On October 16th, at the Shimianshi Service Area on the Yaxi Expressway, many onlookers observed an extremely absurd scene: a child approximately three to four years old was activitying completely naked on the steps, with messy hair and behaving like an animal. The child’s guardian was nearby, dressed neatly and properly, with no mental issues, and was holding a normally dressed young child. Some enthusiastic bystanders tried to give food to the child, but were stopped. Soon, people began filming videos and calling the police. According to the people who recorded the videos, although the child was accompanied by someone, he ate like a “wild man,” crawled and ran naked, and because they were worried, they chose to call the police. The scene in the video was even more shocking: the child was running quickly on all fours, biting a ball in his mouth, and squatting on the ground in a dog-like posture. After the guardian went inside, the child sat alone on the steps outside waiting. When the “father” came out, the child bit the ball and handed it to him. Barely clothed, filthy all over, at an age where he should be receiving preschool education, yet lacking language ability… The series of abnormal behaviors called “wild child” by netizens clearly indicate that he has been treated very differently from another young child under the same guardian’s care. The “wild child” has no basic material conditions and has apparently been subjected to some form of deliberate “education,” which not only prevents him from learning skills like walking and speaking like normal children, but also from communicating with others, even being forcibly tamed to live like a dog. \[1\]
Such behavior completely breaches the bottom line of social morality. After the video was uploaded online, it quickly caused a huge uproar. The public began to investigate the matter voluntarily. They found that the “wild child” had appeared in public before, even being filmed multiple times running on all fours with a pet dog. Due to this long-term deliberate taming, he had already suffered significant physiological damage. The place where the “wild child” appeared was only about ten degrees Celsius, yet he had no clothes on, was malnourished, deformed in development, and even his hands drooped. Was his guardian incapable of providing at least basic material conditions? In fact, they were not poor at all; both had received higher education, which proves otherwise. The father held a university degree, the mother was registered in Beijing, with a graduate degree. They even owned a luxury RV worth tens of thousands of yuan and often traveled. \[2\] All these facts indicate that the guardians are fully capable of raising the child normally, but they deliberately treat the “wild child” differently. The normal-dressed young child held by the female guardian further proves this. What is more infuriating is that when outsiders tried to understand the situation by phone, the guardian of the “wild child” insisted that this was a “natural upbringing” mode, claiming they wanted the child to be close to nature, and because the weather was hot locally, they were used to letting the child be naked and active, even shouting: “This is our way of life, others have no right to interfere.” One must ask, what kind of “closeness to nature” involves living like a dog? Which parents can use the excuse of “maintaining lifestyle” to deprive a child of the right to be human? Language is the material shell of thought. The “wild child” has been deprived of the right to learn language by his guardian, making it impossible for him to form concepts of objective things in his mind. Moreover, humans are the sum of social relations; all human thoughts originate from social practice. The “wild child” has been deprived of opportunities to communicate with others, cannot receive normal education, cannot establish social relations, and cannot engage in social practice to form his worldview. Over time, the “wild child” will inevitably truly become a beast without thought or labor ability. Even if he receives normal education, his terrible early experiences will make learning more difficult than for ordinary children, and he will inevitably face discrimination in society today. The beast-like guardian of the “wild child” deprives the child of human dignity and the right to become a human, yet they call it “natural education.” From the self-report of this beastly guardian who has crossed the moral bottom line, it is clear that the extreme abnormal condition of the “wild child” is not the result of any normal education, but rather the result of deliberate abuse inflicted upon him!
The barbaric behavior of the “wild child’s” guardian not only breaches the bottom line of social morality but is also clearly illegal even in today’s reform-oriented society. The current “Minor Protection Law” explicitly stipulates that guardians must provide minors with guarantees in terms of life, health, safety, and respect their人格尊严, and must send them to school for compulsory education. If the minor’s parents or other guardians fail to perform their guardianship duties according to law or seriously infringe upon the minors’ legal rights, the people’s court can, upon application by relevant persons or units, issue a personal safety protection order or revoke guardianship qualifications. \[3\] Under criminal law, the guardian of the “wild child,” knowing that such actions would harm the child’s physical and mental health, still insists it is “maintaining lifestyle,” and long-term neglect of basic living guarantees, mental torment, and abuse meet the subjective conditions of abuse, fulfilling the criteria for the crime of “abuse” under reform-oriented criminal law, and should be subject to criminal punishment. Legally and logically, the parents of the “wild child” should be immediately punished, and the public is demanding this: after the case was exposed, it quickly trended on major platforms, and many netizens expressed sympathy. Many who saw the news of the “wild child” even stayed awake all night, feeling sad about his misfortune and angry at his guardians’ beast-like conduct. They cannot understand how such abuse could occur openly in a “rule of law society,” and why the Chinese government, which claims to “protect minors,” turns a blind eye. These enthusiastic people collected a large amount of information about the “wild child’s” past and family situation, suspecting that the child might not be biologically related to his guardians and could have been abducted, demanding a thorough investigation and severe punishment for the guardians, including deprivation of custody. However, the reform-oriented government, which claims to “enforce the law strictly and investigate violations,” what has it done? \[4\]
