-
What class are mental workers? (For example, teachers)
-
Does extreme feminism really exist, or is it fabricated by male chauvinist fascists to maintain the status quo?
-
Among Chinese politicians (from 1949 to present), who are true Marxists?
-
Is Lin Biao, the traitor, really as militarily capable as the internet claims?
1 Like
Intellectuals (also known as mental laborers) are not a fixed class; they belong to the class they serve. In capitalist society, teachers are there to control and suppress students, to instill reactionary ideas, and to cultivate slaves who do not oppose capitalism. Economically, they are also far above ordinary workers, basically all bourgeois intellectuals.
The term extreme feminism is very abstract; I don’t know exactly what you mean, and without more specific details, I can’t make a judgment. There are no women beyond the class; their claims are also class-based. The bourgeoisie has their women’s rights movement, and the proletariat has their women’s liberation movement. You can look at Rosa Luxemburg’s short essay “The Proletarian Woman.”
The third question is too abstract. Not only are those well-known figures involved, but most of the grassroots party members are Marxists, so it’s impossible to list them all. You can look at some exemplary deeds of Communist Party members excerpted from the People’s Daily on forums. Why do you want to know this?
Liu Biao would not fight in a war; his political line is reactionary, and his military line is also reactionary. He previously refused to fight Jinzhou and disobeyed the central instructions, which was equivalent to letting the Nationalist troops trapped in the Northeast escape. Moreover, his famous words, “I don’t want casualty numbers, I only want Tashan,” show that he essentially has nothing different from those bourgeois generals, treating ordinary soldiers as numbers and alienating himself from them. How could such a person earn the soldiers’ respect? This is not the style of a Communist commander at all.
14 Likes
So I’ll narrow down the scope of the third question a bit. Is Luo Ronghua a Marxist? How does Zhou Enlai evaluate him? Is Wang Hongwen really as good as online comments say?
Why do I want to know? Mainly because the Chinese revisionists have beautified many capitalist-roaders, making it hard for me to distinguish who are true Marxists.
It’s hard to hold on, and some people online still say that the capitalist roader Lin thief loves nurse soldiers.
1 Like
Mental workers are not necessarily people like teachers; those who label images for AI recognition are also mental workers. However, such people are no different from ordinary manual laborers; their wages are also no different from those of physical workers.
3 Likes
Luo Ronghua is not clear. Zhou Enlai was the most deeply hidden capitalist roader, and he was not publicly exposed until the end of the Cultural Revolution (but the central rebels once issued the “Five No’s” mourning order for Zhou Enlai). Although Wang Hongwen was within the central rebel faction, he ultimately betrayed to the Zhongxiu (Chinese revisionists), at least as a traitor and turncoat. During the trial, he directly admitted all his “crimes.” Yao Wenyuan was similar, trying to bargain with the Zhongxiu, only admitting part of the “crimes.”
1 Like
I was just wondering why Zhongxiu would turn Zhou into a perfect person
Luo Ronghuan was a revolutionary. When he passed away, Chairman Mao wrote a poem to commemorate him, saying, “You now unfortunate to leave the mortal world, who can be asked about the country’s doubts and difficulties.” The Ten Marshals were actually ten commanders, nine of whom were military leaders, and the only revolutionary among them was Luo Ronghuan, but unfortunately he died too early.
6 Likes
Laughing to death, the Marshal list has turned into a bourgeoisie list
Brain workers cannot be simply classified as a single class; in capitalist society, their position should be viewed in terms of their economic status and whether they lean towards exploiters or the exploited in their ideological stance. There are also differences among brain workers, such as those who do proofreading and scanning versus customer service operators who type—they are all brain workers. Those engaged in design, education, and so-called creative work are also brain workers, but it is obvious that the former are under severe exploitation, while the latter are bought off with generous remuneration by the bourgeoisie. Let me give an example from my own experience: I once worked at a company where I was responsible for a particular section, and I designed the entire project, so I had very free and ample time. Often, during an 8-hour workday (which is already rare in China, where most workers work 10 or 12 hours a day), I could take two or three hours to slack off, and during leisure times, I didn’t even need to work all day. But even so, my monthly salary was still in the five-figure range.
In contrast, there was a brain worker responsible for simple proofreading. He was paid piecework; after completing each task with a certain amount of money, he needed to work 12 hours a day. When I was on lunch break, he was still working; when I finished work, he was still overtime. But over a month, despite being much more exhausted and putting in more effort than me, his pay was far lower than mine. Both are brain workers, yet why is his income so much lower and his hard work so much more intense? It’s because the remuneration I received for my work was largely redistributed from the surplus value extracted by capitalists, and my ability to receive this redistributed pay was due to my relevant professional skills and so-called academic credentials. This is the most vivid manifestation of the privatization of knowledge and the difference between types of labor under capitalism.
