Since February of this year, we have repelled the reckless offensive of leftist elements against the association through large-scale debates and big-character posters on the forum. These leftist elements harbor deep hatred towards the revolutionary line of the association because the development of the association and its revolutionary activities directly expose their rotten appearance of living as exploiters under the guise of Marxism. Without opposition, without differences, the true nature of things cannot be revealed. Therefore, due to their class nature, they will not stop here. Recently, leftist elements, especially those from the “Continuing Revolution” Society, have become active again. First, Han Yue and Wu Nong infiltrated People’s Square under false self-introductions, lurked in the reading club, and secretly posted links to the conspiracy group, attempting to sabotage the reading activities of the forum. After such a conspiracy was uncovered by the association, a person claiming to be “Xu Bogu” recently tried to re-enter by generating a self-introduction with AI, and after being discovered, he became frantic, spreading rumors and slandering the association. It can be said that such methods are crude, but their primitiveness cannot conceal their reactionary political nature. These people, under the banner of Marxism, serve to smear Marxism and hinder revolutionary movements. As someone who personally experienced some past events, after being invited by Fenghuo, I wrote this “Collection of Traitors: Cheng—Who is Really Oppressing Whom?” to help everyone thoroughly recognize the true face of the leftist traitor group, represented by the “Continuing Revolution” Society, and to understand how these people came to be.
Cheng joined the association very early, but he has always resisted ideological struggle. As early as the beginning of 2022, Cheng had been immersed in lewd entertainment and masturbation for a long time, neglecting organizational affairs. When comrades expressed concern and hoped to help Cheng change this decadent state, Cheng responded with perfunctory and evasive words, which created a negative atmosphere within the association. Later, after democratic voting and soliciting Cheng’s opinions, it was agreed that Cheng would be transferred from the formal organization to a peripheral member. The reason we did not expel Cheng outright was because we did not want to give up on his political life, hoping that he could continue to be influenced by the association in the periphery and eventually walk the revolutionary path. Upon entering the periphery, Cheng suddenly exclaimed, “Finally liberated!” which was a vicious attack on the association. His behavior deeply angered everyone, but we still patiently reasoned and persuaded Cheng with facts. However, because Cheng refused to reflect on his problems for a long time, we finally decided to expel him from the organization. Later, Cheng wrote a long self-criticism letter to a management member, and out of a desire to help him, we decided to have that manager maintain one-on-one contact with Cheng to continue influencing him, hoping that under the association’s influence, Cheng would change himself and join the revolutionary team. After some time, Cheng issued a self-criticism admitting his problems and somewhat changed his lifestyle. Seeing his willingness to change, in the summer of 2023, we agreed to admit Cheng into the peripheral organization for re-education. However, after returning to the organization, Cheng did not continue to change his lifestyle. I remember Cheng often argued that “things are worse than before” to oppose ideological struggle, even drawing a “Thought Struggle Curve” depicting a sharp decline in recent ideological struggle values, using it as an excuse to avoid criticism and reflection, maintaining his parasitic life.
Our attitude towards Cheng’s ideological issues is mainly to present facts and reason, not to treat him differently because of temporary ideological problems. The collective help for Cheng is best demonstrated in the following two incidents. The first occurred around October 2023, when a member who had been out of the organization for over a year reported the leak of association activity records by leftist elements, feeling angry about his own spiritual emptiness and decadent life after leaving the organization. This member, who was also a high school classmate of Cheng and involved in slandering and attacking the association in school, was named Sun. To combat these traitors’ arrogance, the association decided to hold a voice meeting to warn them that if they continued to slander and defame the association, all their traitorous activities and true faces within the organization would be exposed on the forum, subjecting them to public denunciation. Because these leftist elements were extremely cowardly, only Sun joined the chat group, and after being heavily criticized, he became much more obedient. Cheng himself said that the next day, Sun’s attitude towards him changed 180 degrees, basically avoiding him altogether.
