Resolution Concerning Several Historical Issues Concerning the Party since the Founding of the People's Republic of China in 1981.

2 Pringle 2017.

3 Chan and Pun 2009.

4 Chan and Siu 2012.

5 Franceschini and Sorace 2019; Liu 2014.

6 Data for the first and second instances are drawn from a blend of my fieldwork and supplementary sources. I derived information for the third case from sources that activists have documented and made available online.

7 Steinburg 1999.

8 Brulle 1996.

9 Taylor and Whittier 1995, 182.

10 Johnston 2002.

11 Benford and Hunt 1992.

12 McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1996, 6.

13 Thompson 1963.

14 Steinberg 1999.

15 Sewell 1980.

16 Thompson 1963, 9.

17 Jone 1983.

18 Hui 2020.

19 Chen 2008.

20 Kwan 1997.

21 Foster 1974, 30.

22 Reay 2005, 912.

23 Moshandesi 2013.

24 Chen 1995.

25 https://host23.ipowerweb.com/~gongnong/bbs/read.php?f=3&i=122691&t=122691.

26 https://host23.ipowerweb.com/~gongnong/bbs/read.php?f=3&i=110064&t=110064.

27 http://www.chinasmile.net/forums/showthread.php?t=50501&u=10156.

28 Excerpted from a flyer collected during my fieldwork in Zhengzhou in 2004.

29 https://review.youngchina.org/archives/4249.html.

30 Chinese Worker Studies Network 2009, 91.

31 Lee 2007.

32 Wang, Duan, and Peng 2021.

33 Wang, Duan, and Peng 2021, 114.

34 Mr. Duan has expressed his views in several unpublished papers, including “The different meanings of collective bargaining in different contexts,” “The choice of paths to the establishment of a collective bargaining system,” and “The indigenized concept of collective bargaining.”

35 Froissart 2018; Chen 2020.

36 Froissart 2018; Chen 2020.

37 Wang 2021.

38 In 1990, the National People’s Congress approved the International Labor Organization’s No. 144 Convention calling for “tripartite consultation” between representatives of the government, employers, and workers.

39 Chen and Chen 2016.

40 He 2018.

41 “Provisions on the Democratic Management of Enterprises” was issued on February 13, 2012 by the Central Government.

42 The magazine closed in 2015.

43 Chen 2021.

44 Liu 2020.

45 “Tsinghua Students’ Investigation of Migrant Workers’ Working and Living Conditions.” 2002. https://www.rolia.net/f/post.php?f=0&p=992582.

46 “Peking University 2015 Research Report on Logistics Workers.” 2018. https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/576611.html.

47 ibid.

48 Forty thousand Yue Yuen Workers Strike Heralds Revolutionary Potential,” https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Capitalism%20in%20China/Yuan%20Hang%20Collection%202014.pdf.

49 “Full Documentary of Sanitation Workers' Strike in Guangzhou University Town.” 2014. https://cmcn.org/archives/9279.

50 Franceschini and Nesossi 2018.

51 Chan 2020.

52 Zhang 2020.

53 “Missing Peking University Student Jiao Bairong Writes to Young Friends: Live Bravely and Fight Bravely.” 2019. Accessed September 23, 2023: https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/jbrzbs/

54 “Only the Beiyang Warlords Suppress Rights-defending Workers and Progressive Youth.” 2018. Accessed September 23, 2023: https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/xiwen/

55 “Debates and Reflections on the Jasic Movement.” 2018. Accessed September 23, 2023: https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/pljs/.

56 “Supporting of the Most Advanced and Resolute Working Class.” 2018. Accessed September 23, 2023: https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/shengyuan-gongyou/

57 “Jasic Technology Prepares to Establish Yellow Union. 2018. Accessed September 23, 2023: https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/hssgh/

58 “The Role of Violence in Strikes.” 2019. Accessed September 23, 2023: https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/baoliwork/

59 See the letter of support for arrested workers on July 29, 2018, lunched by students from Peking University and other universities: https://www.hrichina.org/chs/gong-min-yan-chang/bei-da-xue-sheng-jiu-shen-zhen-727wei-quan-gong-ren-bei-bu-shi-jian-de-sheng-yuan.

60 For more details about these open letters and statements, see: https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/zquanguoshengyuan00/.

61 https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/zquanguoshengyuan00/.

62 “China’s Leaders Confront an Unlikely Foe: Ardent Young Communists.” New Yorker Time, September 28, 2018.

63 “When young people who love the party take to the street.” Accessed September 11, 2023: https://cn.nytimes.com/china/20180929/china-maoists-xi-protests/.

64 “Yun Xin: An Open Letter to the Central Committee of the CCP and General Secretary Xi Jinping.” 2018. Accessed September 11, 2023: https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/593505.html. For Yue’s story, see “The rise of China’s leftist youth and the crackdown of the government,” BBC, December 28, 2018. Accessed September 23, 2023: https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-46616052.

65 Marks 1997.

66 Chen 2000.

67 China Labor Bulletin 2015.

68 “Memorandum on Lessons Learned from the Jasic Movement.” 2020. Accessed September 11, 2023. http://redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=41092&page=1.

69 CLB 2015.

70 See: http://45.35.61.42/hero/201901/zlfx/1_4.shtml.

71 Marshall 1983.

72 “Red China Network Anthology.” 2014. Accessed September 11, 2023: https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Capitalism%20in%20China/Yuan%20Hang%20Collection%202014.pdf.

73 “Memorandum on Lessons Learned from the Jasic Movement.” 2020. Accessed September 9, 2023: http://redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=41092&page=1.

74 Chen 2016.

75 One report suggests that 29 students were detained, although there is no official data available on this matter.“The Rise of Left-Wing Youth in China and Official Suppression.” https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/chinese-news-46616052.