I argue that class is inevitable under any form of administrative government. the goal is to tie ultimate power to the will of the people.

Then you're disagreeing with the way all Marxists and even liberal academics define class: which is relation to production, and you're also completely wrong that power is divorced from production, or surplus value.

The differerence between capitalist and socialist countries is the control over this surplus. US capitalists control production, the surplus, and have a puppet government enact their interests against those of its workers. Its members unilaterally decide how to use that surplus.

The PRC has the major key industries nationalized, and in that sector surplus can only be controlled by democratic decision-making, not the whims of private capital. No member of the NPC can unilaterally decide how to use that surplus in the same way a private capitalist in the US can.

A limited, restricted private sector of capitalists also exists, but they do not stand above political power, have no enshrined rights, and must follow the dictates of the worker state.

Class is not "holding levers." I have established this over and over again. Shutting your eyes and ears and erasing the central role of ownership of the means of production and distribution does not make this fact go away. Administrators share the same class interest with other workers: collectivization of the means of production and distribution.

You have invented the idea of unilateral control, and have invented the idea that the working classes as a whole do not participate in mass democratization of society in unitary socialist democracies. You have no coherent goal, nor plan to get there, all you have done is refuse to engage with the Marxist position on class.