Flame: … Recently, I talked about criticizing the bourgeois view of love in the past, but in fact, the criticism was not deep enough because I did not criticize the petty bourgeois view of love, and often exaggerated and beautified it. Recently, I criticized the petty bourgeois view of love, but the problems of the bourgeois view of love were covered up, which is called one tendency covering another. In fact, these two should be combined for criticism; only by linking these two can we thoroughly expose both the reactionary nature of the bourgeois view of love and the reactionary nature of the petty bourgeois view of love. There is no clear boundary between them; in reality, both belong to the property-owning class’s view of love. We know that petty bourgeois activities themselves are constantly producing bourgeois and capitalist elements in large quantities. Therefore, to solve the problem of views on love, both should be fiercely criticized.
Herbert Bu: Indeed, today our group’s focus seems to be on the hypocrisy of the petty bourgeois view of love. Many of us have thought about love after transforming our thoughts into the petty bourgeois view of love.
Flame: Indeed, recently we have focused on exposing the hypocrisy of the petty bourgeois view of love. A few days ago, I analyzed bourgeois literary and artistic works critically to clarify the issues of different class views on love because promoting super-class human feelings, advocating bourgeois human nature theories, especially promoting love supremacy as a toxin, is a common feature of all bourgeois literary and artistic works. The biggest characteristic of the petty bourgeois view of love is the promotion of super-class love above all, which actually covers up the real class relations and numbs most young people, making them abandon class struggle. A few days ago, I used an bourgeois film—Homebody—as material to analyze and criticize the petty bourgeois view of love. The plot mainly involves: the male protagonist initially had a good relationship with his ex-girlfriend, but in order to succeed in his career, he decisively broke up with his American girlfriend, boarded a plane to Paris, and became a billionaire. More than ten years later, his ex-girlfriend had completely lost contact with him, and he felt very empty every night. Despite having billions in wealth, he was still spiritually empty, spending every day changing women and partying, claiming this was very unhappy. One day, he suddenly encounters a Black man (suspected to be a divine figure favored by the US imperialists), and after some events, he is transported to a parallel world. After crossing over, he meets his former girlfriend, whom he abandoned for his career, and finds himself as her husband and father of two children. At first, after arriving in the parallel world, he cannot accept reality, feeling that as a billionaire, he shouldn’t live in such a dilapidated small house, drive a second-hand broken car. According to the film’s plot, he “completely did not feel the beauty of family life,” did not value love and kinship, and did not care about his wife and children. The first thing he did upon waking was to drive his old broken car back to his luxurious apartment in New York, wanting to return to his billionaire life, but was stopped by security at the door, symbolizing that he had completely lost his previous wealthy life. (Although this plot design is very illogical.) After suddenly realizing he had completely lost his billionaire status, he felt very angry and disappointed, helplessly returning home. When he arrived, his wife rushed over tearfully, worried about him having an accident outside, and looked for him everywhere. From then on, his inner world began to loosen, doubting whether his wealthy life was necessary. After some time together, he realized that only this family was truly warm and happy, and that the life of a billionaire changing women every day was not fulfilling or happy. In this warm little home, there was a woman who truly loved him, took care of him daily, cooked for him, and they would go to bed together at night. He also had two adorable children, whom he needed to take care of—feeding, sending to school, changing diapers—but he believed that this was the happiness of kinship, that plain and simple was true happiness. From this, it can be seen that the petty bourgeois love supremacy is not very clever; it’s nothing more than propaganda that having a wife and children at home is happiness! Very reactionary! At the end of the film, the male protagonist suddenly encounters (set as a divine incarnation) the Black man again, who tells him he is about to return to his billionaire life. The protagonist is very angry, dissatisfied with losing the life of warmth with his wife and children, and believes his fate should not be toyed with like this. Then, he is transported back to the billionaire’s mansion, feeling very melancholy and empty. He thinks to himself: “Even with money, you can’t buy happiness!” This is actually shamelessly promoting the hypocritical petty bourgeois love supremacy. In the end, he chooses to abandon all his wealth, inquire about his ex-girlfriend, and find her in his world line as a billionaire. It turns out that after being abandoned by him, his ex-girlfriend also took the path of “social elite,” becoming a well-known lawyer. When they meet, he persuades her to give up capitalism and her status, and to live a happy small life with him again. His ex-girlfriend initially refuses, firmly rejecting him, believing that she was abandoned before, and it’s impossible for her to give up her career for him now. Then, the male protagonist makes a deep confession of love, using scenes of a warm family life in the parallel world to move her. His ex-girlfriend, caught up in love, accepts his request, sits down, and begins to discuss their emotional entanglements. Although the film ends here, it’s easy to see that the ending is nothing more than the ex-girlfriend abandoning her career and reuniting with the male protagonist to live a shameless small family life of so-called happiness.