After engaging with forums, I started to think about where my salary comes from, and the conclusion I reached was simple: my salary is paid by capitalists, and the amount is far higher than the labor I put in → where does this money come from? It is obtained by capitalists from the so-called funds or sponsorships acquired from the Nazi government → and the so-called funds of the Nazi government are again extracted through various taxes (especially commodity taxes) from the working people. Ultimately, it is the capitalists who redistribute the surplus value extracted from the working people by the Nazi government, paying it to me in the form of wages, enabling me to earn a salary far exceeding that of ordinary workers. On the surface, I am just working for myself, but this superficial equality conceals an underlying inequality, because the fact is: diligent workers get little money, while those who do not work because they possess certain knowledge can obtain a share of the surplus value divided by capitalists. This is one of the root causes of the existence of the capitalist system, and it is also why many brain workers (such as programmers, xx designers, teachers, etc.) are in the economic position of the petty bourgeoisie, even leaning towards the bourgeoisie, but ideologically they are backward, conservative, and even reactionary.
18 Likes
As for what class teachers belong to, it must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Some members of the forum have also previously worked as teachers. But fundamentally, or in the broadest sense, teachers are simply the loyal servants and running dogs nurtured by the bourgeoisie to enforce dictatorship over the children of the working class.
To discuss the nature of teachers, one must first consider the nature of education. According to dialectical materialism, education is absolutely not a social activity of teaching and nurturing people or cultivating virtues in an abstract sense. Instead, it is a political activity by which a class trains successors for itself. This activity not only requires cultivating the children of this class into qualified successors but also transforming the children of hostile classes to expand the basis of this class’s rule.
Therefore, in socialist countries under the dictatorship of the proletariat, education aims to eliminate the three major differences, promote up-to-the-mountains and down-to-the-villages movement, shorten the schooling system, and carry out revolutionary education. In capitalist countries, especially in the most reactionary imperialist countries at this stage, education aims to expand the three major differences, cultivate the idea among students that “suffering hardships makes one superior,” and foster the bourgeois ideology of exploitation, encouraging not only the children of the bourgeoisie but also the broadest laboring masses to dream of rising to power and wealth, believing in the nonsense of “hard work leads to riches.” In schools, teachers serve as the most loyal servants; after school, they serve bosses, capitalists, and even the entire Nazi Chinese government, becoming the most conservative and backward, supporting the current Nazi regime’s minority bourgeoisie conservatives.
Therefore, the profession of teaching is inherently reactionary in capitalist society. Of course, there are some democratic elements, but these democrats are ultimately a minority. Even among petty-bourgeois democrats, there will be a fundamental transformation—some will fully embrace and accept the current Nazi social and educational systems, tirelessly domesticate generations of young students into the most loyal servants of the bourgeoisie; others will abandon this profession altogether and eventually take the revolutionary path of the proletariat. This precisely proves the reactionary nature of this profession itself, which is an obstacle to revolution. Those inclined toward revolution who leave this profession will inevitably draw a clear line between themselves and it.
11 Likes
I was just wondering why my teacher is instilling extreme nationalism, the meritocracy theory, opportunistic learning, and blackening the Mao Zedong era.
1 Like
I thought of my sister who is a history teacher in high school, she is extremely reactionary. When she saw that I was unwilling to speculate, she directly pushed me to the ground, beat and scolded me, saying “It’s Chairman Mao who corrupted you,” which shocked me greatly. Afterwards, she mocked me, saying “You still claim to ‘save China with socialism’?”
11 Likes
Your sister is too reactionary and brainless.
How can people be so reactionary!
How did your sister find out about Chairman Mao?
As for the so-called extreme feminism, such words themselves are a form of slander. Because different types of feminism are not the same, there is bourgeois feminism, petty-bourgeois feminism, and the women’s liberation movement of the proletariat, each of which is different. So how exactly is extremism defined? Because extremism is an abstract term, detached from class, it cannot be answered specifically. Just like from the bourgeois perspective, the women’s liberation movement of the proletariat is probably the most extreme, but the extreme feminism you mention is probably not referring to the women’s liberation movement of the proletariat.
As for what you mean by extreme feminism, I am also unclear, so I cannot comment. But to play devil’s advocate, even if the so-called extreme feminism you mention is truly terrible, rotten, and the most reactionary and backward. The first question to consider is, isn’t it precisely because such incidents occur? After all, social existence determines social consciousness. Ultimately, it is because women are oppressed and are seeking a path to liberation. Apart from some extreme rebellious bourgeois “feminism,” most of the so-called “extreme feminism” that is insulted, mocked, and criticized on forums like Tieba and Zhihu are just ordinary women’s masses. Because they cannot access correct Marxism, they have been deceived by some bourgeois erroneous ideas, and have temporarily taken a wrong turn. However, because those who are oppressed, in their quest for liberation, temporarily cannot find the correct path, they are slandered and belittled as “extremists,” as worthless things. They are not discussed in terms of what causes their oppression or what forces them to resist, let alone that they cannot live without fighting. This is completely unreasonable, male-centric, and biased with patriarchal glasses.
15 Likes
Okay, I will use this kind of expression less often in the future.
It also seems that you have categorized this post incorrectly. The current category appears to be in the self-introduction section. It’s better to change it, otherwise people on the forum won’t be able to see it.
I’m new here, it seems I can only post this.
Was the Sino-Vietnamese War an invasion war provoked by China? If so, what was the specific process? (Different from the official Chinese description)