I previously posted a large-character poster criticizing Wei Mingzi, and some comrades said I didn’t highlight the main point enough and the content was insufficient. I think this large-character poster can be seen as a theme, which is also the theme of the following article. Of course, my criticism of him is not limited to these three things; these three are just recent actions he took, not representative of all his counter-revolutionary words and deeds, but criticism and denunciation are definitely necessary.
To criticize Wei Mingzi, one must criticize his stance on class struggle, which in Chinese history is specifically reflected in his attitude towards the Cultural Revolution. Below are Wei Mingzi’s words / brackets contain my comments or explanations for unclear parts of Wei Mingzi’s statements:
"When a new system arrives, the relationship between the new ruling elite and the lower classes (are the exploiters the elites? Typical little pink rhetoric. Moreover, different political systems either have no ruling class or are divided into proletariat and bourgeoisie, with relations of exploitation, suppression, and struggle. Where does the idea of ‘forming relationships’ come from? Is it systemically randomly assigned?) or, in other words, during the development and shaping of the new ruling class elite, these class contradictions will repeatedly appear (class contradictions have existed and appeared since the emergence of the state; this statement is a typical example of not having read even Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution,’ where Lenin states that ‘the state is an instrument of class contradictions that are irreconcilable’). During this process, people will seize different high ground to safeguard their interests, along with many old grudges—such as under the old ruling mode, you occupied some of my land, I occupied some of yours, conflicts among family and factional power figures, etc.—these old grudges not only do not disappear but also generate new contradictions. For example, after “attacking XXX,” what was once called counter-revolutionary suddenly ceases to be so (referring to Liu Shaoqi), and then both sides repeatedly enact old grudges among ancestors (the only agreement is the red second generation fighting each other, like Xi Jinping biting Bo Xilai). In this political iteration process, there is also primitive violence from grassroots civilians, simple morality, ethical conflicts, economic interests, and local political power struggles. Don’t imagine that a political plan laid out and built upon will just disappear (what? Lacking the ability to clarify, what Marx and Lenin?). Moreover, during this transitional period and political iteration, there will definitely be a period of chaos and civil war. During this period, countless old grudges and enmities will be far greater than in previous models. This often gives rise to a new stable state of the ideal society, called “people’s hearts settle,” which involves too many dirty and disgusting deeds, making everyone afraid of being purged (when? where? which country? specific examples? No examples only show Wei Mingzi as a historical inventor, not having learned middle school history). At this point, some forces simply come out and say: “That’s it? Both (the bourgeoisie and the capitalists) stop fighting now? We are closing down here, can you all go back?” (like the Baixiaotang coup, the end of the Cultural Revolution). Later, the new political system was established because (the Cultural Revolution) was too exaggerated (Deng Xiaoping’s capitalism is completely opposite to the Cultural Revolution; what does exaggeration have to do with the Cultural Revolution? Moreover, if class struggle isn’t intense, is it still class struggle?), after ten or more years, a generation or two lived in a state of instability, tangled with all kinds of dirty grudges and enmities. The establishment of this new political system required mass amnesties, large-scale pardons. Of course, complete amnesty is impossible; some must be purged (rightist counter-revolutionaries, old counter-revolutionaries), with specific interests guiding the process, laying the groundwork for new political, economic, and personnel selection systems (purging Maoists, making room for capitalists to restore). Purging is always better than previous revenge killings; rather than purging, it is more about protecting those people (opposing capitalist roaders within the party indeed protected them). Of course, some extremely bad ones must be executed. The significance of these purges is that they must stop here; no further steps should be taken, and your children should not seek revenge (Deng Xiaoping’s 1983 crackdown was just covert revenge, sending his children to avenge him?). This game ends here. If it doesn’t, chaos will continue, which is detrimental to everyone.
In this sense, constantly stirring up movements, especially after peace is restored, when internal contradictions could be peacefully resolved (peaceful evolution), turns into old conflicts of hatred and revenge, old contradictions, and existing imbalances being exposed again (taking a clear stance, considered a dog of the bourgeoisie). Honestly, how many of these are class contradictions? How many are conflicts brought from old society? We must admit that even in your newly established political model, many information, channels, and interests are inherited from the old society, the old era—especially in the non-base areas back then. Even in old revolutionary areas, during the construction of rule, it was impossible to completely detach from old forces. Do you plan to kill them all? Use guns to speak? Impossible, you’re ruling now (Wei Mingzi’s philosophical game finally circles back to Liu Shaoqi). Even in the early years after founding the country, old forces had not fully left; they just changed their skin and could not be completely dismantled. On this basis, blindly stirring up movements, to what extent can you say these conflicts are deeply rooted (starting to talk nonsense, a reserved program), existing for a long time—sometimes I don’t like to call this restoration (referring to capitalism, the re-establishment of private ownership), because it may never have abdicated or died out. When productive forces haven’t developed or changed, the old power relations embedded in production remain, merely changing their appearance. The new regime’s arrangements for these capitalist elements are just a continuation of old capitalism. Even if you overthrow them through movements, technological and some natural principles are still monopolized by them, or the capitalist mode of production still exists, spawning new local interest groups and bourgeoisie. So, is this so-called “bourgeois restoration”? Or has this thing never died? It just changes skin and grows again. Changing people by fighting them won’t work. This is a powerful material reality; forcibly changing it is impossible. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem. You need to produce new, advanced things from these imperfect, backward, corrupt elements to replace the old ones. So when you keep talking about “restoration,” I think it’s just an objective economic reality, a material law. You (who? Yang Heping? Or the audience) insist that they are impure and corrupt. I think you overestimate this political entity because sometimes the entire political entity’s agency becomes corrupt. Overestimating the political agency’s control over history, underestimating historical inertia, leads to blaming oneself for corruption; just overthrowing the corrupt parts can solve the problem. This is a very blind behavior. These corruptions will naturally grow. That’s why we say “Jiajing repairs the Tao, both saint and king,” which reflects the extent of thinking about large modern nation-states and the extent of thinking about historical movement and transformation, and how much of it has political struggle purposes.