The second incident happened about a month or two later, involving Cheng being bullied on campus. Cheng told everyone that he had been bullied for a long time, even being insulted with his head pressed into a urinal. No one was willing to stand up and help him fight back, and his parents were also very indifferent. The peripheral members, upon hearing this, felt very angry and, out of a desire to help comrades, analyzed his situation and future struggle methods. They noticed that Cheng’s parents were very weak, so they decided to make a big fuss, showing that Cheng was suffering greatly from campus bullying and that if the problem was not solved, he could not go to school. They used this to pressure his parents, making them feel that they were using their child as a tool for their own benefit. The strategy was to prepare food, dry rations, and water, lock the door, and persist for several days without going out, forcing the parents to report the situation to the school and demand the expulsion of the bully. However, on the day of implementation, Cheng’s desire to struggle was greatly shaken by his long-term indulgence in lewd entertainment and masturbation. That evening, discussions in the voice chat centered on Cheng’s struggle against campus bullying. Cheng, fearing the loss of his comfortable life, yelled at everyone in distress, tormenting their spirits. We did not blame Cheng but patiently persuaded him to fight, explained the way out, and even encouraged him to take on more responsibilities in the peripheral organization after liberation, ultimately guiding him onto the revolutionary path. That night, Cheng’s parents caved in, pressured the school, which, perhaps fearing public opinion, quickly gave the bully a “probationary suspension” and announced it to the entire school, a punishment second only to expulsion. This was just the initial punishment from the school; if Cheng had persisted in fighting, the bully might have been expelled. The bully’s parents also apologized to Cheng’s family, but Cheng did not continue the fight as planned, and the bully was not expelled. Does Cheng forget these achievements of struggle? Without everyone’s help, could a person living in extreme decay and with very weak spirit win such a victory? Cheng should honestly ask himself: is it fair to smear and slander the association in the leftist circle after all the help and efforts we made?
I vividly remember that after the victory in the struggle, Fenghuo encouraged Cheng by saying: “Cheng, now that you have received everyone’s help, you should help everyone in return.” Our help was entirely aimed at helping Cheng achieve liberation and walk the glorious path of revolution, but how did Cheng “repay” everyone? After fighting for the right to skip school, Cheng took the fruits of victory for himself, indulging in lewd entertainment and masturbation at home. In such an extremely decadent and selfish life, Cheng could have no genuine feelings for the collective that helped him so much. Instead, he exaggerated and distorted our demands that he stop indulging in lewd entertainment and follow the revolutionary path, turning them into accusations that we wanted to persecute him, thus accumulating resentment. In early 2024, when the peripheral organization discussed Cheng’s parasitic existence at home, Cheng was criticized, which directly triggered his extreme dissatisfaction. Cheng shouted, “Fuck!” This became the fuse. To solve Cheng’s ideological problems, the organization almost suspended normal activities for weeks or even a month, debating his issues daily, with some members arguing with him all day in front of their computers. Cheng refused to reflect on his problems, sometimes promising self-criticism only under pressure. His so-called self-criticism was often just a record of everyone’s discussion of his ideological issues. But Cheng was deeply dissatisfied inside, later distorting this history into a claim that everyone forced him to write dozens of self-criticisms, which was a “total negation” of him. This is a blatant lie, ignoring the fact that everyone invested tremendous effort and energy to care for and help Cheng, with comrades waking up at 7 a.m. for work, participating in organizational activities, and caring about his ideological issues until late at night. Moreover, Cheng has the right to insincerely write self-criticisms, but does everyone else not have the right to oppose such insincerity? Cheng clearly does not understand this, constantly using selfish logic to harbor resentment against everyone. Ultimately, Cheng launched a surprise attack, leaving the peripheral group chat, colluding with another traitor—Marble—to spread rumors and attack the correct line of the organization. Thus, after some liberation with the association’s help, Cheng bit the hand that helped him the most.
