I think so, but in the way dumbfuck libs co-opt marxist language with zero understanding. Being able to structure a sentence to merely sound like a hypocrisy or contradiction is more than enough to fool most westerners.
They mean the Chinese workers are “non-working class” because they can retire before death or becoming completely sucked up human wreck. Just the usual nearly two centuries old Economist stance on workers.
is the economist trying to portray china as bourgeois? if not then why is it saying this
I think so, but in the way dumbfuck libs co-opt marxist language with zero understanding. Being able to structure a sentence to merely sound like a hypocrisy or contradiction is more than enough to fool most westerners.
They mean the Chinese workers are “non-working class” because they can retire before death or becoming completely sucked up human wreck. Just the usual nearly two centuries old Economist stance on workers.