7499 population labels us with “guildism” and “labor unionism”
The spring breeze in March is warmer than in previous years, yet the atmosphere among people feels strange, with various emotions intertwined and growing stronger. Recently, workers in certain economic strata declared that a phone priced at 7499 yuan is “a phone everyone can afford.” Meanwhile, with the explosive development of AI technology, technology has once again become the focus of capital competition. Various so-called AI application courses are booming on short video platforms, creating a lively scene. At this moment, we cannot help but think that in every corner of society, those engaged in basic labor, the K-level workers, seem to be an overlooked group in the era of technology, quietly surviving outside the stage dominated by capital.
Using the purchasing power of a 7499 yuan phone as a standard, let’s see which so-called “leftists” can be considered similar to the “people” in the eyes of some who hold advantageous economic positions. Clearly, we are not among them, so we do not consider ourselves “leftists.”
When did we decide to no longer associate with “leftists”? The turning point was the Liu Hanyang case in 2009. Briefly, in the Liu Hanyang case, we faced a choice between the interests of the working masses and the interests of the “left”. Ultimately, we chose to detach from the “left” group and fully integrate into the working class.
In typical historical periods, the working class remains stable and silent. Their income levels are generally low, and they quietly exist in society without attracting attention. Therefore, as audiences under capitalist-controlled media, you rarely see genuine representations of the working class. In other words, when some claim to represent the interests of the working class, you must first understand their own class attributes. Like those self-proclaimed “leftists,” their true class nature cannot be ignored, especially considering their economic status. For example, a well-known “leftist” reportedly has tax issues, with large amounts of back taxes and fines. Such an economically strained person has become a typical representative of the so-called “left.”
Today, the main body of the working class is the K-level workers. Unlike in the past, most of today’s K-level workers have at least a high school education, possessing basic thinking and discernment abilities, which is an important feature of this era. Because of this, the so-called “theoretically correct” faction’s problems are gradually exposed. What is the “theoretically correct” faction? It refers to those who have no practical achievements but rely solely on theoretical books to claim their authority.
Followers of the “theoretically correct” faction mostly lack practical action ability but fantasize about finding shortcuts to realize their life values through so-called correct theories. Of course, some of them do participate in what they consider practical activities, but ultimately, these individuals often quickly retreat from practice due to real experiences, returning to the pursuit of personal interests.
Looking back over the past thirty years, many grand collective struggles have occurred in our environment. However, none of these collective struggles were organized, initiated, and led by the “theoretically correct” faction and its followers to achieve phased victories. It’s not that they don’t want to do it, but they simply can’t. It’s not that they lack theories, but their theories override the rights of the working class.
In 2009, with only 1500 yuan in funds, we helped in the Liu Hanyang case, successfully securing a death sentence exemption for a worker. This was not because we had any superpower, but because we always prioritized workers’ interests and firmly stood on the side of the working class. Those “leftists” eager to exploit the Liu Hanyang case to seek sympathy and realize their own theoretical value cannot do this, which is why we inevitably broke with the “theoretically correct” faction.
Similarly, with less than 40,000 yuan in funds and after a year of effort, we properly handled the ASM case, increased workers’ wages by 20% for 12,000 employees, and ensured that workers applying for resignation could receive N + 1 benefits. This is not a superpower but a reflection of the main force of the working class, proving that we are part of the main force of the working class and highlighting the real gap between us and the “theoretically correct” group.
It should not be overlooked that today’s cultural literacy of the main body of the working class, i.e., the conditions for their leadership, has reached an unprecedented level of maturity. Ignoring this important background makes it easy to fall into the traps carefully set by the “theoretically correct” faction over the past century.
Those in the “theoretically correct” faction may have ten or even a hundred times more funds and a much larger team than us. Their desire to lead the working class is no weaker than our willingness to accept leadership from the working class. However, what have they achieved over decades? Perhaps they have gained millions of followers, accumulated billions in wealth, and obtained titles like dean or professor, but they have failed completely in advancing the workers’ movement. To be so blunt, can they deny it? They dare to! Moreover, they bypass facts and directly label us with “guildism” and “labor unionism.”
No matter how loud their slogans, only real achievements count. Just like someone who once shouted slogans but achieved little. Claiming to represent certain positions may also be false; what matters is the final result. For example, Sima Nan, who amassed millions in wealth.
Social development occurs in stages. In class society, development relies not only on the struggle between class forces but also on the silent class work behind social currents. There is daily class work led by elites in the dominant groups, and there are scattered but crucial class efforts carried out by other advanced elements.
