Self-introduction and some of my personal thoughts

free discussion
1

Hello comrades, I am a university student currently living in Guangxi. According to your classification standards, I should be considered a petty bourgeoisie (but according to mainstream leftist ideology, students should be considered proletariat).

How did I come into contact with Marxism? At first, I was just a reformist little pink, not really understanding what Marxism is, just vaguely feeling that “socialism shouldn’t be like this.” A few years ago, I started browsing the internet and came into contact with some “online leftists,” and from then on, I began my “keyboard politics career”… I have encountered all kinds of “strange ghosts and gods” in the keyboard politics circle, including “civilization theory masters,” “successors of Bernstein,” “yellow necks” who worship reform within the reformist camp, “pink” who believe class struggle has ended… Well, I myself am not a good person either; I used to just shout slogans. Later, I read some Marxist literature (written by reformists), and gradually understood many principles of Marxism.

Later, I encountered many underground far-left groups online, but they all engaged in internal purges or were involved in factional struggles, so I drifted through various far-left forums.

Of course, after reading my thoughts, you will probably say I am a “petty bourgeoisie,” but I have always been very honest, not liking to hide or pretend to be someone else.

Economically, I consider myself leftist. I hope to restore the absolute dominance of public ownership, only considering retaining a small amount of individual economy as a supplement—“economic development must serve the people, not sacrifice people’s well-being for numbers.”

In terms of culture, I am definitely a “reactionary” here. On gender issues, I support gender equality, but I oppose extreme feminism. I believe that only equal economic status and joint labor by men and women can bring true gender equality. Deviating from the economy and discussing feminism in isolation is idealism. This phenomenon is very similar to the identity politics of the Western petty bourgeoisie, which unconsciously benefits the strategies of the bourgeoisie to divide the proletariat.

In gaming and ACG (Anime, Comic, and Games) culture, I am open and honest—I admit that I have been a gamer and ACG enthusiast since the age of three. I think criticizing ACG culture one-sidedly is a kind of idealist “essence theory.” Should we treat all gamers and ACG fans as enemies and isolate ourselves? No, we should actively take over the ACG cultural front and make it serve the construction of proletarian culture.

Additionally, I have different views on the Cultural Revolution compared to the reformist narrative and the mainstream narrative here. I believe it was a great movement against revisionism, but it also made many mistakes. Many comrades now like to criticize teachers and call them “stinking old nine.” I also dislike authoritarian and rigid discipline, but criticizing teachers indiscriminately is an anti-intellectual mistake. Does socialism not need knowledge inheritance and science? My view is “completely overthrow professions that purely serve capitalism and are detached from the material and spiritual needs of the people” and “for the remaining professions, a vanguard team should lead development.”

My thoughts are roughly aligned with " spontaneous Maoism" + “leftist civil society” or “moderate Marxists” (between revolution and reform). Of course, you can also say I am a “degenerate Western liberal leftist,” which is fine. I am open to discussion and reasonable criticism, but once I am labeled, I tend to become stubborn. I am here this time mainly hoping to engage in more theoretical exchanges and learning with fellow comrades, and I hope for your understanding. My writing is not very good, so please forgive me.

image
image300×168 53.8 KB

4

Of course, I come from a petty bourgeois family. My father can be considered bourgeois; he is a boss. A few years ago (before the pandemic), he told me that he wanted to expand his investments and earn more money. But his investment failed, so later he would get drunk every day and complain to me about how his career failed and how sorry he was to the family. My mother can be considered proletariat; she works as a saleswoman in a company, running around every day, and she also has to take care of my sister. She finds it hard to rest even on weekends. I understand her very much, but I don’t know what to do, so I can only call her every day to comfort her. This also makes me believe in equal labor, rather than some cultural critique detached from the economy—“criticizing male dominance” is the true path to gender equality. So overall, my family can be considered a petty bourgeois family.

5

Hello, if you are not going to discuss the particularity of your living environment, it is recommended not to reveal any offline locations.

I can interpret your statement as wanting both the social assistance provided by public ownership and the right to individual wealth accumulation. First, China today is a thoroughly imperialist country. Its socialized production and private ownership of the means of production are increasingly at odds, leading China to a situation of severe surplus of commodities and a mountain of unemployment. Therefore, if China re-establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat, it can be said that most regions will achieve complete public ownership, and public ownership must be realized to prevent such tragedies from happening again. Secondly, I suggest looking at discussions on the forum about whether a person’s possession of their labor-produced goods is correct. It has been explained that a person must live within society; all their sources of products and the creation of these products come from society. Therefore, it is unreasonable for those who possess social wealth to claim they can own the labor products. The proletariat does not own their own means of production, making it the most public-spirited class without private ownership.

