I find that every worry and prediction I raised on this forum has come true. First I thought you would label me as a reactionary, and indeed that happened; then I warned you not to exaggerate, and I was given three grand unfounded tags; I mentioned freedom of speech under the class premise, the goal being to avoid封 my account, to have the “Four Freedoms,” and indeed you found an excuse to lock my account for sabotage. Finally I said my words might be tampered with or taken out of context, and indeed they were taken out of context again. I’ll make another prediction here: later on many comrades will come out to make self-criticism, perhaps involving “pornographic thoughts” or “hedonism,” but they will absolutely not mention their own male-dominated thoughts, just like Buharin in the Moscow trial, who would admit only minor, tactical errors and would not admit large, directional errors, and would lie. If I were lying, I wouldn’t say so many factual, straightforward things, handing you hats with my own hands, so that even now people still bring up old accounts, ridiculing me for “liking Lafite.” I have long admitted my errors repeatedly and expressed repentance, yet you magnify them and give me three unfounded hats as personal attacks—when will you apologize for that? When will you treat me from a bourgeois psychology and say I “fabricated” my personal history? You should know I didn’t only mention Comrade Fenghuo, and had to mention Comrade Swamp Warrior, I never mentioned anyone by name among you. One even performed on stage something like “forcing us to curse you.” Yes, I intend to tear apart your mask, the mask of your so‑called “comrade-style criticism”; in substance, from the very beginning you did not regard me as a comrade. Some people only know “cruel struggle, ruthless blows,” without any sense of solidarity. Even Mao Zedong, in several terms, suggested Wang Ming and Li Lisan be given a way out; what path did you give me? It was nothing but not allowing me to speak at all. Of course, after I said these things, you will again give me the old unfounded hats, claiming I view Comrades with bourgeois humanity; when will you apologize for that? How about viewing me from the standpoint of bourgeois humanity and saying I “fabricate” personal history? You should know I not only pointed to Comrade Fenghuo’s name, but also mentioned Comrade Marshland Warrior, and I never once named any of you. There is even a more extreme claim, saying “you are forced to insult you.” Yes, I will tear off your fig leaf, tear off the so‑called “comrade-style criticism” mask; in essence you never regarded me as a comrade from the start. Some people only know “cruel struggle, merciless blows,” with no hint of unity. The Politburo members in the seventh or eighth session, Mao Zedong himself suggested Wang Ming and Li Lisan, offered a way out; what path did you offer me? It’s just that I am not allowed to speak. Of course, after I say these things, you will again give me the old unfounded hat, accusing me of viewing comrades from a bourgeois humanity theory. I really find it hard to understand: you have concluded a struggle between the two European and American imperialist blocs, concluded that the current Chinese revolutionary condition only lacks a nationwide unified new party, established a seven-year organization, and reached a point of some study in the history of international communism, etc., but why when handling internal contradictions among the people do you stumble? In your view, I also see it: you have supposedly dealt with many opportunists, and the rest are backbone members, so many people betrayed your association—do you really not think it’s a problem with yourselves? Does this prove either your united front work isn’t good enough, or your mass work isn’t good enough? I again urge you to understand, not merely understand, but study the 1930s Soviet regional anti-rightist struggle and how the anti-rightist campaign was expanded. You are certainly not, maybe not certainly, but likely, making the mistake of magnifying the issue and purging as counter-revolutionaries those who could be unified in the association I also did not say you cannot purge opportunists; after all, Lenin himself said, “The party is strengthened by purging opportunists.” It’s just about proper coordination. Mao Zedong said two hands, and one hand is unity, giving a way out.
Lenin’s political will, even without physical proof, is almost certain; Molotov and Kaganovich, two fellow Bolsheviks, have testified to it; what is there to doubt? To tell you frankly, if you have objections to this word, I’ll switch to another: I honestly say that regarding the truth of history, we have an obligation to clarify. Yes, we persist; wrong, we admit, and never again commit. I am also prepared to cite the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) to prove that Comrade Stalin himself also acknowledged Lenin’s political will, and I will publish it if I find it.
If I am truly permanently banned, I will place a “suppressing dissent” hat on the administrator; in fact, it has already repressed, and it is also firmly on you. You don’t feel wrong when you casually label others; today it’s your turn.
