Qian Renling's treacherous attack

free discussion
1

Chat history:

Hongqing
23:25
By the way, can the association add an AI voice reading function to the articles in the future? This way, everyone can listen to articles during fragmented time, not sure what you think about this idea.

(Edited)
Qian Ren0
23:26
I once thought of this: post a video or something, inside are forum or Marx-Lenin-Mao articles, so after caching, there’s no need to turn on VPN. You can listen anytime.

Beifeng
23:27
The association is recently making reading videos.

Qian Ren0
23:27
I remember some people have published read-aloud versions of books.

The association is recently making reading videos.
Qian Ren0
23:27
Where was that said?

Beifeng
23:27
It’s about Hong Rengan’s biography, a segment was shown at the beginning of the reading club’s event.

Qian Ren0
23:28
I don’t know if the latest article is too long, seems to have 100,000 words. And how to say? I feel bad about it. We write books, but make the common people read 100,000 words, I really don’t know how to look at it… Mao Zedong’s articles are not that long, and the content is rich. Articles from the People’s Daily in the past were also not that long, a few pages and you can finish reading one, and they are concise. Nie Yuanzi’s big-character posters, praised as China’s first Marxist big-character posters, are only a few thousand words. When the Soviet Union was attacked by the Nazis, Stalin only gave a speech of over 5,000 words. Mao Zedong’s Selected Works Volume 1 has nearly 300,000 words, including many important speeches and declarations. But one of our articles is already a third of that! I’ve never written articles myself, but I’ve never seen anyone who writes for the people be proud of writing a lot of words.

Beifeng
23:29
Fenghuo also said Zhang Qiujin will finish.

Qian Ren0
23:30
And the articles posted in the forum are in very small fonts, sometimes I have to take off my glasses to read. I wonder if workers using mobile phones can use it well?

Beifeng
23:30
If Hongqing wants to listen to articles, he can use an app called Librera audiobook.

Hongqing
23:30
I’ve used some apps for listening to articles before, but the effect wasn’t very good.

And also need to consider safety issues.

Beifeng
23:31
This is open-source overseas.

Hongqing
23:31
And not everyone understands this thing.

Beifeng
23:31
It can be set to offline use.

Hongqing
23:32
I think AI automatic reading is also lower cost than making videos, and this thing is very profitable, after finishing, everyone can listen to future articles.

Screw
23:48
What does this mean?

Hongqing
23:48
Okay, I’ll look at it when I have time.

What does this mean?
Qian Ren0
23:49
Too many words.

Screw
23:49
Which article is Qian Ren0 talking about?

Beifeng
23:49
It’s about the Soviet article.

Qian Ren0
23:49
It’s the article we discussed at the reading session today.

Flame of Fenghuo
What are you talking about, G8?

Qian Ren0
23:49
This disgusting speech of Qian Ren0 really makes me angry.

You are putting the laboring people on the line again, right?

Are the laboring people so stupid that they don’t need to learn?

Lenin’s complete works have thirty million characters.

Beifeng
23:51
Why did Qian Ren0 change to such a long message, secretly attacking?

Flame of Fenghuo
23:51
You haven’t seen Mao’s long articles, right?

What’s the useless theory of culture?

It’s too outrageous.

Mao also called on during the revolutionary period to study hard, understand Marxism.

Now Qian Ren0 talks about articles being too long as a fallacy.

Counterattack 1969
23:52
I don’t know if this suggestion is appropriate, but maybe we can organize a small introductory booklet for broad propaganda purposes?

Flame of Fenghuo
23:52
And the Soviet articles are to refute bourgeois pseudo-science slander against the USSR.
They systematically clarify that the USSR and socialism are necessary to maintain world peace.
Qian Ren0 is just trying to make a splash, brainlessly talking nonsense.

fxyc
23:53
Actually, Qian Ren0 is just unskilled, doesn’t want to study seriously, and wants to accuse the working people of being uneducated.

Flame of Fenghuo
23:53
Farting without blinking.

Beifeng
23:53
Why doesn’t Qian Ren0 explain?

Flame of Fenghuo
23:53
There’s no such thing as a long “Guidelines for ideological struggle” in China, can our forum’s views be explained? Can others be convinced?

Qian Ren0 is engaging in anti-intellectualism, right?

And you say the laboring people are very ridiculous.

Please check our forum’s introduction.

We aim to unify the intellectuals while promoting propaganda among the working people.

Hongqing
23:54
Qian Ren0 is acting weird today, cursing at the reading club and spouting nonsense here.