People from various professions have spoken out on all platforms after the “wild child” incident. In fact, even before the incident was exposed, the local government was fully aware of the full picture. After the exposure, the government of Wuliangshan Town, Nanjian Yi Autonomous County, Dali, Yunnan, where the guardian originally resided, claimed: “This family refuses to communicate and completely rejects outside parenting concepts, and has become a ‘difficult case’ to handle locally,” indicating that even before the incident drew widespread attention, many local residents had noticed it and requested action through calls and reports. However, the local government and related agencies only conducted superficial persuasion and did not conduct detailed investigations into whether the child was biological or his physical condition, nor did they use any coercive measures to rescue the child despite knowing that the guardians’ raising method was illegal. When the “wild child” incident gained widespread social attention, the attitude of the local government became even more astonishing:
“According to the People’s Government of Wuliangshan Town, Nanjian County, the child and his family indeed come from a certain village in the town; both parents (guardians) are present. The family has two children, and the child filmed by netizens is the older one. This child is not a ‘wild child’ and has not been abused. They live in the mountains, possibly due to the parents’ raising style, leading to behaviors like not wearing clothes and crawling.” \[5\]
“Relevant police in Sichuan have intervened and confirmed that the guardians are present. The family came from Yunnan, specifically from a certain village in Wuliangshan Town, Nanjian Yi Autonomous County, Dali. They have no criminal record. According to clues provided by netizens, the child and family are from the same village, and the accompanying persons include the parents and a younger sibling.” \[6\]
“Officials from Wuliangshan Town government told reporters that although the child is not clothed and has messy hair, the family’s economic situation is good, with a house and a RV, and they often go traveling. ‘The child’s parents have no jobs; the family supports each other,’ said the official. The government has already noticed the relevant videos and news reports online. Regarding whether the child is registered or not, further investigation is underway.” \[7\]
A perfect example of “not being abused” and “no criminal activity,” even though everyone knows that the “wild child’s” physical and mental health are under serious threat, the local government’s first concern is whether the child is registered or not! The reform-oriented government shows no intention of satisfying the urgent demands of the people. All their responses are just lies. When combined with the investigation results of many people, it further exposes the suspiciousness of the “wild child’s” guardians. Firstly, the economic situation is disconnected from the living conditions. The local government explicitly admits that both guardians are unemployed but have a good economic situation, yet the claim that the mother is providing support cannot explain the purchase of a luxury RV and the high expenses of long-term travel. Secondly, both guardians remain highly vigilant, refusing communication, even turning off their phones and losing contact. Villagers refused to dress the child when persuaded, and efforts to guide them were met with resistance; even strangers offering food were sternly stopped. Lastly, the government’s investigation found no evidence of abuse, but many people have seen the child eating “like a dog” repeatedly, and villagers confirmed that he “does not wear clothes all year round.” More suspicious is the differential treatment of the children: the eldest son at age three is naked all year, crawling and eating, while the one-year-old sibling is dressed neatly and held by the parents. This selective “natural education” has raised further doubts among the public. Some netizens exposed that the parents posted content on an overseas account “Little Monkey Tarzan,” forcing the boy to climb trees, etc. If true, the “wild child’s” guardians’ real income source might be from high rewards on certain reactionary and sensational video platforms! After this incident sparked widespread public outrage, the reform-oriented government reluctantly established a so-called “investigation team” to look into potential abuse. And what has the government said up to now? That the guardians have taken the child in a RV that has already headed north, and that the child “has obtained Beijing household registration.” \[8\] Is such a ridiculous outcome considered a resolution to the people’s call for help for the “wild child”?
“After verification, the woman who gave birth to eight children, Yang Mouxia, does not have any trafficking behavior.” — This was also the statement made by the reform-oriented government during the “Xuzhou iron chain girl giving birth to eight children” incident. Numerous facts have proven that the government not only has no intention of rescuing the children but also consistently adopts a cover-up approach regarding suspected trafficking, abuse, and other family crimes, aiming to reduce social concern. Cases widely recognized as abuse and possibly trafficking, if they occurred in any other developed imperialist country, would have parents deprived of custody due to serious violations. Western European imperialist countries have laws to terminate parental rights in similar situations, requiring regular home visits for at-risk families, and East Asian countries like Japan and South Korea explicitly allow forcible searches of guardians’ residences after confirming child abuse. But in China, a country notorious for depriving citizens of political rights during strikes and protests, the government shows such leniency towards parental abuse, allowing “wild child” guardians to travel by RV openly and display their crimes nationwide. It is obvious that in this heinous abuse case, the Chinese reform-oriented government is siding with the perpetrators. It not only ignores the people’s demands for the truth but also tries to downplay the incident, defending the guardians’ abuse. Why? To maintain the absolute authority of parents over children within family relations.