You say I am not upright; on the forum I openly ask why Lenin’s political will has problems? You say that my opposing articles about the forum are simply your conjecture; I say the articles are well written, i.e., truthfully speaking, even if you criticize me, I would not lie with my eyes open, saying the forum article is poorly written. I simply disagree with the claim that Lenin’s political will is forged; this claim is not factual, if you think it is forged, you must provide evidence, “he who asserts must prove”; and I have not seen any article in the forum arguing forgery.
There is also someone saying I am colluding with some “continuation club,” saying I have a “backing,” which is nonsense. I came to this forum to sniff out secrets, to engage in opportunism? You overestimate me. I have no relation to this organization; I joined this forum after seeing someone on Bilibili post a link to “The Chinese Predecessor Revolution” (Zhongwei Geve) into the forum. I have never joined any revolutionary organization; although indeed many different people invited me to join, I declined all.
Moreover, I sense a phenomenon: in your eyes, the five mentors are perfect, with no errors, and if there are any, they are caused by others. It is especially serious when discussing Mao Zedong’s mistakes or oversights. This is not a factual and rigorous approach, not rigorous use of materialist dialectics. For example: Engels, in his later years (after 1880), proposed that parliamentary struggle might, under special circumstances, transition to a socialist society (I don’t remember where I saw this, perhaps in the Collected Works of Marx and Engels or in The Marx-Engels Reader). It has been proven that reformists took advantage of this to give up armed struggle and go the reformist route. The Georgian events related to Lenin and Stalin also require thorough discussion: was it central chauvinism, or Georgian regional nationalism? In the Georgian events, Lenin supported the Georgian side, while Stalin and Tserenkov represented the center. Stalin’s earlier misjudgment about the socialist state’s class struggle, such as thinking the primary threat came from foreign bourgeoisie, did not pay enough attention to the bourgeois within the party, and he himself admitted the anti‑purge magnification. I also need to patch up: I think the great purge was necessary, but the magnification’s serious consequences must be learned from, and the strength of mobilizing the masses was insufficient. About Mao Zedong, I have mentioned before, not repeating here.
Some people criticize that by adopting Trotskyist world revolutionary theory there is a problem; do you really understand the world revolutionary theory? It, along with permanent revolution, is two parts; what I support is only the world revolutionary theory. Its general meaning is that a single country cannot transition to communism; multiple countries must undertake world-wide revolution. But this theory is not suitable for the Soviet Union after the failure of revolutions in other countries; we cannot tell the people that if only one country builds socialism, it will ultimately fail, which would greatly dampen subjectivity. It is proven that Stalin himself practiced the world revolutionary theory; he promoted socialist regimes in Eastern Europe and Asia around World War II.
I also recall something: Comrade Fenghuo said “Mitigating faction in Hubei is very strong”; the Wuhan Cultural Revolution involved Wuhan’s Premier Military District-supported conservative organization, the Million Hero Army, massacring the rebels; internal fighting among rebels was rare, and even when there were differences, ideological struggle predominated.
Earlier someone sent me that Qibenyu supported Xi Jinping in 2014. It is simply a non sequitur; I said Qibenyu never vindicated his case, nor denied the pro‑proletarian Cultural Revolution; what does it have to do with supporting Xi? Even if he supported Xi, it was in 2014; at that time, I think everyone present could not clearly see Xi’s true face; not supporting Xi does not mean supporting Bo Xilai? Compared to Bo Xilai taking the throne, it was indeed a leftist victory in easing class contradictions, giving proletarian leftovers more; better than intensification. “Qi Benyu’s Memoirs” are worth reading. A classic example: you cannot deny Kautsky because he was a revisionist, since he edited “The History of the Surplus Value Theory” and compiled “Class Struggle.” His Class Struggle is something even Mao Zedong praised. Besides, whether Qi Benyu is an anti-revolutionary, we should still ask. You don’t need to argue with me about central naming. During the anti-rightist magnification, many rightists were labeled; in the 1960s, many were vindicated one after another. Here is another famous example, Zhang Qinli. After the Great Purge magnification in the 1930s, many “traitors” were purged; Stalin in 1938 or 1939 explicitly admitted he had made errors in the purge. Here is another factual matter: was it blindly trusting the central decision, or a rational analysis of the figure’s main and secondary aspects? In Qi Benyu’s Memoirs, although he himself says Jiang Qing directly caused his imprisonment, after Jiang Qing’s arrest he heard Jiang Qing sing and still praised Jiang Qing as “a heroine.” Why would he do that?
记号王的罪证 (Mark Wang’s Evidence of Crime) [image: upload://eyVhi9uNX3kEBVoO0smY2PvZ3qr.png]
