My confusion about what to do next

I have accepted the fact that I want to become part of the exploiting class for pleasure, but when I consider the possibility of proletarianization, my individualist thoughts start to emerge. Because I crave pleasure and think I can exploit others to become a big capitalist under capitalism, although this is less likely. Also, I have less contact with the working people and cannot see their suffering. I have no concept of many facts mentioned in the Chinese revision, such as the decline in food self-sufficiency rate (but I previously believed it was to keep my rice bowl in my own hands), the economic colonization of Black Africa (I haven’t seen proof of national resistance movements), the reactionary nature of peacekeeping forces, the exploitation of people through commodity taxes, and most importantly, the lie that reform and opening up have made people’s lives happier. Due to the propaganda control of the Chinese revision, I don’t know whether actual poverty alleviation work has been done (many claim to have gone to the grassroots to help the poor). In short, my illusions about the Chinese revision and becoming a completely exploitative class have not been completely shattered.

Through your criticism, I see clearly that I am not fighting for the great ideal of communism; I still look at problems from a personal perspective. I know that after the fall of our petty bourgeoisie, I want to surrender and ask you about the possibility of continuing my current enjoyment after the revolution succeeds. I find it impossible. But before I make a choice, I must understand what communism is, whether a communist society can play games, and what benefits communism has, because my understanding of communism is vague, distorted, and one-sided. I hope I can become a big capitalist or a selfless revolutionary.

At the same time, I have maintained this childish view since I was young: that life is a game, and just having fun is good (I haven’t even defined what happiness is, and this is an extreme individualism centered on the individual). If communism can make me very happy, I am willing to accept it, provided I understand it. This mentality led me into hedonism after I accepted nihilism (I don’t know what happiness is, only pursuing sensory stimulation), and I believe that communism cannot avoid the erosion of nihilism. Even if capitalism and everything related to it are overthrown and communism is realized, what then? Will everyone live happily ever after? Or will everyone find no meaning in life and sink together? I find that every communist thinks about overthrowing capitalism but doesn’t think about what to do afterward. My concern with games is also for this reason, because they make me happy (although they are capitalist). I am just a child, and I haven’t found an answer to my fear of nihilism. God has been overthrown, and the claws of nihilism have wrapped around me again. Communists take the realization of communism as a meaning, but I still ask this question: what then?

It’s better not to talk about what happens afterward; shouldn’t we use materialist dialectics to reason and reach a conclusion instead of avoiding the problem?

Don’t be so selfish, do you have to create a new post for just one issue? Doing so will push down other people’s posts. Also, the section you posted in, “Theoretical Discussion,” is not very appropriate. I suggest you read the section description or other posts in the section. Ideas guide actions; it’s not enough to just say you recognize certain thoughts. Wrong ideas should be criticized and corrected. I haven’t seen that from your behavior. Lastly, as everyone has told you, if you care so much about your own interests, your private property, and your pleasures, then what kind of proletarian revolution are you trying to carry out? I suggest you delete these posts and copy the content into your existing posts; everyone will see it.

5 Likes

Humans always only propose tasks they can solve because, upon careful examination, it can be found that the task itself only arises when the material conditions for solving it already exist or are at least in the process of being generated.

This conclusion is too strange; could it be that communism is a static, unchanging result rather than a dynamic social form? After achieving communism, do communists have nothing left to do? What communists aim to achieve is human liberation, in other words, as Marx said, “the freedom of all people, based on the freedom of each”. At that point, the endeavors people undertake are all about advancing humanity. Whether in science or cultural development, they can be built on the individuality liberated from oppression, not conducted under the pressure and influence of bourgeois culture, but genuinely for the science or culture of all humanity. Under communism, to continually improve one’s talents for the cause of humanity, working for the freedom and happiness of all, even then, communists would not say their mission has ended.

2 Likes

I hope you can explain what it means that God has been overthrown using your existing knowledge. I don’t quite understand this sentence; it seems like you’re treating the concept of God, which doesn’t exist, as something that actually exists but has been defeated.

