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.
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.
“Vanguard of the non-working class” sounds like a red triangle thing
is the economist trying to portray china as bourgeois? if not then why is it saying this
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.
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.