Flame of Fenghuo
23:54
The propaganda to different people takes completely different forms.

China’s petty bourgeois intellectual circle today is not about having too much knowledge, but too little!

It’s not about high level but about low level!

All sorts of pseudo-scientific garbage and wild theories.

At this time, if we don’t improve our level and make insightful comments, are we going to collude with those low-level leftist circles?

Most of what we access online are intellectuals, while workers and peasants only come into contact through labor.

Different platforms naturally adopt different methods.

Moreover, different articles have different meanings.

This Soviet article is an unprecedented defense and justification of the USSR, a good article to clarify the source of the current world crisis and the threat of war.

At this moment, Qian Ren0 just jumps out for fame, saying it’s too long.

I think you’re too eager for vanity.

Besides, isn’t this article well written enough?

I don’t have the problems of those left circles, constantly outputting half-understood, abstract, weird Western Marxist words.

Qian Ren0 should think more about seeking fame.

Counterattack 1969
00:00
I think organizing a brief introduction similar to the Maoist Communist Party might be useful for entry and propaganda. What does everyone think?

Flame of Fenghuo
00:00
Stop talking nonsense here.

fxyc
00:00
【Although I haven’t written articles, I’ve never seen anyone who writes for the people be proud of writing a lot of words.】 This pride is also ridiculous. Who is proud? How did you come to this conclusion?

Flame of Fenghuo
00:00
Such simple and understandable things, just post a thread.

Counterattack 1969
00:00
Exactly.

Hongqing
00:00
Feels like Qian Ren0 has recently been reading some “high theory” from the left circle again.

Flame of Fenghuo
00:00
Writing dedicated articles takes countless efforts.

Don’t forum users just reply to these simple things themselves?

Do they need to write articles specifically?

Are articles meant to teach things everyone can understand?

Do the petty bourgeois intellectuals today need that?

Counterattack 1969
00:01
Exactly.

Flame of Fenghuo
00:01
The left circle these days has already played out these things every day.

Still playing?

Qian Ren0 is too ignorant, showing off.

Talking about “pride in writing many words” is just nonsense.

Always dreaming of being an official, pointing fingers at others, acting arrogantly.

Now still trying to destroy the leader’s prestige to boost his own face.

Shameless.

Behaving like Trotsky and Khrushchev.

Forward
00:04
There are posts discussing the Maoist Communist Party, but no one reads or replies. Because this thing is too far from China’s current class struggle. At this stage, only idle intellectuals are studying it.

Flame of Fenghuo
00:04
Turning black into white, confusing right and wrong, spreading rumors without basis.

Why doesn’t Qian Ren0 dare to come out?

There are posts about the Maoist Communist Party, but no one reads or replies. Because this thing is too far from China’s current class struggle. At this stage, only idle intellectuals are studying it.

Counterattack 1969
00:04
There is indeed this problem.

Flame of Fenghuo
00:04
Suddenly attacking and running away.

fxyc
00:06
I think organizing a brief introduction similar to the Maoist Communist Party might be useful for entry and propaganda. What does everyone think?

19586
00:06
Besides the “Marx-Lenin-Mao Basic Course” of the Maoist Communist Party, during socialist times there was “Dictionary of Philosophy,” in the past there were “Proclamation against Ts,” and even the reading lists created by the left circle aren’t lacking. It feels like it’s not very meaningful for now.

Flame of Fenghuo
00:06
19586 has been typing for so long, just to say this.

Counterattack’s words are as useless as farting.

Playing with mud here.

What’s this about pride in writing many words?

19586
00:07
That’s how it is, completely subjective and assuming others.

Flame of Fenghuo
00:07
Still talking about this useless nonsense, have you ever been to the left circle? They’ve long been playing all kinds of revolutionary memes.

Counterattack 1969
00:07
Sorry, I’ll pay attention next time.

Flame of Fenghuo
00:07
Do we need to lower our level and join in? Honestly, it looks like a harmless suggestion, a discussion about propaganda.

In fact, it fully exposes Qian Ren0’s ambitions. Completely ignoring the objective reality of revolution, saying some seemingly reasonable and profound words, but in fact all nonsense.

Also making baseless accusations to belittle leaders and elevate oneself.

My evaluation: too official.

Is Qian Ren0 trying to become the emperor of the left circle?

