Recently, when using a VPN to search for “Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association” on Microsoft’s Bing browser, I found an article at 马列毛大群锐评无产阶级解放斗争协会 | 红色中国网 titled “Marxist-Leninist Maoist Group Sharp Review of the Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association,” dated April 25 this year. It has been identified as a malicious attack piece by the left-wing petty bourgeois right-wing toxic weed. The “editor’s note” at the beginning clearly states the nature of this toxic weed, then proceeds to smear the organizational line (specifically selling their “industrial revolution organizational theory,” while ignoring the association’s efforts to establish a vanguard), deny the significance of ideological transformation of petty bourgeois at this stage, blur class distinctions and defend the bourgeoisie, attack Comrade Fenghuo personally, make sophistry about their security measures as a pretext, deny the meaning of self-introduction under the guise of security issues, and so on. I was furious after reading it, so I published this toxic weed for comrades to criticize and reference. Below is the original toxic weed text:
Marxist-Leninist Maoist Group Sharp Review of the Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association
SOSO
Written on April 25, 2025, 01:20
Last edited by SOSO on April 24, 2025, 17:22
#1
maoist2025
25 days
Advertisement ☭ Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Revolutionary Leftist Group ☭ Find true comrades and true allies on Telegram group
Telegram: View @longlivemarxleninmaoist
Add Jingan Mountain Robot Chingkang (@maoistQAIIbot) as Telegram (Paper Plane) friend to gain speaking rights in the big group
Brief explanation of opportunist organizations
Editor’s note:
1. The line of the Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association is nothing new; it is a variant of the past two lines of “冲塔” (breaking the tower) theory and “工联主义” (guild unionism). It is worth noting that @maoistQAIIbot further packages their line, proposing single-point breakthrough and the seemingly revolutionary “Holy Library” system, which is the opportunists’ “keeping up with the times” in the line struggle. We must expose this opportunist line by revealing democratic centralism and the two-stage strategic defense, but at the same time, we should recognize the fundamental progress of dialectics: revolutionaries can only avoid being led astray by opportunists if they can correctly discern the line at every step.
2. At each stage of revolution, there are manifestations of two tendencies of opportunist lines. When we examine the details, we find many similarities. The so-called struggle association that opposes petty bourgeois residual poison actually allows students to not conduct line exposure from a political height but instead casually slander over dangerous specific issues. Isn’t the struggle association clever enough? The reason is that exposing the identity of the pseudo-leftist who is being duped is their badge for selling black lines: old-left Red Beiyang and Pingdeng ren openly reform the line, while the top of the struggle association is anonymous anti-party, but the grassroots pseudo-leftists openly break the tower, filling a gap in opportunism—namely, the leftist erroneous line. Different forms of opportunist lines inevitably appear in revolution; only dialectical materialism can distinguish them, and only organizations with democratic centralism can defeat them. The two are interconnected.
What is the “Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association”? In our words, it is a newly emerged opportunist gang this year. But to let readers feel the opportunists’ pretentious methods, let’s see how they perceive themselves.
On the official forum of the “Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association,” there is a “majestic” self-description, with a tone like “Imperial Edict of the Mandate of Heaven”:
“The Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association is composed of revolutionary intellectuals who are in the process of proletarianization, striving to awaken proletarian political consciousness, using open Marxist forums to publish political expose articles and conduct large debates as a means of ideological struggle, through political exposure and propaganda work to organize, prepare cadres and thoughts, in order to establish a unified proletarian party, leading the proletarian revolution as a political organization. The Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association is founded and maintained on the principle of democratic centralism, aiming to defeat all opportunist factions in China through open forum activities, purify bourgeois ideology in the workers’ movement, and ensure Marxism’s leading position in China’s workers’ movement. Due to the threat of the White Terror of the Chinese fascist government, the association currently focuses on secret activities, with open activities as auxiliary, conducting political propaganda while secretly recruiting members, developing the organization, and leading the movement.”
“The Proletarian Liberation Struggle Forum is directly led by the political organization—“Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association”—and, following Lenin’s “What Is To Be Done,” in this modern imperialist country China, it is dedicated to propagating Marxism, conducting political exposure and agitation, conveying the voices of oppressed and exploited classes, so that the proletariat can receive comprehensive political education, inspire the broad masses’ political consciousness.”
What does “revolutionary intellectuals in proletarianization” mean? The “association” adds: To improve members’ theoretical literacy and ideological consciousness, and better conduct ideological struggle against non-Marxist ideas, the association has strengthened organizational discipline, formulated behavioral norms for internal activities, and started systematic Marxist theory study through regular reading groups. In this process, practice has gradually pointed out the way for us. The lack of enthusiasm for learning, loose discipline, and unstable class stance all point to one root cause—the rotten nature of petty bourgeois intellectuals: lack of enthusiasm for study due to indulging in low-level pleasures; weak discipline due to habits formed in individualistic lifestyles of “freedom and looseness”; unstable class stance due to detachment from practice and labor. Recognizing that the petty bourgeois worldview of the association’s members is an obstacle to revolution, to continue advancing the revolutionary movement and make the association a true Marxist organization, we have elevated ideological struggle to a new stage: from simply improving theoretical literacy to “improving theory while transforming worldview and establishing communist morality.” Subsequently, a vigorous rectification movement arose within the organization. Members, while changing their individualistic lifestyles and eliminating low-level pleasures, also launched a large-scale critique of the reactionary culture that deeply influences petty bourgeois intellectuals, such as the secondary dimension, pornography, vulgar abstraction, and popular science. After long-term ideological struggle, liberalism within the organization was controlled, the proportion of actively participating members increased, discussions on theory and academic debates, critiques of reactionary culture, and political commentary became more active, and members involved in social labor and connecting with the masses surged. The organization’s cohesion, discipline, and theoretical cultivation greatly improved."
