[jltsiren]

Given that party membership was ~10% of the adult population, restricting the best jobs to party members didn't mean much. Ambitious people usually became party members, unless something in their background prevented that. Many people were discriminated against for various reasons, but otherwise the lack of party membership signaled lack of ambition.

[estaset]

Lmao, belonging to the party is not the same as working for the party. Would you say third of americans belong to the democratic __establishment__ and another third - to the republican? So, two thirds of americans are the establishment.

[mantas]

And belonging to the party in soviet era didn't mean working in party structure.

You want to raise beyond certain level in engineering or management? You gotta sign up to the party. But signing the paper may be your only activity in the party.

[jltsiren]

Party membership means different things in different systems.

Soviet/Chinese style communist parties were vanguard parties. Party membership was a privilege you had to earn, and it generally meant that you were a reputable person and potentially a member of the elite. In some sense, it had the same kind of signaling function as having a college degree or passing a leetcode interview.

American Democratic/Republican parties are kind of like semiofficial branches of the government. They have little control over their membership (or their candidates), and membership in itself means very little.

European political parties (at least in the countries I'm familiar with) are private organizations. Party membership tends to be lower than in the Soviet/American systems and signals some nontrivial commitment to the party.

[realusername]

By party members, I obviously meant the nomenklatura and their family.

[nickpp]

> lack of party membership signaled lack of ambition

Or, you know, having a conscience? Values? Ideas? Wanting freedom? Daring to think differently?!