My Harmonism Error

When criticizing “marks_king,” I had high hopes for him, thinking that “if he seriously reflects, he can make good self-criticism,” and I took a relatively compromising stance toward his criticism. I did not conduct thorough investigation into many of his mistakes, so it seemed like I was “being kind to him,” but in fact I was making concessions to his wrong ideas. It appeared that I was yielding to his mistakes, but in reality I was yielding to my own mistakes, even though he likes pornography and I do not.

The ideological root of my actions, in my opinion, is reconciliationism. This ideology believes that if there are alternative ways to class struggle, there is no need to “fight head-on.” It considers that the content and form of struggle are unimportant, and the outcome is what matters most. “As long as there’s a movement, that’s enough.” If fierce struggle might cause some people to run away instead of staying, then betraying organizational principles is acceptable; if facing confrontation in shops might lead to being beaten, then staying at home and making calls is worthwhile; if earning money means others get paid and helping others ask for wages might disrupt one’s rest, then being a lazy manager who shirks responsibility is justified; if demanding to withdraw from school might cause family conflicts to erupt violently, then taking a break from school is acceptable…

Reconciliationism has historically been extremely reactionary, and it remains so today, even on a personal level.

Ultimately, this issue stems from my incomplete proletarianization (although I don’t know exactly what proletarianization entails). But I still want to specifically discuss what the core problem is.

Because I was once a petty-bourgeois student, despite my poor family background. Since I started working, I still nostalgically cling to the petty-bourgeois living conditions of the past. Although I am on the path of working-class integration, when I entered a bourgeois university, I immediately reverted to my old ways. “People join the Party, but their thoughts haven’t joined.” “People are moving toward proletarianization, but their thoughts haven’t.” I suppose this describes me. I still believe that the petty-bourgeois struggle methods can work, but recently I failed in a wage-claiming effort. Because I abandoned illegal means and relied solely on legal methods to achieve victory, I failed. I often feel that “there’s no need to debate anymore, it’s a waste of energy.” Reconciliationism gradually led to defeatism, and I simply stopped moving.

On one hand, this is due to past connections, such as school-related issues and former classmates… On the other hand, I haven’t fully proletarianized or truly lived independently in society. These form the material basis of reconciliationism. Therefore, to change all this, I must survive on my own and learn from the working people. Transform my thoughts.

Regarding the matter of marks_king, I think because he is relatively “pitiful,” with a more difficult life, I feel he should be “more lenient,” so I overlook many of his mistakes and sometimes judge based on my past experience. As a result, my understanding of him is not very clear. I believe that he has mistakes, and reconciliation can help him change because I “still feel” that he is good. In reality, I am deliberately downplaying his mistakes, using a humanistic view that “everyone makes mistakes.” In fact, I am also downplaying my own mistakes, thinking that relying on my feelings and not conducting thorough investigation and research is “no big deal.” “Having made mistakes in the past is normal because I was still ‘very backward’ at that time.” This led me to ultimately “compromise” with him by betraying organizational principles.

4 Likes

If you think he is “pitiful” and should be “treated more leniently,” that is actually the thought of bourgeois individualism. No matter how “pitiful” he is, it cannot be a reason to oppress others. He cannot use “pitiful” as a shield to confuse right and wrong, invert black and white, as a way to promote bourgeois ideas and oppose proletarian ideas. Your way of thinking is precisely affirming individualism, believing that the property owners have the right to retain all their property and freedom, including the freedom to express reactionary remarks. You are affirming the “selfish theory” of individualism, as if a person can harm others for any personal reason.

However, as I said when criticizing marks_king, the truly oppressed will not oppress others because they are oppressed, nor will they rationalize acts of oppression. Those who beautify oppressive behavior and selfish ideas are essentially not opposed to the system of human oppression, but only opposed to their own being oppressed.

10 Likes

@Qian Ren 0 Why is Qian Ren Zero no longer replying? What are you thinking? Do you feel too embarrassed to respond? I advise Qian Ren Zero to face the problem directly, analyze the issue, and solve it.

There is indeed a personalist mistake here, after all, this anarchism is a manifestation of individualism. Because I am inherently more “selfish” and rarely consider others, this is quite obvious offline. But if we talk about individualism, I think it is a common phenomenon among petit bourgeoisie: because they are already on the verge of losing their class status, they need to affirm their private property more, including the freedom of speech brought by this property, a comfortable life, and even male chauvinist ideas. If they are not revolutionary, they will be more fiercely defending these things. However, I believe that in this incident, we should mainly acknowledge that it is a mistake of harmonism, and also recognize that it stems from individualism. Formal logic suggests that small-scale reasoning can lead to large-scale conclusions, but large-scale reasoning does not necessarily lead to small-scale conclusions. Therefore, I think we should first acknowledge the mistake of individualism, but in specific analysis, it should be regarded as a mistake of harmonism.

3 Likes

I am still too superficial about this matter, and I didn’t quickly realize it was a mistake of individualism. I also didn’t think more deeply about it, just stayed on the surface of an abstract level. This can also be considered a characteristic of someone like me, an ordinary person.

I don’t understand, it’s too confusing. Qian Renzero should discuss this matter based on actual actions and the impact caused.

5 Likes

His general idea is: the direct cause of this matter is “harmonism,” but the reason for the emergence of “harmonism” is its existence of “individualism.” Therefore, he believes that the root of his mistake is “individualism,” and when analyzing and correcting his error specifically, he should treat it according to the approach used for “harmonism.”

What does this mean? All the logical aspects of Qian Ren 0 can be understood, but if it only stays at the explanation of the relationships between concepts and does not touch on specific content at all, it is useless for understanding problems and correcting errors. This becomes purely speculative.

1 Like

But what you say like this is meaningless. I can also understand the logic of this statement, but if it doesn’t touch on any specific real-world matters, then it’s actually impossible to recognize the problem. Our Marxist theoretical definition is a rational understanding summarized through scientific abstraction from specific events. Without concrete, real sensory knowledge, it’s impossible to understand rational knowledge.