Regarding the “petty bourgeois worldview” of the members, the “association” mentions: Although the student group is large and accounts for a significant part of the petty bourgeoisie, their mental outlook is not optimistic. What ideologies poison these “petty bourgeois”? The “association” earnestly “teaches” us: the two biggest toxins in Chinese ideology are Confucianism and secondary dimension culture. Therefore, the “association” proposes a seemingly very “exciting” and “effective” “medicine”: through long-term ideological struggle, the association has eliminated many pleasure-seeking and wavering elements and some scheming troublemakers, improving members’ theoretical literacy and ideological consciousness, consolidating its ranks, and establishing the ideological, organizational, and cadre foundations for building bases. Subsequently, the association quickly established revolutionary bases at home and abroad, achieving great success. After establishing bases, they fully implemented the “Holy Library” system, following the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” with members contributing all their private property to the “Holy Library,” participating in work, and using the income for necessary expenses, with the rest deposited into the “Holy Library.” Each person’s needs for clothing, food, and daily necessities are directly covered by the “Holy Library,” and comrades live a communist life of “eating together, wearing together, using money together, evenly distributed everywhere, and everyone warm and fed.”
*This is truly convincing and eloquent! They also boast about their “practical achievements,” claiming to have fully realized the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” principle in the “base,” and that they are the heroes of the present age, having achieved communism so early, and that the proletarian revolution should be led by them—yet, a closer look at the line reveals these words are fundamentally unsubstantiated.*The reason they peddle theories like “brainy petit bourgeois theory,” “student petit bourgeois theory,” and “teacher petit bourgeois theory” is to divide the broad masses of workers internally, to prevent the working class from forming a united front, and to let them be polluted by their group of true petit bourgeois elements, infected with their individualist faction. Some self-proclaimed “leftists” of the broad leftist camp, don’t they like to rally some backward workers to mock and ridicule the peasant masses, calling them “ignorant rural friends”? Their actions are certainly not out of respect for industrial workers, but to lure them into a trap, to promote "left"ist blind activism, to recklessly “attack the tower,” and after a crushing defeat, blame it on insufficient productive forces and the limited strength of the working class. Isn’t Jiashi’s faction doing exactly that? The “association” nonsensically claims that the large student groups are “a major part of the petty bourgeoisie,” lamenting their “not optimistic” mental outlook, which clearly shows they are already laying the groundwork for playing tricks with Jiashi’s style!
This opportunist sectarianism of theirs is also reflected in the so-called “second dimension” issue. The “association” shamelessly claims: In the ideological landscape of Chinese society, the two biggest toxins are Confucianism and second dimension culture. Therefore, on the “association” forum, various “struggles to eliminate petty bourgeois hedonism” are incessant, as if opposing second dimension culture is one of the primary tasks of Marxist-Leninists-Maoists. The bourgeois decadent culture is countless, so why does the “association” elevate second dimension culture to one of the biggest toxins in the middle-revisionist society? Saying that nationalism is comparable to Confucianism as a toxin is more credible. Does the “association” really so stupid as to be completely unaware of the situation in the middle-revisionist society? I fear they are not stupid, but merely seeking to stand out and establish their own sect.
The facts also prove this point. The “association” sectarians treat “anti-second dimension” as their golden signboard, making it their main banner. Anyone who does not prioritize it is accused of “not recognizing the necessity of gender oppression and women’s liberation movements,” or of “holding onto bourgeois culture” and “rejecting proletarianization of the petty bourgeois.” We are thus slandered by the “association” leaders. This is truly absurd. We have long criticized the rotten, stinking second dimension culture countless times, and have thoroughly analyzed its reactionary bourgeois patriarchy essence. Occasionally, petty bourgeois elements shouting “mind your own business about the second dimension” angrily accuse us of “overreach,” but isn’t that enough to show our attitude towards second dimension culture? The “association” completely disregards facts, forcibly elevating “anti-second dimension” to an undeserved high status, just to boast about their “thorough revolution,” slander opponents, and intimidate others. Fundamentally, this is dictated by their petty bourgeois opportunist nature.
In summary, the “association” essentially does not care about the “proletarian liberation struggle.” They only care about how to seize leadership and “occupy a leading position in the Chinese workers’ movement.” Their slogans are deafening, but their hearts are full of sordid schemes. They are no different in essence from groups like Dongfeng and the Workers and Peasants Liberation Society. Their revolutionary words sound nice, but in reality, they just want to emulate their secretly admired Jiashi elders, using the blood of ambitious youth and innocent masses to exchange for personal fame and fortune. Such ostentatious, selfish, and deceptive scoundrels—can we not criticize them?