We communists regard the realization of communism as a lifelong ideal. If communism is achieved, it represents the ultimate stage of human social development. Everything that humanity does in a communist society is to promote social progress. The prerequisite is that after achieving communism, we must ensure that everyone’s thoughts are communist, not capitalist or reactionary. What we communists need to do is these things.

You said you would criticize yourself for improvement, but you still haven’t corrected your biggest mistake, which is opportunism and egoism. You can improve different issues in batches, but this issue must be addressed as a priority; otherwise, the reactionary nature of your thinking will not change, and no matter how you try to change, it will be useless.

Agree, @Wood_Lee we have many comrades who are more advanced than you, but because of your repeated posts, we can’t see their self-introductions, which delays their revolutionary work. If you have any questions, please say them in the comment section of your self-introduction, and we will see them.

It was through your criticism that I realized my understanding of God was untenable, so when I talked to you, I believed that God had already been refuted by you. I also don’t have the ability to make Him stand up again, because previously I saw many things within the church as untenable, either mysticism and agnosticism, or using authority to suppress your thinking and rebellion. Moreover, those old-fashioned things are completely unacceptable today, even under capitalism they are considered backward, superficial. Although I haven’t completely given up yet, because I see it as a gamble, in case there is an afterlife, I would have gained; if not, I have little to lose. I still hold this selfish mentality.

Why do you still can’t change after realizing the errors of your opportunism and selfishness?

Just approving without correcting is equivalent to not approving. It’s just an abstract understanding that doing so is speculative and individualistic, but there’s never been a concrete reflection on why one has such thoughts, so natural transformation cannot be discussed. Only concrete problems can lead to concrete opinions; vague discussions can only result in a pile of abstract empty words.

1 Like

Just take this post as a serialized diary
Diary of April 1st
I read that article about Zhang Qiujun successfully removing a giant tumor. I am very longing for a society depicted where all people are comrades. A sentence from Chairman Mao reminded me: If you want to solve this problem, then go and understand its current state and history. I began to trace the roots of my individualism, and I thought again that human understanding can only come from social practice.
I remembered my naive good-hearted view as a child: Why do people fight each other? Wouldn’t peaceful coexistence be more conducive to development? But after various grievances, as you all said, this concept was changed through social practice. I thought of all the grievances I suffered, pondered their roots, and found that without exception, they reflected the class contradictions you criticized in me.
I felt increasingly unfair, you all criticized correctly, and I felt deeply deceived. I felt I was betrayed and was still helping others count money.
Firstly, my parents instilled in me the path of winning and individualism, with a strong feudal hierarchical thought. I remembered that I liked asking questions as a child: many interesting questions. But once my parents, with their vulgar understanding, couldn’t answer, they would tell me to just study hard. Why ask so many questions? As long as I study well and go to university, I will have a bright future, because my father was the first in his family to go to university, and my mother’s younger brother was selected through university to work for the Chinese修正主义 (Reformist) government (Communist Party member), becoming a wealthy worker aristocrat. So they hoped I would become successful through studying, which made me very ambitious. Then they used video games to control me; I was only allowed to play after completing my homework. I only studied to keep playing games, which is why I didn’t do my homework during winter and summer vacations later, because it took up my gaming time. During this process, I became extremely selfish. At that time, I read Ming Dynasty stories and even wanted to learn the art of厚黑学 (Thick Black Theory, manipulative tactics for personal gain). This process was oppressed by族权 (clan power) and神权 (divine authority).

Secondly, the school should reflect the oppression of the regime. I was confused by the socialist core values for twelve years in school (which have nothing to do with socialism and haven’t been realized). I was also told various distorted histories and black-and-white reversal speeches, the most typical being Liu Shaoqi’s “wrong case” in middle school textbooks, which was not wrongful at all, and the so-called rectification of chaos, the idea that practice is the only criterion for testing truth, all tricks of revisionism. I listened and was told every day to study hard and make progress every day. In fact, this so-called studying alienated me from practice and the masses, creating a mentality of superiority over the working people, which became even more obvious after entering university.