Qian Ren0’s treacherous speech
Qian Ren0’s treacherous speech1117×335 83.3 KB

20 Likes
2

If this paragraph is viewed in isolation, it might seem to be discussing “article length” and “how to promote”; but once we consider the background of Qian Renling’s speech—he usually loves to point fingers at others, has a strong official tone, used foul language at a reading meeting today, and is now specifically targeting revolutionary authorities and important articles—then this is not an ordinary opinion, but a speech with a clear purpose.
The problem lies here.
Qian Renling is not coming from the perspective of revolutionary needs, seriously studying “what propaganda forms to adopt for different targets”; he is not considering the masses, nor the organization’s propaganda work. He is using a seemingly “harmless” topic to do two things:
First, to belittle others and elevate himself.
He says, “Although I have never written articles, I have never seen anyone who writes for the people boast because of the word count,” and the most malicious part of this statement is not about “article length,” but about fabricating accusations out of thin air. Others work hard to write systematic articles to refute bourgeois fallacies and clarify major issues; he deliberately twists it into “boasting” and “for the sake of more words,” which is not a discussion of the issue but an opportunistic move, throwing mud at others and creating a false impression that “I understand writing for the people better than you.” This is a very typical petty-bourgeois opportunist stance: when one cannot produce anything substantial, one relies on sarcasm and mockery to appear clever.
Second, under the guise of “considering the working people,” to attack theoretical authority and serious writing.
This is the deeper issue. He claims, “How can the masses read ten thousand words,” sounding like he is speaking for the people, but in reality, he is portraying the working people as those who do not need to learn, nor can they grasp systematic theory, viewing the masses as only capable of being fed some crumbs and unable to master complete ideological weapons. This stance appears to be “close to the masses” on the surface, but in essence, it belittles and insults them. Marxism has never feared the masses learning theory; it fears bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intellectuals monopolizing, distorting, and isolating the masses from theory. Qian Renling’s argument is fundamentally not about the mass line, but about positioning himself as a “knower” who speaks for the masses, then reversing the role to judge who should write what and who should not. Isn’t this a bureaucratic attitude?
This is not a minor issue, nor just “improper expression,” but a matter of worldview.
From a worldview perspective, the most prominent flaw of such people is extreme individualism and a desire for fame and fortune. They do not look at whether the revolution needs it, whether the article clarifies the problem, or whether the line struggle has advanced; their first concern is whether there is an opportunity to appear clever, to criticize others, to climb higher on the backs of others’ labor and prestige. Thus, they will suddenly come up with lofty theories without genuine concern for propaganda work; they prefer to criticize, label, and judge others’ work even when they have not produced comparable theoretical results themselves. Such people are not interested in the revolution but in their own face, position, and influence.
Going deeper, such people also harbor strong bureaucratic and bourgeois legalist ideas. They do not position themselves in the collective fight and learning process but always want to act as a superior critic, judge, or commander. Today they curse crudely, tomorrow they subtly “comment” on important articles—though the forms differ, the root is the same: disrespect for collective labor, disrespect for comrades, disrespect for revolutionary authority formed through practice and struggle, and a desire to seize the speaking right through posture, rhetoric, and sudden attacks. This is the real “ulterior motive.”
Moreover, the targets they choose are not random. They do not attack bourgeois “civil science” or the nonsense from the left circle, but specifically target authoritative theoretical achievements and revolutionary authorities within the organization. This further indicates that their goal is not to clarify issues but to elevate themselves by attacking authority. Many opportunists are like this: they appear to be “independent thinkers” and “dare to speak the truth,” but in fact, they are deliberately sabotaging, pouring cold water, and belittling those who do real work at critical moments, creating a sense of presence for themselves. If this flaw is not fought against, it will inevitably develop into more serious destructive behavior.
Therefore, this matter cannot only be dismissed as “he said something wrong” or “be more careful in expression” in the future. The essence must be exposed:
Qian Renling’s problem is not merely disliking long articles, but using the issue of article length to reveal his own disrespect for theory, disrespect for the masses, disrespect for authority, and an bourgeois individualist worldview eager to step on others.
His problem is not “lack of propaganda experience,” but a bureaucratic tendency to want to judge, want to be an official, and to show his level by attacking others.
His problem is not “immature method suggestions,” but an opportunist style of creating division, fabricating issues, and secretly attacking within the revolutionary ranks.
Your previous judgment is correct: it is a worldview issue. Because only from the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois individualist stance can one both pretend to be “speaking for the working people” and so lightly deny serious theoretical labor, so eagerly attack revolutionary authority, and so desperately want to show “higher insight” in front of the collective.
If there is really a way out, it is not to ask him to speak “more gently” in the future, nor to teach him some superficial propaganda skills, but to honestly admit: his words are not driven by revolutionary needs, but by vanity, showmanship, and stepping on others; admit that he has no genuine feelings for the masses, no real respect for theory, and no true reverence for revolutionary authority. Only by starting from here can change be discussed.

