well that's true for sure but thats a little bit different of a sect of politics from what im talking about
i more mean if you look at "mainstream" populist right figures, like let's take Saagar Enjeti from Breaking Points (or numerous other people occupying his position), People like him will have these big pundit monologues talking about class, and trying to blow up things like political differences among college educated vs those w/o degrees, middle american d*** crises, differing social views in unions vs their representatives, issues with upper class social discourse vs the isolated lower class, misguided inflation discussions due to the bubble politicians live in, etc.
On the surface, these arguments are not wrong insofar as they're correct that there's a conflict between classes which is largely derivative of class itself. The issue is that they their underlying cares aren't actually about class holistically, it's about class as a proxy for the current alignment of social views. For example, currently, upper bourgeois (mostly) present themselves as being overtly socially liberal in terms of the culture war , whereas this is generally not the case with the lower class (i.e. union coalminer who's family is addicted to opioids flooding the market).
So if you take the oversimplication of rich = liberal, poor = conservative, people like Enjeti focus on class only because of this distinction, they don't focus on class because of actual class conflict itself. This leads to arguments where it sounds like they're focusing on class a***ysis or conflict, but in reality they're just arguing about the culture war but as it exists along class lines
Working class is when you say yee haw
liz bruenig has been getting absolutely obliterated on twitter these past few days
you love to see it
why are so many reddit communists dengists lmao
is it just a reaction to winnie the pooh posting on there
ur influence strong af
Dengist allegations will be the end of me
our posts will end up on marxists.org like the letters of trotsky
luxembourg
Deng
Im crying bro what is this 
What is a socialist mode of production if not socialized production plus a DotP? There is not a single benchmark to distinguish a capitalist from a socialist mode of production. Rather, there is an overall trajectory of numerous systems, primarily those of ownership, distribution and regulation.
Mao's China over-emphasized the system of ownership, which lead to new contradictions between forces and relations of production, and economic stagnation, which all necessitated the need for increasing productive liberation. Then, during the "wild 90s", China over-emphasized liberating the forces of production, which lead to other contradictions like corruption, distancing between the Party and the masses, and environmental degradation, which all necessitated the need for deepening reform.
China is still in a phase largely characterized by reform and regulation. None of these ebbs or flows contradict socialist construction or the development of a socialist mode of production.
our posts will end up on marxists.org like the letters of trotsky
luxembourg
Deng
Inshallah
There is not a single benchmark to distinguish a capitalist from a socialist mode of production. Rather, there is an overall trajectory of numerous systems, primarily those of ownership, distribution and regulation.
AI generated Marxist theory
Im crying bro what is this 
What is a socialist mode of production if not socialized production plus a DotP? There is not a single benchmark to distinguish a capitalist from a socialist mode of production. Rather, there is an overall trajectory of numerous systems, primarily those of ownership, distribution and regulation.
Mao's China over-emphasized the system of ownership, which lead to new contradictions between forces and relations of production, and economic stagnation, which all necessitated the need for increasing productive liberation. Then, during the "wild 90s", China over-emphasized liberating the forces of production, which lead to other contradictions like corruption, distancing between the Party and the masses, and environmental degradation, which all necessitated the need for deepening reform.
China is still in a phase largely characterized by reform and regulation. None of these ebbs or flows contradict socialist construction or the development of a socialist mode of production.
socialism is when the government does stuff but using marxist terminology
socialism is when the government does stuff but using marxist terminology
Bro the wildest shyt to me abt these reddit Dengists is they defend everything Stalin ever did and despise Khrushchev for being a revisionist but ride Deng d***
I rly wanna understand their logic

fr he think it’s jokes but we peeped what he’s been saying this whole time
Always mentioning “The True Architect” and “maybe some trade liberalization would be good sometimes” s*** like that we know you really mean Deng @Scratchin_Bandit
Bro the wildest shyt to me abt these reddit Dengists is they defend everything Stalin ever did and despise Khrushchev for being a revisionist but ride Deng d***
I rly wanna understand their logic
honestly sometimes i still cant wrap my head around whether deng was really a 5head genius or an opportunist dumbass that lucked into the worlds greatest chess move or both ngl
fr he think it’s jokes but we peeped what he’s been saying this whole time
Always mentioning “The True Architect” and “maybe some trade liberalization would be good sometimes” s*** like that we know you really mean Deng @Scratchin_Bandit
i heard him say "come on man just a little NEP just try it 5 years max" once
honestly sometimes i still cant wrap my head around whether deng was really a 5head genius or an opportunist dumbass that lucked into the worlds greatest chess move or both ngl
Completely different. Kruschev kept the Cold War going full steam ahead . It’s really a false equivocation to put them in the same class of philosophy really.
If kruschev had opened the USSR up to foreign trade and made the GDP rise as much stalin did , then we could say oh he was like Deng in that he established a long term safety net for his country (although with deng he may he also created an unsolvable demographics problem with the one child policy)
Kruschev on the other hand did dumb s*** like put nukes on Cuba and then remove them leaving Cuba to be forever embargoed . He was a very trumpian guy I would say, with a big ego. Talking a big game , and then backing down and failing . But that’s who he was , a raised bourgeoise who got into the party young . He left the USSR much worse than he found it, unlike deng , who advanced the class struggle and brought the problems that come with it .
Because they did not do "basically the same thing".
Cornboys market reforms weakend the Dictature of the Proletariat.
Dengs reforms are completely in line with the "new Democracy" as formulated by Mao and actually fortyfied the Dictature of the Proletariat and furthered the democratisation of the workplace.
The people equating them are either ignorant, chauvinist or love their martyr complex and poverty fetish.
dengists believe in great man theory
china is communist bro just wait for xi to press the big red button.
Pray for me
I'm about to hit the YE button
Bro the wildest shyt to me abt these reddit Dengists is they defend everything Stalin ever did and despise Khrushchev for being a revisionist but ride Deng d***
I rly wanna understand their logic
krushcev bad socialist cuz ussr failed
deng good socialist cuz china successful
krushcev bad socialist cuz ussr failed
deng good socialist cuz china successful
Socialism is when powerful capitalist country
Idk much bout WW2 but something that's always bugged me is this
Why did America support Britain to such an extent that it would enter not one but two world wars and even go so far as to arm the SOVIET UNION, which it was trying to overthrow not too long ago? Mind you this all happened long after the US became the world's biggest economy. What the f*** was that relationship? Help me out yall
Socialism is when powerful capitalist country
well actually, marx said that you cant have socialism until you adequately develop the productive forces of society. therefore, china needs 800 billionaires. focus on the revolution in your own country before you try and criticize china you f***ing westoid idiot