Hello, have you seen the forum discussions about ACG? ACG actually originates from bourgeois ideology. If someone believes that games filled with slaughter, plunder, occupation of labor products, and extremely pornographic, female-degrading second dimensions are reasonable and should be retained, then they should be opposed by the proletariat. Sometimes, people on our forum are even fascinated by these bourgeois ideological things, but we all advocate the principle of criticism and self-criticism to help them recognize the reactionary nature of these things and to encourage them to break away from it. In other words, the more obsessed you are with ACG and games, the less likely you are to advance towards revolution, and you will also despise us. In fact, our attitude depends on their attitude towards revolution and whether you are willing to abandon all bourgeois thoughts and viewpoints, or realize that they are wrong and gradually change yourself. If you cannot do that, then you are essentially an enemy, because you clearly stand on the bourgeois side.

5 Likes
6

I personally want to bring up Guangxi because I want to talk about the Guangxi Cultural Revolution massacre. During the Cultural Revolution, Guangxi fell into serious factional violence, which eventually evolved into a bloody slaughter that even included eating people, not sparing children and infants. Have any of you discussed how to prevent revolutions from turning into factional internal struggles and bureaucratization of the bourgeoisie?

7

Then, what do you consider to be extreme feminism, how is discussing feminism in isolation from the economy a deviation, and how is discussing it in conjunction with the economy different?

May I ask what you consider to be “one-sided criticism” and how is it a form of “idealistic ‘essentialism’?”

8

Extremely pornographic and misogynistic secondary anime? I actually want to discuss this issue. I browsed this site for a while and only saw you criticizing ACG culture for objectifying women, but I didn’t see you criticize ACG culture for objectifying men. Don’t those ACG works that poison women’s minds deserve some criticism too?

9

First of all, although most of the discussions within the community currently focus on criticizing patriarchy, I want to voice a different perspective. Some comrades like to criticize patriarchy in isolation, ignoring the intersecting structures of patriarchy-capital-state behind it. Women are primarily living under economic oppression in capitalism; their economic dependence is what fosters patriarchy. Some comrades tend to unilaterally label all men as “patriarchs,” claiming that a man is oppressive if he washes the dishes once less or gives a little less money—true Marxist feminism should advocate mutual respect and gender equality in the family, not forcing men to raise giant babies. Or now, capitalists incite women into consumerist traps, then use pre-modern structures like “bride price” that should no longer exist to turn marriage into a material transaction, throwing consumer debt onto men. I believe that true gender equality is not about liberal feminism’s idea of “owning means of production as capitalists” or “marriage transactions,” but about economic equality—equal pay for equal work, the state bearing the costs of childbirth for women, and in household labor, men and women should also be equal, with those who work more compensated.

1 Like
10

First of all, ACG and games are essentially forms of art; however, some idealists subjectively label them as “inherently guilty.” I believe content is class-based, but form is not. One-sided criticism is like trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue without considering “liberating the Palestinian people” or “overthrowing Israeli militarism,” but only thinking that “Israel’s fall will solve the problem.”

11

If we follow the narrow perspective of these idealists, then Engels is also a big capitalist. Since he is a capitalist, are all his writings “revisionist nonsense”?

12

I recommend that you carefully study the official documents of the forum, which are the several “white papers” you see when you first enter, such as “The Future Revolutionary Road of China.” I suggest you read it carefully first. After reading it, some of your questions may be answered, which will also facilitate future communication. Of course, if you have any questions, you can also ask in this post.

14

Since you believe that “content has class character, while form does not,” what do you mean by content and form? In Marxist philosophy, it is explicitly pointed out that “content” refers to the contradictions and processes within a thing, while “form” is the expressive shape of the contradiction movement of the thing. The content and form of a thing are an opposites-unity. Everything in the world has its content and its form; there is no content without form, and no form without content. For example, in literary and artistic works, the theme and ideas are the content, while the style and language are the form. For example, ballet. Isn’t the kind of costumes that make ballet dancers wear tutus and expose thighs and buttocks precisely serving the bourgeoisie’s色情思想 (pornographic ideas) that treat women as sexual tools? Doesn’t that have class character? Would revolutionary ballet productions, such as the Red Detachment of Women or White-Haired Girl, tolerate such forms that expose thighs and buttocks of female performers? Regarding the 二次元 (2D) forms like ACG, those deliberately shaping white, slender, and thin images, or engaging in福利卖肉 (welfare flesh-selling) forms, are they classless? In a class society, everything bears the mark of class; there is never anything truly without class. Even mathematical principles like 2+2=4 have their class character. The person who proposed it also has their own class character.