Here is the first grievance: When I was just in first grade, I was a little kid playing every day. Once, when I was running, I bumped into another kid, and we both clenched fists and confronted each other before class. I went back home, but after school, I was kept by the head teacher, who said I made that kid bleed and slandered me in front of everyone. Actually, we didn’t fight at all. I cried bitterly, and that kid even sneered with a twisted mouth. (This established my distrust of others.) My dad came to pick me up. I repeatedly told him I didn’t hit that kid, but he just listened, and after I stopped crying, he took me home. (This might reflect his submissive attitude; he had a few pencil lead marks on his right arm, which I guess were signs of bullying.) The key was later I learned from my mom that the neighboring class teacher targeted me because she had a son who was jealous. My mom said the kindergarten teacher kept bragging that I was smart (I guess my mom is also partly responsible).
It’s obvious that socialist China shouldn’t have such things.
And I also did a bad thing. I often regret it and feel very upset. It was probably in second grade. There was a shy classmate whom everyone liked to bully. Once, he took a plastic toy to school, similar to a Transformer. I forcibly took it for a month, claiming I would borrow it, and I still keep it at home. I was born bad because I knew he wouldn’t tell the teacher, so I stole his thing. After this, he soon stopped coming to school. I really wanted to cut myself after this.

Most of the criticisms I received I think you all criticized correctly and well, very well, criticizing the bourgeois思想 (ideology), individualism, and liberalism in me. Overcorrected.
I want to tell you a few things to criticize: one is I saw a part in Cao Wenxuan’s “Thatched Cottage” that slandered the land reform, saying an old couple saved money all their lives just to buy a few acres of land from landlords, and right after buying it, it was taken away by land reform, and the old man died, and the old lady kept demanding to get the land back (that’s roughly it, not clear now, but I think it’s nonsense; how could such poor peasants be forced into this?). Could you write an article criticizing writers like Cao Wenxuan? (And: urge for “Dawn” to update). Another is Ai Yuejin. I watched his five-hour video about the Cultural Revolution (YouTube) and was moved by Chairman Mao, which led me to keep looking for true Marxists like you. I say Mao’s direction is the direction I follow (but I still want to argue with you in arts and literature, not here). But I am unsure about what aspects of Ai Yuejin should be criticized.

Finally, I want to tell you that today I am participating in the political theory study of the Chinese修正主义 (Reformist) regime (weekly), and I feel really disgusting and uncomfortable. Everyone is not serious about studying, just playing games or watching videos as a formality. Today, I watched half of “The Public Enemy” and honestly felt quite happy. Seeing Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping’s counterrevolutionary faces being harshly criticized by the Tsinghua group was very satisfying. I even couldn’t send it out to some QQ groups (obviously, the AI detected the content; I also had some posts about “Dawn” that were deleted when I showed others).

If you take this serialized diary, then put it in the new floor, not inside the mezzanine, so others can’t see it.

Uh uh, I replied to the topmost post, didn’t expect it to still be a nested reply.

New reply on the right side of the page

I would like to ask, since you have come to the forum, you must have some understanding of communism. Why do you insist on promoting the argument that selfishness is justified? Don’t you know that communists are people who are entirely selfless and dedicated to helping others? Why do you openly promote the idea that you are seeking personal gain? These two opposing worldviews are placed together—doesn’t that seem quite ridiculous?

1 Like

The more selfish I am, the more it should demonstrate the nobility of a Communist. Measuring two worldviews should also be part of ideological struggle, right? If I pretend to fully endorse you but actually infiltrate to sabotage the revolution, wouldn’t that be bad? Also, you are a Communist who specifically benefits others, and I also raised a question in the latest post.

Isn’t your statement just that being selfish isn’t a bad thing, or even a good thing? My own selfishness makes others seem noble. But if I do selfish and self-interested things that harm others, isn’t the result already objectively caused? How can I then justify myself?

3 Likes

I think if you have questions, you can reply within the existing posts. You think opening a new post will make your message visible, but it’s also troublesome for others to go and check each one.

I’m afraid that being together will be too chaotic.