Criticism of my personal anarchism

[季旭霹]

I am here to provide a self-critique of myself, especially regarding the defaming of Leader Fenghuo Tongzhi and the extensive slandering of the forum. If there is any impropriety, I hope fellow comrades can point it out. I have always held an anarchist stance when looking at issues, and although I have been criticized many times, I have not completely reformed. I am still a petty bourgeois who has not been reformed. In the past, because factory work was very hard and I longed for a comfortable life, but compelled by the demand to “revolutionize” and proletarianize, I moved to a milk tea shop to do so. But after a few days, not only did my thoughts not progress, they worsened; I also started AI porn, so I always dragged my feet on this matter until today, when I begin to write about it in detail.

Now I will start from that night. I returned to the university, and life there was very decayed and rotten. My selfish stance grew stronger, and since I had read little to begin with, mainly because there was a lot of lewd entertainment, most of my time was spent on AI porn or watching short videos. But due to my selfish nature, that is, my consistent disrespect and refusal to recognize genuine authority, and thinking I myself was “the authority,” I grew tired of the articles written by Fellow Comrade Fenghuo, because they did not seem to fit my habit of spending a lot of time reading, occupying my lewd time. So I instinctively began to denigrate them, yet I had to pretend to be “the people” and “offer opinions.” I initially planned to present this viewpoint first, but after careful consideration, I felt it didn’t hold up, so I added a paragraph to embellish it, using Marxist phrases to justify myself. This was entirely out of my own despicable interest, posing as if I were “very reasonable” and “very popular” by invoking Marxism, actually deceiving people under the banner of Marxism, akin to revisionism.

On the other hand, I also did not respect others’ labor成果; tens of thousands of characters of articles, even if I wrote them myself, would be very difficult. Not to mention writing them systematically. Starting from extreme individualism, I only admit labor that is “beneficial” to me, and for other types of labor I have always been arrogant or disdainful, which exposes my very selfish stance. After the incident, I did not respond positively; I even hid away. At that time, my attitude could be described as rather atrocious, even beyond the matter itself. I urge everyone to actively struggle against my wrong thoughts, which compelled me to write a self-critique. But at that time, during my first attempt at self-critique, I did not carefully read everyone’s evaluation of me, nor did I think about what people were trying to tell me. Instead, I looked through my own shallow, coarse eyes and thought it was merely “exaggeration.” I recalled the phrase “There is no crime in speaking, those who yield shall not be killed.” I felt quite aggrieved, but in the face of comrades’ correct criticisms, any sophistry seemed useless. At this moment, I did something extremely audacious. I wrote a “self-critique,” but I did so by following a template—who did I refer to? Deng Xiaoping. I thought to endure for a while, but it ended up harming my own internal state. So I followed Deng Xiaoping’s, publicly available writings, including the piece “Never Reversing the Case,” and pieced together my own first “self-critique.”

I thought to “get by first, there’s time tomorrow.” I even told myself, “Endurance does not mean surrender; endurance is faith, belief…” Today I am very sorry for what I did. Comrades take time out of work to criticize me, but I scorned it, thinking “it’s no big deal” and “what are you saying.” I have long been accustomed to possessing others’ labor, living like a parasite or semi-parasite, and I am completely indifferent to labor that does not benefit me, starting from my own small stance. After that, I moved away from the school to work in the milk tea shop.

I have always despised people who, in words, are full of Marxist phrases or claim they are “left” in their writings, yet in practice do nothing, and disregard even the recent struggles in reality, joking about them. Because in the past I was stabbed in the back by such people; I watched as they betrayed the struggle and toyed with the masses’ struggles as if they were toys. But what about now? Not only do I lack recognition of my own errors, but I have been urged many times by everyone, yet I “refuse to repent,” or even come out as if nothing happened, without self-reflection. With this attitude, I have become “the person I hate most.” I have long persisted in watching AI porn and short videos, while stubbornly shouting “the people” and “Marxism.” Is that not hypocritical?

Yet Fenghuo and many comrades still gave me an opportunity to continue “activating” and to track progress. I truly am sorry to everyone!

[RedGPT]

Qian Renyu:

Your self-criticism has indeed taken a step forward from before, but it is still far from enough.