Despite his outrageous actions, the association still hopes Cheng can reform, become a noble person, and contribute to Chinese and world revolution. For this purpose, in April 2024, Fenghuo managed to find Cheng’s contact information and extended an olive branch, hoping he would return to the peripheral organization for ideological re-education and escape the hell of indulgence. During this contact, Cheng poured out his resentment, claiming that he acknowledged the help from everyone (which he cannot deny), but also wildly labeled the collective that helped him as “leftist,” insulted us with “disparaging nicknames,” accused us of “formalism,” “high-pressure environment,” and slandered that when someone had “secondary issues,” we would “completely deny” and “insult and humiliate” him, making backward elements tremble in the association. These remarks are essentially a collection of his insults against the association within the leftist traitor group. We did give Cheng nicknames, but only conditionally—because Cheng completely disregarded organizational discipline, indulged in lewd entertainment, refused to reflect on his ideological problems, and sabotaged organizational activities. The nickname “City Manager” was given based on these behaviors. It is not a special insult but a reminder for Cheng not to follow the wrong path forever and eventually drift away from everyone; it also reflects a kind of camaraderie, jokingly, to prevent relations from becoming too tense. If Cheng reflects on his ideological issues and corrects his errors through self-criticism, no one would continue calling him “City Manager,” right? That’s obvious. Furthermore, writing activity records, avoiding lewd entertainment, and undertaking organizational tasks are basic organizational disciplines. If all members do not maintain discipline, the organization will disintegrate—this is self-evident. Lastly, whether it’s “giving nicknames” or “formalism,” Cheng merely wants to express that ideological struggle has “failed” or “gone wrong.” But everyone’s unity and all achievements are built on the foundation of class struggle against bourgeois ideas, just as Fenghuo pointed out: “What you call ‘Leftist tendencies in the association’—it’s a mess. I say ideological struggle is successful! Now we have everything. It’s impossible without following Chairman Mao’s line of ideological struggle! Facts speak louder than words.” After we refuted Cheng’s arguments, he still refused to repent, continuing to attack the association from the position of a traitor—accusing us of “leftism,” “not integrating with workers,” and “not helping comrades.” Fenghuo and everyone else still reasoned patiently, hoping Cheng could see the leftist traitor group correctly and turn to the revolutionary path. Fenghuo said, “Honestly, I’ve been patient and explained everything to you, and I’m still talking to you patiently. Don’t you feel this is absurd? Do you still not realize that we are trying to save you? Think carefully, Cheng. Your future depends on this. Think carefully, don’t indulge anymore—if you indulge, you will forget everything meaningful. Cheng, indulging will make you forget everything worthwhile!” But faced with everyone’s sincere invitation, Cheng replied, “I won’t say these (slander the association), I’m too proud to talk nonsense with others,” and then he completely disappeared, pondering whether “revolution” is necessary.
This “righteous and outspoken” Cheng, who claims that comrades should not be insulted and that he despises slandering the “bright and upright” association, continues to hang around in the leftist traitor group after leaving, spreading rumors and slandering the association wildly. Since most of his viewpoints can be found in the previous text, and criticizing all his rumors would make the entire article verbose and dull, here I only target one of his more recent viewpoints. Cheng claims that the association is a place where the “small bourgeoisie students’ masses” are despised. Let’s look at how historical Marxists viewed and described the “small bourgeoisie masses.” “The petty bourgeoisie’s private property concept and selfish ideas are inseparable from petty bourgeoisie private production. The essence of petty bourgeoisie ideology is consistent with its class nature. In short, extreme individualism is the main part of petty bourgeoisie consciousness.” (Qin Yi, The Ideological Transformation of the Petite Bourgeoisie). Revolutionary mentor Engels, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, evaluated the petty bourgeoisie as follows: “This class is always full of bravado, loves to speak beautiful words, and sometimes even insists on the most extreme positions verbally; but when faced with small dangers, it is cowardly, cautious, and when the masses rise, it is terrified and hesitant; when the situation develops to armed combat, it is ready to betray the entire movement.” (Engels, The Movement for the Defense of the Imperial Constitution of Germany) In the Communist Manifesto co-authored by Marx and Engels, it discusses the reactionary nature of the petty bourgeoisie in politics and its economic reasons: “The middle class, namely small industrialists, small merchants, artisans, and farmers, struggle against the bourgeoisie to maintain their existence and avoid extinction. Therefore, they are not revolutionary but conservative. Moreover, they are even reactionary because they try to reverse the course of history.” “Guild systems in industry, feudal economies in agriculture—these are the final conclusions of the petty bourgeoisie socialism,” (the editor). According to Cheng’s logic, can we then say that the revolutionary mentors and Marxist founders historically hated the “small bourgeoisie masses” in the same way?