Clearly, genuine class work is often low-key and unknown. Many so-called “class work” displayed in the public eye is deceptive. For example, the labor law implemented since 1995 appears to be the result of the 1993 Kowloon Toy Factory fire, but in reality, the law that significantly impacted hundreds of millions of workers was not prompted by that limited-scale industrial accident but by the nationwide enterprise restructuring movement in the mid-1990s.
It is important to emphasize again that, at this stage, there is no experience sharing of class work in the open. The reason is simple and needs no further explanation.
Discussions and exchanges on macro-level cognition are not true sharing of class work; they are superficial behaviors aimed at declaring one’s existence and resonating with others’ perceptions. This kind of behavior does not touch on class interests, does not produce substantial impact on the broad masses of the working class, and does not directly promote or hinder the development of class movements. Therefore, readers should not misunderstand. When you see the work we do, do not think you see the core. Over the past ten-plus years, some “leftists” around us have stolen fragments of our work, pieced together what they call the “truth” of the workers’ movement, but this is neither a true review of our work nor a reflection of its value, and it is not qualified to evaluate our achievements. So, do not be surprised; we are not “leftists.” Our struggle with the “left” is not about competing for certain interests nor about overthrowing their so-called “theoretical struggle” banners. As for why we struggle, first, it is to leave a record of our practical conclusions within a certain scope; second, our practice needs to attract new forces; third, it is also a necessary process for us to sort out and refine our practical experience.
Our differences with a certain clearly characterized group in the open are self-evident. But for those hidden in the dark, claiming the “left” banner, we must repeatedly clarify our differences with them. That is, for opponents who openly oppose us, we can consider accepting and transforming them; but for enemies who secretly undermine us, we must always remain vigilant and not harbor illusions about transforming them.
In other words, we have no hope of transforming the stubborn elements of the “theoretically correct” faction. Therefore, we are not afraid of their various attacks from a purely theoretical perspective. On the contrary, we have always hoped that someone or some organization can achieve practical results beyond ours, which is precisely what the “theoretically correct” faction has failed to do for decades. So, facing this simple fact, recognizing the true face of the “theoretically correct” faction is not difficult; it is a fundamental issue for understanding our true stance.
Those who belittle the power of the working class and are “theoretically correct” have neither theoretical achievements nor practical results but look down on the achievements of workers in practice. If you see through their true nature, would you still follow them? If you do, then you are not the new force we expect; you are probably just a vassal serving a specific group under the guise of “left.” They only argue verbally and cannot prove themselves in practice. What power can they have? And what right do they have to represent the broad working masses?
Over the past thirty years, for those with leftist ideological ideals, the existence of the “theoretically correct” faction has been a tragedy; but for those who seek shortcuts, deceive the world, and pursue利益, the development of certain platforms has become their “model” for chasing wealth.
We are always clear that we have three major differences with the “theoretically correct” faction: first, different class positions— we are K-level workers rooted in the environment of K-level workers; second, different principles of class theory— we advocate that practice produces theory, and theory in turn guides practice, resolutely opposing and resisting those who have no practical basis but use theory as a command stick; third, different definitions of class work.
Therefore, in general historical periods, our existence is often low-key. This low profile is caused by the objective environment, not our subjective will. Because of this passive low profile, we must actively speak out on our own initiative. For example, continuously expressing opinions in some corners of the internet. This may lead some readers to misunderstand and think that our class work is just speaking out in these corners.
Whether in the past, present, or future, public opinion work is not the core of class work. Never imagine that opinion work without practical foundation can become the key to class work. Opinion work without real action is like fireworks in the night sky—spectacular but merely entertainment. Those who organize or participate in such activities are just roles providing spiritual comfort to the masses. Platforms like certain typical ones, and some so-called “opinion leaders,” are all like this.
We do not oppose the existence of “firework shows” like these because the emergence of the “theoretically correct” faction is inevitable and objective, and such activities can to some extent soothe the confusion and despair of those who have lost in social competition, and create some light in darkness, allowing believers who are also groping in darkness to find each other more easily. Of course, the organizers of these activities are aware of some issues and deliberately keep their distance from us. For example, we later found that our registration on “Red China Network” was rejected.
Therefore, when you see our content on some ideological platforms, do not blindly think we endorse the values and class stance of that platform. For example, do not think that because you see our articles on a certain platform, we are in the same camp as that platform. You cannot understand the facts without analyzing the underlying logic behind the phenomena.