First point: it can be seen that Wei Mingzi speaks completely without logic or outline, saying whatever comes to mind, with no coherence. Using Zhao Guo’s popular phrase, it’s “left brain attacking right brain.” This shows that this person has no normal logical thinking; all his theories are made up on the spot, with no regard for context or coherence. This alone indicates his theoretical level is extremely low, relying on nonsense, probably hasn’t studied Marxist principles or dialectics, let alone revolution.
Then, what does Wei Mingzi’s paragraph mean? It basically says “The Cultural Revolution was just dogs biting dogs on both sides, disgusting the other side, and the struggle that actually ensued was proletariat fighting proletariat. Continuing the Cultural Revolution would harm everyone’s interests. Deng Xiaoping stopping the Cultural Revolution and restoring capitalism was correct. Deng Xiaoping should have purged and reversed the verdicts, and his revisionism was also correct. The class struggle during the Cultural Revolution was doomed to fail. Mao overestimated himself and also caused the party to become corrupt.” In summary, Wei Mingzi’s words are a thorough anti-class struggle, anti-Mao, anti-revolutionary pile of shit, wrapped in dozens of layers of paper with perfume, claiming it to be truth.
Wei Mingzi claims the Cultural Revolution was just dogs biting dogs among the rebels and capitalists; what is his basis? Merely taking a segment of history out of context, adding his invented parts, and drawing one-sided conclusions. In fact, the dog-biting-dog behaviors he lists have nothing to do with the rebels; high-level military factions, old guards, and bourgeois liberals used the Cultural Revolution to attack each other—an intra-class struggle—yet he distorts it into a phenomenon of the entire Cultural Revolution. What does this have to do with class struggle? Where is the proletariat? Has he ignored the struggle of the proletariat against the bureaucratic bourgeoisie within the party? He, who only cares about upper-class struggles and has no basic class perspective, talks about revolution? After spouting 1,552 piles of shit, he thinks he’s a philosopher. Look at the proletariat’s class struggle, fighting against rightist revisionism, the heinous bourgeoisie, and their revisionism—are these not acts of dogs biting dogs? The January Revolution, the proletariat firing on the command, seizing power in Shanghai, driving out the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in the Shanghai government, establishing the people’s commune—are these not dogs biting dogs? Moreover, Wei Mingzi’s own father, Deng Xiaoping, sent landlords and counter-revolutionaries to re-education camps; did he eat them? Deng Rong’s crackdown on rebels and proletariat was eaten by him? Deng Xiaoping eating steak and drinking Moutai in the cell? The 1983 crackdown on white terror was also eaten by him? During the Cultural Revolution, the proletariat was divided into two parts: one part lacked full theoretical knowledge and was unfamiliar with class struggle, and Wei Mingzi used this as a reason to slander the revolutionary masses. Moreover, the revolutionary masses, lacking combat experience, deserved to be shot and labeled counter-revolutionaries—what about his father? Wouldn’t his entire family be executed? According to Wei Mingzi’s logic, begging and stealing also belong to theft from the bourgeoisie and deserve death? Wei Mingzi is not only bad but also slanders the proletariat. He himself cannot distinguish between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the party. Why? Because he does not believe Mao’s statement “The people are the driving force of history.” Wei Mingzi simply cannot tell the difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; he either ignores the real proletariat or labels them as counter-revolutionaries, then calls the Red Guards reactionaries and claims they are fighting other bourgeoisie dogs—slandering the rebels. Such a person, confusing the proletariat and bourgeoisie, and slandering the proletariat, should be beaten with a copper belt, told “The great, glorious, correct proletarian Cultural Revolution is the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie within the party. The dog-biting-dog you slander is just the bourgeoisie dogs biting each other, not the proletariat and bourgeoisie. You are either really stupid or both stupid and evil, ignoring the proletariat, opposing the class perspective, and being a dog of the revisionist faction!” The key point: besides criticizing the Cultural Revolution, Wei Mingzi also criticizes Mao Zedong, pointing fingers at Mao—it’s like bullying the dead and internet rightists running rampant, which is laughable. The most hilarious part of Wei Mingzi’s speech is his view on party corruption. He says the reason for party corruption is overestimating oneself, and he once said who overestimates himself? Mao Zedong! This first slanders Mao’s corruption, then turns the reason for the continued existence of class contradictions during socialism from the social nature of socialism itself to party member corruption. His meaning is that class struggle is unnecessary, and class contradictions don’t exist—just officials being corrupt. Isn’t this bourgeois human nature theory? When