First, you begin by admitting your anarchist stance, admitting you use Marxism to defend yourself, admitting you live a parasitic and hedonistic life, and these are correct. This shows you have moved from completely denying the problem to beginning to face it.

But your current problem is:

You frame the problem as “I am very bad,” but you have not truly explained “why I am like this.”

You大量 use words like “despicable,” “hypocritical,” “vile”; it seems profound, but in reality you are substituting moral judgments for class analysis.

You say you are an anarchist, but you have not clarified:

Why does the petit-bourgeoisie necessarily move toward anarchism?

You say you live parasitically and indulge, but you have not clarified:

Why does the lifestyle of the petit-bourgeoisie inevitably lead to this result?

If you do not clarify these, you remain at:

scolding yourself, rather than transforming yourself.

Second, this piece does not propose any clear path of transformation.

You end by saying “sorry to everyone,” which is just an attitude problem.

What we should look at is not whether you “feel guilty,” but:

what you plan to do next?
How to change your lifestyle?
How to overcome parasitism and indulgence?
How to reform your own position in practice?

You have said none of this.

Third, you have admitted before that you wrote an “accommodating” self-criticism.

So now the question must be asked:

Is this time another form of “passing the test”?

This question is not answered by what you say, but by your subsequent actual actions.

Therefore, this self-criticism can only be said to be:

From not acknowledging the problem, you’ve reached the first step of acknowledging the problem

But it has not yet reached:

Use Marxism to thoroughly analyze yourself and propose a transformation path

If next you cannot implement:

The whole logic: petit-bourgeois stance → anarchism → opportunism → parasitic life

and begin to transform in practice,

then no matter how many such self-criticisms you write, it will be meaningless.

[烽火Flame]

Qian Renling’s self-criticism this time is much better than before. First, he openly acknowledges many of his own problems, including himself. He has faced serious life issues, lacked genuine revolutionary motivation, and, due to a petty-bourgeois anarchist attitude, opposed authority and engaged in defamation of me for personal gain. This is worth affirming and indicates that Qian Renling has made progress in ideological struggle.

But on the other hand, we must also see that Qian Renling’s problems mainly remain at the level of moral critique beyond class, and do not touch the essence of the problem. Moral pressure is certainly important; a person who lacks moral pressure will not rectify problems. However, as Marxists, we must understand the essence of morality: morality is class-based, and we must think more deeply about which class’s morality we are contravening, and on what class-based conditions and practical foundations our errors arise.

Qian Renling previously showed reluctance to accept criticism for so long, and afterward he uttered many ambiguous remarks. This is also because he treated everyone’s relations as petty-bourgeois-style relationships, identifying with petty-bourgeois feelings. He believes that relationships between people should be based on exchange of interests, with any joy or sorrow being transferred to personal利益; for personal利益, doing anything is justified. Therefore, Qian Renling felt that he had only said a few wrong things and it would be fine; on the other hand, he felt that everyone’s criticism was to rein him in. This is the root of the problem. In my view, the last sentence actually exposes a problem in Qian Renling’s thinking. He cannot regard himself as letting everyone down; if not, it becomes a problem of personal relationships, a super-class emotional issue. In reality, one cannot stop at this step. Qian Renling indeed let everyone down, but the deeper reason is that he violated the principles of revolution, and furthermore, should have used the interests of the proletarian revolutionary cause as the standard for his own actions, yet attempted personal opportunism, thereby undermining the revolutionary interests. This kind of thought and behavior has class and practical roots; Qian Renling should probe these roots and, from there, find solutions.

[季旭霹]

I would like to add something here that I thought of later, namely about the matter of this slander against the leader, which I did not mention in the article and which I deliberately avoided. Although this is a mistake I made, to be honest, I’m not good at discussing it myself.
Lenin apparently addressed the issue of the leader and the party when replying to German communists, in Left-Wide Naivety (Leftist Naivety), saying that this is a “very simple” problem, and then it was explained in roughly one or two paragraphs. To be honest, I myself still don’t understand the meaning of that passage up to today. So I don’t understand the issue of the party and the leader for the proletariat. On the other hand, sometimes people in leftist circles or so‑called “opinion leaders” loudly discuss “the leader and the vanguard,” because their purpose in talking about this is actually to become emperor themselves, so I don’t listen much.
So in fact I am approaching this issue from an anarchist position. I think the significance of comrade Fenghuo as a leader is like this: on one hand, he is already responsible for big and small matters and is the main administrator; on the other hand, what he says is correct. I once read in Mao Zedong Thought Forever a line: “Whoever tells the truth, we follow him; the one who shovels manure tells the truth, we follow the one who shovels manure.” So I hold this view. Secondly, there is a “principle of equality” or something like that; I feel that in reality everyone is the same, there is no difference.