Today’s China is a barbaric Confucian capitalist country. It not only maintains a social system that, like other capitalist countries, exploits the proletariat and all social classes, but also insists on “inheriting and promoting” the rotten culture left by feudal landlords for thousands of years. The so-called “excellent traditional Chinese culture” preserved by the reform-oriented government is essentially a religion—Confucianism. “Its core teachings are ‘ruler and minister, father and son, husband and wife,’ which demand that the ruling class in society hold absolute power over the ruled, and that the head of the family and clan have absolute power over family members, and husbands have absolute power over wives.” \[9\] The reform-oriented government uses this set of ideas to try to make all people obedient slaves, preserving the reactionary rule. Especially in attitudes toward the next generation, the government claims to promote “Chinese traditional culture” but in fact propagates a barbaric feudal ethics of “fathers may not be kind, but children must be filial,” aiming to make young people accept and recognize unconditional obedience to oppressors from a very young age. Moreover, not only does it uphold unequal family relations culturally, but legally it also favors oppressors and disadvantages the oppressed.
Undoubtedly, in today’s China, there is not a single case of parents abusing, imprisoning, or even causing the death of their children due to reactionary educational methods that has resulted in punishment. In just the past few months alone, such incidents have occurred multiple times. Just four months ago, a case in Hainan involved a 55-year-old man and a mentally disabled woman giving birth to six children, with infants publicly confined in tricycle cages. After the incident, the local government claimed “no trafficking,” and the involved person was not punished. In the same month, a 14-year-old girl in Zhengzhou, Henan, was sent to a special training school by her parents to “improve her dislike of school,” and was subsequently murdered. The parents, who openly violated the child’s will and sent her to hell, were not punished, and several teachers involved in the murder only received minor sentences such as infringement of communication freedom, with no one sentenced to more than a year. Such cases are countless. Besides overwhelming evidence in reality, even the laws that claim to protect minors in the reform-oriented system reflect this reality. On the surface, the laws include the “Minor Protection Law” and laws specifically punishing abuse within families, but what about sentencing? The reform-oriented laws define “abuse” as “persecution, torment, or mutilation of family members in physical or mental ways” \[10\], explicitly including the subjective malice of parents. This means that fulfilling the legal definition of “abuse” already indicates a very serious, long-term, intentional harm based on injury, coupled with mental torment. The application of such “abuse” cases, which are more severe than ordinary intentional injury, is only within the family context and is even more serious. For oppressed family members, especially children with immature worldviews and incomplete self-care abilities, the psychological impact of abuse is extremely difficult to eliminate. However, such obviously more serious acts of abuse are lightly sentenced simply because they occur “inside the family”!
“Article 260 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China: ‘Whoever abuses family members and commits serious circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years, detention, or control. If the crime causes serious injury or death to the victim, the sentence shall be between two years and seven years.’” \[11\]
Although the reform-oriented government cannot explain the difference between “deliberate abuse causing death” and murder, it still excludes such extreme barbaric cases from the category of intentional homicide. In the reform-oriented system, any intentional injury or even murder committed within the family is always sentenced less severely, and there has never been a case where parents are sentenced for killing their children for abuse. Laws are statutes and regulations enacted by the state to represent the will and interests of the ruling class. The explicit legal provisions further demonstrate the actual needs of the reform-oriented government, clearly showing that from the root, they want to preserve the absolute control of parents over children.
Even under strong public pressure, no one involved in this heinous murder case has received a sentence longer than fifteen years.
Therefore, it is obvious what the reform-oriented government ultimately wants to do with the “wild child” incident. It will not openly support the so-called “natural education,” but it will try to avoid punishing these beastly guardians in any form and is reluctant to revoke their custody rights. For the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie in China, protecting the “wild child’s” guardians means protecting feudal family authority under capitalism, maintaining the absolute power of parents over children in the family. As mentioned above, this is conducive to maintaining family relations of slavery and oppression, and upholding the capitalist system. If, as the reform-oriented government wishes, the public opinion on the “wild child” incident subsides after the establishment of the so-called “investigation team,” the final result will inevitably be that the guardians of the “wild child” will not face any proper punishment in silence!
However, the people will never agree to such absurd outcomes. They will continue to fight until justice is served. The social concern over the “wild child” incident must not be satisfied with superficial results; at least the following demands should be met:
- Verify the child’s identity and origin, thoroughly investigate whether trafficking exists.
- Immediately revoke the guardians’ custody rights, investigate their mental state and economic sources, with a focus on whether they use children for dark web live streaming for profit.
- Prosecute the “wild child’s” parents under laws not lower than those for abuse.
- Properly place the child in a stable and safe environment to receive long-term normal social education, and protect him from social discrimination.
- Abolish the lenient punishment for abuse, and raise the sentencing to at least intentional injury, with severe cases such as causing serious injury or death to be sentenced as murder.
But this is only the minimum requirement, because laws that protect oppressors still exist, and the Confucian patriarchal system that grants parents unlimited power over children still persists. Such absurd incidents will continue to happen again and again. Evidence shows that even when some cases are seriously punished through people’s struggles, the fundamental problem remains unchanged. As Marxists-Leninists, we should not be content to stand behind mass movements; instead, we must continuously expose the darkness of reactionary regimes, fight to eliminate all reactionary ideas, laws, and the exploitative system that underpins them, and strive for the complete abolition of all oppression and exploitation.
