屁话，你这样就是让人去送死，就和当初沙俄时期让人民群众去和沙皇请愿没什么区别！把人民群众和一些引导社会运动的知识份子，送到法西斯的机枪眼前去！在中国基本上人民群众要想发声，争取自己哪怕一点权力基本上都要和当地的政府、警察爆发武力冲突，因为中国的修正主义集体实行的法西斯政策太过于野蛮了，哪怕是一点民主的声音都不能让人民发出，习近平今天要是像特朗普一样开个什么微博帖子，你看有多少人骂都要把他骂死，有多少人要控诉说自己被中修怎么怎么迫害，这些声音汇集起来都能引起不小的社会运动。还什么解放军，64镇压，开坦克碾压学生、工人的不是解放军？2022河南银行冻结储户存款，拿刺刀挑人的不是解放军？不说军队的性质，是为了那个阶级服务就只知道说汶川地震、97洪水是吧？更不用说汶川地震之后还有很多人根本就没有安置好，中修直接不管了，有什么好说的？md，你最后这个说法不和历史上的资产阶级一样，什么和其他国家的是主要矛盾，这不是一战各国资产阶级们叫工农子弟上战场送死的借口吗？还有最后一句，“你们现在要干革命，不怕一次有史以来中国历史上最血腥的内战把中国的工业基础摧毁殆尽”你不要企图用革命的暴力来帮助你推销改良，十月革命流的血，死去的人，一个广场就可以装的下，但是因为沙皇俄国的统治死去的人早就不知道有多少了！列宁领导了十月革命，其他各国确实是来趁虚而入了，但是他们成功了吗？工业基础摧毁殆尽，这是工人、农民的基业吗？工人农民能摧毁他，一样也能把他建设的更好，就像过去的中国、苏联一样！
6 Likes
Right from the start you’re touting compulsory education. If you follow that logic, wouldn’t you first have to advocate for a representative Junker-landlord such as Bismarck? After all, he began compulsory education in Prussia over a century ago. A capitalist state under exploitation would promote compulsory education mainly because it greatly reduces the cost of training workers. And during the schooling process, it allows all students to be completely detached from social labor, making it easier to instill the ruling class’s ideology into the minds of the workers’ children. Aren’t there many students today who advocate for war and nationalism?
As for the so-called reform plans you mention, in such a fascist country they’re nothing but pipe dreams. Do you not know that in a fascist state the ruling class fears so-called “freedom of association” the most—letting the people organize? All unions and mass gatherings are completely prohibited. A few years ago, warehouse delivery workers tried to form an independent union, and they created an “Outsourcing Alliance Leader,” which was instantly crushed by the fascist government; the person was arrested. You didn’t know about these things? Even to cite a more ridiculous example, like Z.L. Zuo, a bourgeois running dog who previously ran some “isms” club, wanted to organize associations and was directly prohibited by the Chinese revisionist government. And they also tried to set up legal aid; under such reactionary judicial system, even the formal act of following the law is impossible: those who resist exploitation are harshly punished, while those who serve the exploiters are lightly punished. A few cases make this clear. You urge us to pursue the daylight “reform,” which would push people to suicide. Entrusting hope to those reactionary old forces after they die, hoping society will naturally improve, is also nonsense. Because a person’s thoughts are determined by his practice, those who later become exploiters or who oppress their wives and children in the family will have equally reactionary thinking. Paradoxically, the elderly who have devoted their lives to struggle and labor are the ones who stay progressive for a lifetime. In the past, after the 412 Counter-Revolution Coup, Lu Xun himself reflected on his social evolutionism; he said that now those who kill the young are generally young themselves. Not to mention that many young people born in the 90s and 80s have already formed families; isn’t domestic violence and even child abuse by parents too common? Many shopkeepers and even capitalists today are also young people, and their reactionary tendencies are no less pronounced than those of their predecessors. Relying on this method to improve society is ridiculous.
You even place the “hope” for social reform in the so-called healthy forces within the party, which exposes your extreme ignorance of reality and your stance of looking only upward. In reality you haven’t seen many party members, only youth league members, right? What kind of opportunistic dogs are those so-called Communist Youth League members? Which of them hold so-called “Communist beliefs”? You know very well that “no officials, no corruption” is a settled matter. The current Chinese revisionist party is a tumor made of cancer cells; you expect healthy tissue to form inside this cancerous mass and make society better? That’s ridiculous. Placing hope in the military, police, and security services is even more far-fetched. Then I have to ask you: who fired upon the people in 1989? There are plenty of online sources about how fascist the atmosphere and training methods are in today’s army; you can find them easily. The armed forces and security services serve the violent apparatus of the ruling class. The news today repeatedly calls for “keeping the Party’s absolute leadership over the army”—isn’t that making the army fully serve fascist rule? And you still expect such things to protect the people. Bending before fascist dictatorship in such a shameless way, even many people who have been duped by bourgeois liberal ideas are worse than you, yet you still have the nerve to smear yourself with “social democracy”—how shameless.
7 Likes
This person’s words are not the main issue; Social Democrats are also social fascists. Without this group deceiving workers and the petty bourgeoisie, Hitler would not have come to power in 1933.