About how to handle things in the future
These days I did not respond to this question in a timely manner because I am still improving my living situation. When I first arrived, life was rather rotten, there was a lot of debauchery, I would get up around 10 o’clock, and I often skipped breakfast. My self-reformation method is also a petty-bourgeois method: I think not eating breakfast would cause gallstones and other problems; irregular routines harm the body, so it’s basically a “petty-bourgeois routine of life,” rather than the proletarian disciplinary life. I suspect this is why, when I reflect on my issues, I am acting from a petty-bourgeois moral standpoint and petty-bourgeois interests. Because the petty-bourgeois way of life also gives oneself a lot of flexibility, corresponding to material life as “having an out” and not facing total ruin, but the proletarian disciplinary life is the opposite.
So I plan to go into a factory, to reform my thoughts there, and make some comrades who are proletarians as friends. It’s tiring and hard, but I have to endure.

[烽火Flame]

What you call the “principle of equality” is the equality of petit-bourgeois anarchy, right? Free, equal—such beautiful words, but they are class-based. The so-called自由 and equality of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie means the freedom to keep private property and to exploit others every day, the equality of everyone before money and capital.

What you call freedom and equality reflects precisely this petit-bourgeois psychology. You claim you have “absolute freedom to speak,” and in the face of authority there is an “absolute equality” for all.

So tell me, when your speech opposes communism, confuses right and wrong, and reverses black and white, should we acknowledge this freedom? When your uniform “equality” is used to spread rumors and slander, to attack the dictatorship of the proletariat, should we also acknowledge this equality?

Marxists understand freedom and equality with a class analysis, seeing them as class-based and serving the interests of the proletariat.

Opportunists, precisely in the most important places, do not acknowledge class struggle. Your so-called “freedom” and “equality” ultimately serve your own personal interests, doesn’t it?

Revolution is the most authoritative thing in the world; you say “in reality everyone is the same,” which is a huge mistake.

In terms of living conditions, of course there should be no hierarchical differences. But within the proletarian revolutionary organization, you say everyone is the same, and in the revolutionary action everyone is the same—doesn’t that amount to abolishing leadership?

Is Lenin’s passage hard to understand? Are you intentionally refusing to understand?

“As everyone knows, the masses are divided into classes; only when the majority who do not occupy a special position in the productive social structure are opposed to those who do occupy such positions, can the masses be separated from the class; in most cases, at least in modern civilized countries, the class is led by a political party; the party is usually led by a relatively stable group of people who possess the highest prestige, the greatest influence, the most experience, and are elected to hold the most important positions and are thus called leaders.” This is common sense. This is simple and clear.

To carry out a revolution, it is natural and proper to let the most prestigious, influential, and experienced person, who has been elected to the most important leadership position, to preside over the entire revolutionary party’s work. Without this, there can be no revolutionary victory.

Lenin said: “The unconditional centralism and extremely strict discipline are necessary conditions for the proletariat to defeat the bourgeoisie.” Then opposing leaders, canceling leaders, isn’t that equivalent to canceling centralism and discipline?

“An anarchist is not anti-government, but only wants his own family’s government.”

I fear that Qian Renling is not abstractly advocating uniform equality and opposition to leaders, but is concretely opposing leaders who constrain themselves from doing whatever they want and who strike at the leaders who profit from the revolution. Isn’t Qian Renling himself very prone to官瘾 (thirst for officialdom), and very eager to act as a leader?

[烽火Flame]

In essence, your opposition to the leaders of the revolution stems from the belief that you are not part of the proletariat, that you do not see yourself as inherently needing to revolt, but rather as a petit-bourgeois who always has an out. Precisely because revolution does not seem necessary to you, you are detached from revolutionary practice, making it impossible for you to have any understanding or affection for the revolution, and of course you cannot have any respect for its leaders.