17 Likes
15

Your examples are very abstract. When you say “certain comrades isolatedly criticize male dominance” or “doing fewer dishes, giving less money, and that becomes male dominance,” please provide specific examples for discussion and analysis, debating matter-of-factly. We have never said that men do less, which is male dominance. In the guiding documents of our forum, in the chapter newly added to the Thought Struggle Guide, it very clearly analyzes the process of the development of patriarchal society, based on the “origin of family, private property, and the state,” explaining the status of women in primitive society. It explains how humanity transitioned from primitive society into private property society, and since entering private property and class society, it also established the rule of patriarchy. It also clearly states that gender oppression comes from society. After capitalism, men’s domination over women is economic coercion. Finally, it states that whether to recognize women’s liberation is a touchstone for distinguishing Marxists. Have you read this article? When you talk about mutual respect and equality, is there some kind of abstract respect and equality? The current social reality is that most household labor is undertaken by women, and the social recognition of women’s household labor is lacking. “Bride price” is not some abstract “pre-modern structure” you mentioned, but rather clear: in Confucian families, daughters are raised as commodities and then sold for income. The bride price is never given to women, but to the parents of the bride.

24 Likes
16

I find your statement very laughable. Doesn’t it mean that the emergence of patriarchy is because women are economically dependent? Then, according to your logic, why is it difficult for women to achieve economic independence in capitalist societies? You talk about criticizing patriarchy in isolation, but it’s nothing more than wanting to abolish gender conflicts and defend patriarchy.

15 Likes
17

Who told you that Engels was a capitalist? If you don’t understand, don’t talk nonsense. After finishing elementary school, he hadn’t even graduated from middle school and went to work as a clerk for his father. After completing his military service, he went to London and lived with workers, and wrote “The Condition of the Working Class in England.” Later, he participated in the 1848 revolution, worked as a commercial clerk in Manchester, and had no experience of being a capitalist. If you say he inherited some family money, it was just shares, and he only inherited them considering his relationship with his mother. He didn’t use it to open factories and exploit workers; he used it all to support the revolution.

16 Likes
18

“Forced men to raise giant babies” “Capitalists brainwash women into falling into consumerist traps,” from what you say, it can be seen that in your understanding, many women now are gold diggers, giant babies, brainwashed, and demand men to take care of them. First of all, the women you talk about here do not distinguish class. Are the lifestyles of women from the bourgeoisie and women from the proletariat the same? The current social reality is that, apart from women of the bourgeoisie, most women are subjected to gender oppression, and after marriage, they become house slaves, not only having to use all their income to support the family but also having no personal freedom. There are so many news stories that don’t even need to be elaborated on, such as the one who was pressed to death and scalded in noodle soup; the husband who gambled away all the family money, and the wife who earns money to support the family but is suspected of infidelity by her husband, leading to the poisoning and killing of their children; because the wife did not give her money as required, he tricked her to the cemetery to kill and dump her body. In reality, who is raising the giant babies?
The so-called consumerist trap you mention. To be clear, it is about worshiping the bourgeois lifestyle. Does this phenomenon exist? Yes, but it is not a super-class phenomenon, nor is it something only women do. Moreover, only a small number of petty-bourgeois right-wing individuals worship the bourgeois lifestyle. And your statement is as if women are just mindless giant babies demanding men to spend money on them, which not only does not reflect reality but is also an insult and distortion. In fact, in today’s society, the requirements for men and women when seeking jobs are fundamentally different. For women, requirements such as exam scores and abilities are even higher. Some schools prioritize male applicants even though female applicants score higher. Even if women do not have to raise children, they still have to spend extra money due to physiological periods, having to buy sanitary products that are often substandard, poorly made, or of inadequate length. So whose economic pressure is greater? And after forming a family, women are often forced to become house slaves due to their lower economic status. Aren’t these the realities?

23 Likes
19

Your statement is extremely absurd and laughable, claiming that we only criticize the objectification of women in ACG (Anime, Comics, and Games) and do not criticize the objectification of men. But what is the reality? The reality is that the objectification of women in ACG is very serious and widespread. This is the main aspect of this phenomenon, so we need to criticize these issues. Just like in capitalist society, gender oppression mainly targets women. Women are the ones who are sexually assaulted, slandered, and discriminated against, so we oppose this gender oppression against women and speak out for women’s liberation. At this point, the counterquestion is: why don’t you talk about gender oppression against men? Now, when capitalists oppress and exploit workers more, the counterquestion is: why don’t you say that workers are taking advantage of capitalists? The primary contradiction is the contradiction that plays a leading and decisive role among many contradictions. It exists and influences the existence and development of other contradictions. The secondary contradiction is subordinate and obedient. When discussing issues, our main focus is exactly “to lead the ox by its nose, to use strength at the critical point.” Facing oppression, if you don’t grasp the main contradiction but instead say we only criticize the main contradiction and ignore the secondary contradictions, it’s like grabbing sesame seeds and losing the watermelon, covering up the truly main contradiction and oppression.

