I don't understand your second sentence.

I don't have any problem with the term "left wing of the ruling class". What it refers to, is the section that does give in to working class demands. So you say there is no left wing of the ruling class there is only I think you're being pedantic. Please correct me, but however you define things my argument is the same.

You're coming off as some kind of leftist, so wrt my statement being a contradiction: material conditions under class rule are inherently contradictory. Class rule is contradictory, the belief that any part of nature supercedes another is contradictory, that one man is better than another or more deserving of the fruits of labor, is contradictory. Socialized production but privatized profits is the fundamental contradiction of capitalism, but the contradition drives it, not destroys it. How capitalism functions vs how it appears to function, is a contradiction.

Pointing out contradictions in others arguments in an attempt to invalidate them is literally bourgeois rationalism. It is a form of idealism, and I have zero time for it. Social contradiction exists. If you wanna argue that this society is rational, then if you consider yourself a leftist, that is a contradiction that alienates you from the real movement.

At the time of the new deal, a large enough section of the ruling class actually believed in a kind, humanitarian capitalism. This is because it was in their best interests to believe in it, and for a while it actually produced many rational reforms. But the contradictions of capitalist class rule, rolled back those reforms as the threat of immanent destruction disappeared and the endless search for profit continued. A good example of these beliefs is the interview [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm](Marxism vs. Liberalism.) I don't like Stalin one bit but it is a funny interview and demonstrates what I'm talking about. This belief led to the social movements that embodied it. Of course it is a contradiction. Its contradictions everywhere, all the way down. Where there is contradiction, there is struggle, and where there is struggle, we begin our analysis and center our practical work.

Reformism is when the right and moderates of the workers movement join with the "left" of the bourgeoisie. Both the moderates of the workers movement and the left of the bourgeoisie are wrongheaded and idealist, but that doesn't mean those movements don't exist. Those movements appear over and over throughout history, and develop because of actual conditions and class interests.

I think you define things statically and by their "essential traits" rather than by the relationships that they have with their local conditions. I am vehemently opposed to this way of thinking, this essentialist, categorical objectivity. I will not give ground here.

So, if you'd like to continue to debate me, you will have to demonstrate more understanding than you have here. Debate like this isnt practical, but i would like clarification on the second sentence which I legit don't understand.