20 Likes
3

Is it really too bad for Marx to have written Capital?

2 Likes
12

I see Qian Renzero’s remarks, especially his public promotion of revisionism, claiming that Mao Zedong’s writings are all very short, which I find quite laughable. Mao Zedong indeed opposed writing pretentious and superficial articles, that’s true. I can only say that your kind of shameless behavior just happens to be under Mao’s stern criticism. Let’s look at the original words of “Opposing the Eight-legged Essays of the Party.”

The first fault of the Eight-legged Essays of the Party is: verbose and empty talk. Some of our comrades like to write long articles, but they contain no real content, which is truly “a lazy woman’s foot-binding, long and foul.” Why must they be so long, yet so hollow? The only explanation is that they are determined not to be seen by the masses. Because long and empty, when the masses see it, they shake their heads and no longer want to read it. So they can only bully the naive, spread bad influence among them, and create bad habits. On June 22 last year, the Soviet Union conducted a major anti-aggression war, and Stalin gave a speech on July 3, which was only as long as our “Liberation Daily” [6] editorial. If our elders wrote like that, it would be incredible, at least tens of thousands of words. Now, during wartime, we should study how to write shorter and more concise articles. Yan’an may not be at war yet, but the army fights daily on the front lines, and the rear is busy with work, so who would read overly long articles? Some comrades at the front also like to write long reports. They work hard to write them and send them in, aiming for us to read. But how dare we read them? Long and empty is bad, but is short and empty good? No, it’s not. We should ban all empty talk. But the main and primary task is to quickly throw away those long, foul, lazy woman’s foot-binding articles into the trash. **Or someone might say: “Isn’t Das Kapital quite long?” So what? Just read it. As the saying goes: “Sing whatever song on whatever mountain,” and “Eat according to the dish, tailor the clothes to the person.” Whatever we do, we must consider the circumstances, and the same applies to articles and speeches. We oppose verbose and empty eight-legged essays that are full of words but lack substance, not that everything should be short. During wartime, of course, short articles are needed, but especially articles with content. The most unacceptable and most to be opposed are articles that are empty and devoid of meaning. The same applies to speeches: speeches full of empty talk and lacking substance must be stopped. **

Mao Zedong never said that the length of an article determines its quality; he emphasized whether the content is substantial or hollow. Mao Zedong also specifically cited “Das Kapital” as an example, illustrating that the length and form of an article depend on specific circumstances. As for what kind of articles we need now, Comrade Fenghuo Flame has long refuted Qian Renzero. The problem with China’s petty bourgeois intellectuals today is not that they know too much, but that they know too little, and in fact have no knowledge at all; various reactionary pseudo-scientific fallacies flood the internet. At this moment, isn’t what we need precisely articles that detail and explain revolutionary principles? Moreover, you are less and less representing the “masses.” Anyone who is not prejudiced can see that the fundamental difference between this forum and all leftist sectarian groups is the adherence to genuine Marxism and a rigorous theoretical atmosphere. Can’t you see that? All revolutionary-minded intellectuals who wish to transform their thoughts and actively study Marxist theory admire and support this characteristic of the association. Qian Renzero probably dares not criticize Comrade Fenghuo Flame’s articles directly, only hiding malicious intentions in questions about article length.

17 Likes
4

Does Qian Renling not read books himself? Which one in the recommended must-reads is not a hefty volume? According to you, then there’s no need to read any of them, let alone “self-satisfaction”—isn’t that something you imposed? Probably out of your own selfishness, thinking that if you wrote a big piece, you would definitely be delighted, and thus believe that others who write should also feel self-satisfied. The most thorough manifestation of bourgeois human nature theory.