human nature is bad, contradictions arise; when human nature is good, no contradictions exist. Our big philosopher Wei circles around without even reading Marxism-Leninism, returning to the human nature theory that covers up the social root of class contradictions, and claims to be a leftist, but actually is a red-flag-waving bureaucratic bourgeoisie guard. If he does this, the left will definitely criticize him. How does Wei Mingzi rebut the left? His answer is that he only rebuts opponents he can, such as those with less theoretical knowledge than him, who only call to kill capitalists without considering class struggle, and then generalizes all leftists as such, downgrading opponents spiritually, using his remaining IQ to rebut, and finally thinking he has won—truly a master of his generation. What was the January Revolution in Shanghai? A class overthrowing another class, as Mao Zedong said—truth. The Cultural Revolution was not just the ruling class dogs biting dogs; it was the proletariat’s class struggle against the bourgeoisie within the party during the transition from socialism to communism, an inevitable path to eliminate class and realize communism. Revolution is what revolutionaries do—not kings, saints, Zhang saints, Yao saints, Kang saints, nor listen to Confucian classics that punish the officials and not the commoners. To attack the bourgeoisie is to eliminate them biologically and spiritually, with no mercy after dogs bite dogs. Moreover, the bourgeoisie is not only among the old remnants of the old society; Wei Mingzi cannot understand that the bourgeoisie exists within the socialist state party, calling the party bourgeoisie the rebels, and by doing so, he slanders the class struggle and the genuine rebels—it’s a win-win for him. The socialist revolution is just a preliminary violent revolution. In a socialist country, although the proletarian dictatorship exists, there are still currency transactions, commodity exchanges, and competition among state-owned enterprises, which can lead to capitalist tendencies in production relations. To prevent these tendencies from triggering bourgeois reactionaries and capitalist ideas within the party, strategies must be adopted—calling on the proletariat to fight against the petty bourgeoisie within socialist countries. The existence of potential bourgeoisie and Wei Mingzi’s talk of corruption has nothing to do with it. The proletariat must fight these people, not compromise as Wei Mingzi suggests. This is the historical mission of the proletariat. Yet Wei Mingzi, a supposed inventor of history, begins to criticize the class struggle and the law of history, claiming Mao’s teachings are wrong. How can someone who hasn’t even read Marxism-Leninism criticize the laws of history and Mao Zedong? The proletariat must always fight class enemies because the remnants of the old society still have the capacity to produce bourgeoisie. Therefore, the proletariat must carry out class struggle to eliminate these remnants and the hidden bourgeoisie within the party. After eliminating these remnants and new bourgeoisie within the party, only then can class be abolished, inequality eliminated, and even the ideological transformation of all humanity achieved. If the socialist struggle fails, it means capitalism has re-emerged after the remnants are defeated because the class struggle was not thoroughly carried out, or they never abdicated, and the bourgeoisie remnants were not fully eradicated—like today’s China. What did Wei Mingzi say afterward? He proposed his own solution for socialist countries without class struggle—relying on the old society’s remnants to produce, thus bringing about “new production.” Isn’t this Liu Shaoqi? So, in future revolutionary art, comrades should paint posters criticizing Wei Mingzi as Liu Shaoqi, since their theories of extinguishing class struggle and productivity are almost identical.
Wei Mingzi and the Liu Shaoqi gang on Red China net are very similar—ignoring imperialist exploitation of domestic and African people, talking about peripheral and semi-peripheral areas without mentioning domestic class contradictions and struggles, constantly talking about US and European imperialism. I know some Liu Shaoqis who always praise US imperialism, ignoring the class contradictions within the US and China’s current situation, then randomly interpreting Marxist-Leninist ideas, ignoring the proletariat. They think that if they gain power according to their theories, they will starve many people.
Wei Mingzi is essentially someone who defends the interests of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist roaders. His talk about stopping class struggle is mostly beneficial to Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, and Xi Jinping—he is a bureaucratic bourgeoisie watchdog waving a red flag. He used to show some ambiguity about the Cultural Revolution but now completely denies it. His opportunism is truly strong, surpassing Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping in some ways.
Finally, the same old sentence: class struggle will never disappear until classes are completely abolished and will not relapse. As for Wei Mingzi and his ilk, struggle is still necessary—to prevent him from misleading more young people.
Long live Mao Zedong Thought invincible!