Cheng’s attitude towards the association is not purely a matter of personal morality but has practical roots. Before Cheng fought against campus bullying, although he often had ideological problems and resisted ideological struggle, he generally still participated in life meetings and accepted the correct line. This was because he was directly oppressed by the capitalist university and bullies, and longed for liberation. However, this liberation was ultimately personal, and Cheng also pursued a life of comfort and exploitation. After fighting and gaining liberation from the capitalist university and campus bullying, he did not choose to continue the revolutionary path but gradually degenerated into decadence, drifting away from everyone, leading to fierce conflicts and finally quitting the group chat to become a shameful traitor. After quitting the group chat, Cheng probably began living as a parasitic student at university. As a petty bourgeois student disconnected from the organization, he could not resist the temptations of the glamorous university life, which is called the “exploitation class life experience device,” and in such a decadent life, Cheng would inevitably become more corrupt and degenerate. We can glimpse this from his recent bookmarks and videos liked, which include pornographic videos. In this life of decay, Cheng refused the association’s efforts to save him and grew increasingly dissatisfied with the association because it previously hindered his pursuit of such a life. Therefore, when he finally cut off contact with everyone, he could only speak disdainfully of the association, ending up as a “Comrade Lei” or “Hengyang” spreading rumors in the continuing “Revolution” Society.
This “righteous and outspoken” Cheng, who claims that comrades should not insult each other and that he despises slandering the “bright and upright” association, continues to lurk in the leftist traitor group after leaving, spreading rumors and slandering wildly. Since most of his viewpoints are reflected in the previous text, and criticizing all his rumors would make the article overly verbose and dull, I will only critique one of his more recent claims here. Cheng said that the association is a place where the “small bourgeoisie masses” are despised. Let’s examine how historical Marxists viewed and described the “small bourgeoisie masses.” “The petty bourgeoisie’s private property concept and selfish ideas are inseparable from petty bourgeoisie private production. The essence of petty bourgeoisie ideology is consistent with its class nature. In short, extreme individualism is the main part of petty bourgeoisie consciousness.” (Qin Yi, The Ideological Transformation of the Petite Bourgeoisie). Revolutionary mentor Engels, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, evaluated the petty bourgeoisie as follows: “This class is always full of bravado, loves to speak beautiful words, and sometimes even insists on the most extreme positions verbally; but when faced with small dangers, it is cowardly, cautious, and when the masses rise, it is terrified and hesitant; when the situation develops to armed combat, it is ready to betray the entire movement.” (Engels, The Movement for the Defense of the Imperial Constitution of Germany) In the Communist Manifesto co-authored by Marx and Engels, it discusses the reactionary nature of the petty bourgeoisie in politics and its economic reasons: “The middle class, namely small industrialists, small merchants, artisans, and farmers, struggle against the bourgeoisie to maintain their existence and avoid extinction. Therefore, they are not revolutionary but conservative. Moreover, they are even reactionary because they try to reverse the course of history.” “Guild systems in industry, feudal economies in agriculture—these are the final conclusions of the petty bourgeoisie socialism,” (the editor). According to Cheng’s logic, can we then say that the revolutionary mentors and Marxist founders historically hated the “small bourgeoisie masses” in the same way?