20 Likes
14

In fact, this cannot make oneself appear clever; instead, in the eyes of the masses, it can only make you seem shameless, while the correct stance is to stand firm. Feng Huo wrote this article, not knowing how much effort he spent—worrying about organizational affairs on one hand, and squeezing his personal time to write the article on the other. It is impossible to do this without a genuine dedication to the revolutionary organization and the cause of the Chinese revolution. The bureaucratic mentality like that of Qian Renling, I estimate, is based on his bourgeois worldview, viewing Feng Huo’s long articles as the top of the literary list, and feeling envious, thus claiming to oppose bureaucratism while actually criticizing Feng Huo with self-satisfaction. It’s just a case of judging others by oneself, a thief shouting “stop thief.” From the logic of your argument, this can also be seen—what use is it to the laboring masses to read 100,000 words and not understand? The first sentence is an attack on the working people, calling them mobs, looking down on the potential and enthusiasm of the masses. Then, in terms of formal issues, you engage in sophistry—what is the content of articles like big-character posters, Stalin’s speeches, Mao’s Selected Works Volume One? You only mention the word count, not the content. Isn’t that because you can only manipulate the article by its length? And then, it’s still about self-satisfaction—ha, are you talking about yourself?

10 Likes
28

Now, it is instead the petty bourgeois intellectuals who cannot read ten thousand characters, because they seek pleasure. Many proletarians read the news and discuss politics every day. Why can’t they read ten thousand characters? It’s not because of an objective cultural gap; they can’t even understand the characters themselves.

5 Likes
5

After the incident, in response to everyone’s questioning and my sharp revelations, Qian Renling only responded with an abstract expression to mockery, and never appeared again. It seems that our “peerless” comrade “Qian Renling” has fully unleashed his bourgeois personal ambitions. This “Qian Renling” just a few days ago was still praising the achievements of “Fenghuo Comrade” in a nauseating way, but within two days, he was criticizing “Fenghuo Comrade” for being complacent, showing a flavor of Khrushchev-style face-changing.

Qian Renling's nauseating praise of "Fenghuo Comrade"
Qian Renling's nauseating praise of "Fenghuo Comrade"1128×698 210 KB

My reply to Qian Renling at the time
My reply to Qian Renling at the time1066×209 71.1 KB

16 Likes
7

What Khrushchev said before Stalin’s death was that Stalin was his biological father; after Stalin’s death, he viciously cursed, attacked, and slandered him.

10 Likes
9

Say nice things on the surface, but secretly do harm. Double-dealing behavior.

11 Likes
8

Stalin wrote 40,000 words on Marxism and national issues, Chairman Mao wrote 47,000 words on the theory of protracted war, Engels’ Chinese edition of “The Origin of Family Private Property and the State” has over 100,000 words, and Lenin’s writings on the development of Russian capitalism are also very lengthy. As for Marx’s “Capital,” there’s even more to say. Complex issues naturally require lengthy explanations. Can one or two sentences clearly state the Soviet Union’s contributions to world peace? Can they thoroughly refute the bourgeois scoundrels’ slander against the Soviet Union? Can they make clear the sacrifices made by peoples of all countries for world peace and people’s liberation? Qian Renling is not only ignorant and arrogant but has also lost all feelings for socialism, revolutionaries, and the oppressed. He no longer hates Nazi Germany, Anglo-American, and French imperialism. He has a problem with his class stance, which is why he dares to utter such arrogant words.

21 Likes
10

Qian Renling does not read books, does not watch newspapers, and does not write articles. He previously boasted arrogantly about wanting to write a small booklet, but was advised to focus on studying himself. Now he suddenly comments that others write too long and are self-satisfied, completely unaware of where his absurd basis for pointing out problems comes from, ignoring the actual content, and grabbing onto superficial things to slander and attack the association. He elevates himself above the masses and even considers the word count to be too small for the people. Like Proudhon, he “hopes to act as a scientific authority, surpassing both capitalists and proletarians, but ends up being a petit bourgeois” , treating himself as a savior for the masses, which is overly arrogant and ugly.

17 Likes
11

Qian Ren0 is completely out of control, constantly criticizing other forum members everywhere, already considering himself a big shot. Now he jumps out to attack Fenghuo, but how many articles has Qian Ren0 himself written? He just posts an abstract emoji and then retreats, which shows that Qian Ren0 himself is extremely guilty.