This movie is very reactionary! Where is its reactionary nature? It promotes idealism and love supremacy, claiming there is a super-class love above all, asserting bourgeois life is empty, while petty bourgeois life is happy, which is very reactionary. First, happiness and suffering in life are built on material foundations. This does not mean that having money equals happiness; for the proletariat, dedicating oneself to the cause of the liberation of all humanity is a kind of happiness. But for the petty bourgeois, is living in poverty and scraping by truly happiness? If life cannot even be stable, how can there be family happiness? Moreover, for selfish and greedy property owners, they have no lofty ideals, only personal desires, and money has the magical power to exchange for all happiness. The film, however, reverses this by advocating that petty bourgeoisie put love above material pursuits, which is absurd. It wants the petty bourgeoisie to accept class reconciliation theory, to be satisfied with the status quo, saying “Though small and big are different, they are still one in leisure,” “Although you have no money, you have a wife and children at home, and that’s happiness.” In fact, it is very reactionary, encouraging people to endure oppression and accept the status quo, promoting the Christian slave philosophy. Therefore, the poison of petty bourgeois love supremacy is very reactionary; it makes people abandon opposition to capitalist order, accept capitalist oppression, and think that in capitalist society, there is still a small nest to survive in. It makes people become slaves, slaves of the capitalist order! Its core is not in the form of love itself, but in its class struggle viewpoint. It advocates class reconciliation, advocates that people should endure and accept bourgeois oppression, deceiving people into believing they can still have a happy little nest under capitalist oppression.
As for the essence of the petty bourgeois love propaganda, it is also very reactionary. Although this film uses various lens arts and musical arts to highly beautify the life of wives and children at home, what is the essence of this life? Essentially, it is working during the day, watching movies at night, being with one’s wife, shamelessly living a two-person world, daily dealing with rice, oil, salt, soy sauce, vinegar, tea, and a family without any political ideals or social ambitions, indifferent to society and the people, and not opposing capitalist oppression. The so-called love that the love supremacy promotes is supposedly love itself, but in essence, this life of wives and children at home, rice and oil, salt and vinegar, changing diapers—this is called happiness! It claims that this dull, low-level, vulgar life is happiness! This is the hypocrisy and reactionary nature of petty bourgeois love view. True happiness is for revolution, for sacrificing oneself for the revolution—that is the greatest happiness. This petty bourgeois family still rests on petty bourgeois individualism; based on the worldview of individualism, this kind of love and marriage cannot be happiness. The difference between petty bourgeois and bourgeois views on love is only that: petty bourgeois choose to find someone who can satisfy their own interests, willing to make certain concessions for personal benefit, exchanging for what they want more. This so-called love is fundamentally commodity exchange, fundamentally mutual exploitation. Therefore, this petty bourgeois love is also ugly. If such petty bourgeois love appears and develops within the revolutionary cause, it will inevitably turn into treacherous ideas like Semon, leading to betrayal of the revolution. Therefore, criticizing the petty bourgeois view of love marks that our ideological struggle has entered a higher stage. We can now not only recognize obvious reactionary bourgeois views on love but also recognize less obvious ones, sometimes beautified as “for you XX,” with deep feelings “XX,” which seem to be for others but are actually for one’s own petty bourgeois view of love.
Reference material: Wikipedia—Plot summary of the movie Homebody (can be seen as very poorly written): In 1987, Jack was preparing to take a flight to London for an internship at a bank. Kate came to see him off, but she hoped Jack wouldn’t board the plane because she felt their love might end. But Jack refused to give up the opportunity and left decisively. Thirteen years later, Jack became the CEO of a large company, still a bachelor.
This is Christmas night. Jack encounters a homeless man at a convenience store who is refused redemption; his kindness triggers an incredible encounter. Jack wakes up to find himself not in a luxury mansion but in a small house in the suburbs, with his wife being Kate, and the family’s financial situation is ordinary. He is the father of two children and has a dog. Jack nervously returns to his luxurious apartment in New York, but the security guard and neighbors don’t recognize him; the company’s security also won’t let him in, making him seem like a lunatic. In the end, he can only go “home,” involuntarily attending a gathering. Although helpless, he gradually gets used to walking the dog and changing diapers. His daughter Annie notices something is wrong, thinking Jack is an alien sent by aliens, and they seem to reach some kind of consensus.
Jack begins working at a tire shop after the holiday. With his adept marketing skills, his performance improves, but his bowling skills are not impressive to his teammates. During a shopping trip, Jack wants to buy a designer suit, but Kate thinks it’s too expensive and argues with him. After communication, they slightly calm down, but Jack still says the wrong thing. Later, he finds a tape that shows their feelings are quite enviable.
On their wedding anniversary morning, Kate gives Jack a designer-style suit, but she is disappointed that Jack forgot this important day. After Annie reminds him, Jack takes Kate to a high-end restaurant in New York for dinner.
Jack uses a car repair opportunity to meet Rashi again and gain trust. After an argument, Kate says she is willing to live anywhere with him because she loves him. Just as Jack begins to understand and feel the warmth of family, he knows the dream is about to end. After some struggles, he decides he cannot repeat the past and confesses his feelings to try to save Kate. Nonetheless, when Jack wakes up again, he is back in his original luxurious apartment. He hurriedly searches for Kate and finally finds her at her lawyer’s office, where she has become a top lawyer at a multinational law firm and is about to go to Paris, France. Jack rushes to the airport. When Kate is about to board the plane, he stops her in time. Jack pleads with Kate to stay and have coffee with him. After some persuasion, he finally moves her, and they sit together and talk about their relationship. The film ends here, but it’s easy to see that the ending is nothing more than the ex-girlfriend abandoning her career and reuniting with the male protagonist in a shameless small family life of so-called happiness.