19 Likes
20

Your words are very angering. Looking at the general social situation, women bear most of the household chores and childcare. Your statement directly labels women as only interested in demanding money from men and making men do housework and care for their giant infants, which clearly shows your male chauvinist stance. I wonder if your mother took care of you most of your life at home; if so, I am curious about how you view this phenomenon.

11 Likes
21

I found that you don’t provide concrete evidence at all when you speak. The basis of your arguments is often just your own words like “idealists say” or “some comrades like to criticize patriarchy in isolation,” without presenting facts, reasoning, or actual specific examples and evidence, engaging in loud and vigorous debate.

13 Likes
22

Hello, welcome to the forum. I have many disagreements with your opinions.

First of all, this is a serious mistake. Why are students considered the proletariat? Students do not work at all, do not sell their labor to support themselves, so they are not proletariat at all. We say that students are petty-bourgeois because their lives are detached from labor, they live in isolation and dispersion at school every day, studying solely for their grades. This is similar to the petty-bourgeois, who are also isolated and dispersed producers. But students are different from the general petty-bourgeois in that they are a parasitic class, relying not on their own labor but on their families’ money for support, so generally speaking, their ideology is more backward compared to those petty-bourgeois who are still engaged in labor.

It’s clear you don’t understand political economy. Lenin said: “Proletarian dictatorship is the most courageous and ruthless war of a new class against a stronger enemy, against the bourgeoisie. The resistance of the bourgeoisie is ten times fiercer due to the overthrow (even within one country); the strength of the bourgeoisie lies not only in international capital but also in its various international connections, which are solid and powerful, and in the power of habits, and small production. This is because, unfortunately, there are still many small producers in the world, and small production constantly, daily, hourly, spontaneously produces capitalism and the bourgeoisie in large quantities. For all these reasons, proletarian dictatorship is necessary; without a long, stubborn, desperate, and life-and-death war—without persistent, disciplined, unwavering, indomitable, and united will—capitalism cannot be defeated.” What you call “personal economy” will inevitably lead to polarization, re-emergence of capitalism, and the rise of private ownership ideas. If this small production is not eliminated, ultimately public ownership will only be dismantled. This is a life-and-death contradiction; these two modes of production are opposed. Socialist China has been gradually restricting and eliminating these small producers, such as in agricultural collectivization, which is a very obvious example. The economic system you fantasize about is simply impossible to realize or sustain long-term, which is very obvious.

May I ask, why, in the face of rampant patriarchy, do you not emphasize opposing patriarchy but instead emphasize opposing feminism? It’s like in a capitalist society, when workers demand wages, you say: I support equality but oppose extreme wage demands.

May I ask, do you know why patriarchy exists? What are you talking about here with “only equal economic status can bring gender equality,” as if someone is speaking without saying anything at all. Everyone here knows that economic inequality leads to political inequality, but repeating this in another way clearly does not explain anything. But your last sentence is very interesting. You first spout dogma about “talking about economics,” but in reality, you do not discuss it, and then you criticize “discussing feminism without economics” as idealism. First, this behavior is very double-standard; secondly, it’s obvious that some oppressed women in society do not understand Marxism, but they rely on their own practice, their experiences of being insulted and oppressed by men with pornographic ideas, and their experiences of discrimination, to feel that society is unequal. Although they only oppose phenomena, they are much more progressive than those who shout “opposition to extreme feminism” but distort social reality. Although they are idealists, they at least expose some social realities. Isn’t this more progressive than those who shout “opposition to extreme feminism” to distort social reality?

May I ask, what is your basis for saying this? First, what is this idealist “essentialism” you mention? Also, no one is calling all second-dimensional fans enemies; you are shooting arrows before aiming at the target. Furthermore, you say you want to seize the ACG culture’s position, but which class does this culture (or more precisely, artistic works) belong to? If you say it’s just a form, then I’d like to ask: if a form involves portraying women as white, thin, detached from labor, with prominent sexual features, is it still supra-class?

You say criticizing teachers is anti-intellectual. Then may I ask, have we ever criticized any truths of natural science? We criticize teachers because they impose reactionary control and oppression on students, and indoctrinate them with “those who work the mind govern others, those who work the body are governed,” “selfishness is justified,” or various reactionary idealist fallacies. If we do not criticize these reactionary fallacies and the reactionary teachers propagating them, can we still be called Marxists?

19 Likes
23

ACG作品的内容也从来都不是天生的，也不是从天而降、突然出现的东西，它是由人类创造出来的，也反映着一定的阶级立场。从来没有超阶级的东西。ACG也是如此。它为什么被认为是反动的？是因为它被制造出来就是用来宣扬个人英雄主义和色情思想的，所谓的核心“燃え”“萌え”。毛主席在评价文学艺术作品时，就指出了政治和艺术、内容和形式是统一的。我们从来没有这样评价过巴以问题，你的比喻是抽象的，而且不符合事实的。

11 Likes