11 Likes
13

Qian Renling is too crazy, treating himself as a laborer, which is excessively shameless. I dare say he has never seriously studied the Soviet articles written by Fenghuo. The articles contain various rebuttals to bourgeois historians’ attacks on the great socialist Soviet Union, defending socialism, emphasizing class feelings, with abundant historical materials, which is very moving and educational. The phrase “too long to read” is entirely a reflection of Qian Renling’s own ignorance and lack of learning. He even has the audacity to talk about “laborers,” which is truly shameless. When laborers see such a well-argued article with a clear stance, they will definitely study it repeatedly. Moreover, it’s not just for the laborers; many small-bourgeois intellectuals who are superstitious and hostile to bourgeois reactionary remarks should also read and learn. In the past, I completely lacked understanding of many historical facts and lacked specific feelings without concrete knowledge. So, although I knew about the Soviet foreign policy and abstractly recognized the greatness of the Soviet Union, I didn’t understand the specifics. Only after studying Fenghuo’s articles did I realize the huge role the Soviet Union played in World War II, and I gained some understanding of their heroic aid to invaded countries (especially the Soviet Union’s selfless help to China; when I read about it, I was very excited. Previously, I only knew about the Flying Tigers and had no idea about the Soviet airmen aiding China). It was also very shocking to learn about the aspirations of many workers and peasants who love world peace and their efforts, as well as the International Brigades and countless other stories. Aren’t these contents the most valuable? Shouldn’t they be written out clearly for us to learn? Can a single post or short essay do justice? Fenghuo constantly insists on ideological struggle, thinking about the significance of this article for the revolution, for helping everyone learn history well, and for cultivating class feelings. That’s why, even amid various busy organizational activities, he still spends a lot of time every day writing articles, persistently doing so, and using these efforts to motivate others to write something for the revolution and make contributions. Isn’t this the most correct and selfless act? You have no right to conclude that Fenghuo is complacent after writing this article. Only someone like you, who is ignorant and self-centered, would have such insidious thoughts. We absolutely will not tolerate your shameless attacks on Soviet articles! Absolutely not! You have no qualification for that. Everyone knows very well the value and significance of this article and Fenghuo’s writing. Only a shameless clown like you, who is ignorant and wants to gain fame and status for himself, would shamelessly attack and belittle it!

23 Likes
15

How much Marxism did Qian Renling seriously study himself? During today’s reading meeting, Fenghuo revealed that the Soviet articles were written by him, and also told everyone that he was about to surpass 100,000 words. The members of the association were all happy about this because they felt finally there was an article that could systematically refute the bourgeoisie of various countries’ slanders against the Soviet Union and defend the great Soviet Union. Only Qian Renling, in order to gain fame for himself, sought fame and profit within the association, so arrogant that he didn’t even bother to look, and wanted to completely deny the articles written by Fenghuo.

18 Likes
16

What kind of “we” is this? What has Qian Ren0 done? Just pointing fingers like this actually excludes himself from we.

Form and content should be appropriate. To purify an entire segment of socialist Soviet history from slander, is such content suited to be a big-character poster? A speech? A declaration? Such remarks are like pointing at a fully loaded freight train, saying why isn’t it as convenient to carry as my suitcase—can the “working people” carry so much stuff?

But this is not very important either. After poor reasoning, it comes to the key point:

Rated as a display of cunning and treachery

17 Likes
17

Qian Renling is indeed too arrogant and conceited. He completely ignores the purpose of others’ efforts in writing articles, instead projecting his own thoughts onto others, speculating based on bourgeois human nature theories, and then slandering and attacking Fenghuo. Why is this happening? I think mainly because Qian Renling himself is not moved by the great achievements of the Soviet heroes and people who dedicated themselves to the people; otherwise, how could he not expect such valuable articles to be longer and more numerous? Qian Renling also does not hate the bourgeoisie for slinging dirt on the Soviet Union; otherwise, how could he not realize that without detailed materials, these reactionary elements could not be thoroughly refuted? His finger-pointing and criticizing actually reveal his lack of stance, ignorance, and personal ambitions. It shows that he just wants to write lengthy articles to make a splash. But in reality, he is just sharp-tongued, thick-skinned, and hollow inside. Qian Renling should lower his stance a bit and first be a student among the masses.

20 Likes
18

Indeed, when Fenghuo wrote this article, he thoroughly exposed and criticized the hypocritical nature of bourgeois enemies such as Britain and the United States, and unreservedly and openly praised the working people and the Soviet Union, reflecting a clear class stance. Qian Renling not only lacks such a class stance and class feelings, but on the contrary, in this slander and attack, he claims that Fenghuo is “self-satisfied” and still speaks for the working people. This is truly shameless and extremely arrogant.

11 Likes
19

I feel sorry for my actions and deeply guilty. I also thank my comrades for their criticism of me. I personally promise to give everyone a good explanation before the reading club tonight (March 13). I also feel guilty for taking up my comrades’ evening time to criticize me.

12 Likes
20

I hope Qian Renling is telling the truth and can clearly explain his thoughts. What everyone needs to address are his ideological issues, not to attack him. I hope Qian Renling can respond positively to all questions.

11 Likes