What you call a kind of pseudo-science, who wouldn’t know it by now—it’s all rumors. They’re even arming to invade Finland, with Finland itself provoking artillery exchanges along the border at Manila, and actively assembling a large force on the Soviet-Finnish border to provoke and attack.
The so-called Forest Brothers are even more absurd, all landlords and rich peasant fraternities, a bunch of dog-thieves who kill and plunder, and they still claim to resist.
Have you read too much on Wikipedia? Read some proper books.
18 Likes
Revisionists spread pseudo-history too widely; many origins trace back to Nazi propaganda. By the time it circulates domestically, it becomes authoritative, and all we can say is that the right-wing has reconnected with its ancestral roots in this respect.
13 Likes
People who believe these fallacies are also on the side of their class interests with the enemy, always fabricating the idea that great socialism treats other nations with genocide, while never mentioning the massive massacres of the people by Nazi fascism.
10 Likes
The state is a tool of irreconcilable class antagonism, a tool of rule that suppresses one class in order to maintain another; violence is the midwife that gives birth to a new society. If we don’t use violence to overthrow the ruling apparatus, what then—peaceful petitions or reform? From what you say, the proletariat’s violent resistance is savage and ridiculous, yet you never discuss the ruling class’s savage violence against the working people. Since the beginning of the attempt to restore capitalism, the overthrow of three kinds of people, the June Fourth incident, various intra-party purges by the reformists, up to the recent Pu City incident and Jiangyou incident, the violence against the masses is maddening. We must discuss how violence is the ruling class’s excess, while the people’s violence against reformists is too little, so the association, theoretically and practically, must wage violent revolution to overthrow the bourgeois state machinery and establish a proletarian dictatorship.
From this disgusting sentence of yours, one can see how detached you are from reality. Chinese workers and peasants are filled with resentment toward the reformists; eating and clothing are among the worst for them. In 2020 Li Keqiang admitted that China’s 6 hundred million monthly incomes are only about 1,000 yuan. Your so-called good eating is for the bourgeoisie and the affluent petit bourgeois; the workers eating leftovers from the trash bins are not better off than the landlords and old capitalists. The so-called nine years of compulsory education is, as you know, built by the reformists to train slaves for the bourgeoisie. In this kind of school, rather than educating the young generation of workers and peasants, it trains them to serve bourgeois interests. Not to mention that in the extremely reactionary reformist society, there is bullying of students in schools. You simply say that workers only have worse待遇 and officials are more corrupt, as if workers only live for their narrow day-to-day lives. For hundreds of years, workers have tried dozens and hundreds of times to overthrow the oppressors and become the masters of their lives. Yet each time they fail, are insulted, and forced to retreat, burying grievances, shame, anger, and despair in their hearts. Look up at the vast sky and hope to find a savior there. The chains of slavery remain, or perhaps the old chains have only been replaced by new, equally heavy and insulting chains. In reformist society like this, workers and peasants have no political rights, people have no day of freedom, let alone those corrupt reformist官 and troops who are the executioners of reformist society’s counterrevolutionary oppression; they are not just a few corrupt officials, but the ruling backbone of the reactionary reformist society, making any alliance with such reactionaries unimaginable. The Chinese people simply wish for them to perish as soon as possible.
I don’t know what basis you have for saying that the main contradiction in the world today is between reformist China and imperialist America. It is better described as the contradiction between reformist China and various American imperialist and anti-China forces. First, you do not acknowledge that China is a reactionary imperialist state; its interests are not fundamentally aligned with the working people, but antagonistic. Second, you advocate supporting reformist imperialist China in war with American imperialism, which in practice makes the peoples of the two countries pawns in a war between imperialist states. In wartime, imperialist states control the national economy and实行配给制, making survival harder for the masses. The peoples of colonized lands under the control of the two empires are forced to be pawns or free labor for imperialism’s rear. War leads to revolution; revolution stops war. The proletariat will not support the wars of the oppressors, because the nation that oppresses other nations cannot achieve its own liberation. We will only, together with the oppressed peoples, use revolution to stop this reactionary war. That does not mean destroying China’s industrial base, but using the modern bourgeoisie’s industrial system to build a better state belonging to the people.
8 Likes
May I ask what method your legitimate government uses to seize power? Why don’t you see Deng Xiaoping and that old guard going to establish a bourgeois dictatorship and use armed force to overthrow Chiang Kai-shek to seize power? Why pretend to be revolutionaries to seize central power, attack and imprison Mao Zedong’s wife, and why massacre tens of millions of revolutionaries across China to seize power?
We eat and wear better than the Kuomintang landlords. In all of China, 600 million people earn less than 1000 yuan, and we may not eat as well as landlords. Moreover, even if we eat better, it is a small portion of the fruits of our own labor. There are tens of millions of millionaires and billionaires in China, not the most in the world but second. These people are not crazily squeezing and stealing our labor; can they compare with the billions who bully and occupy the global majority of colonies? Nine years of compulsory education was not funded from citizen taxes; its main purpose isn’t to save taxes for capitalists to train labor power. And there is more compulsory education now; schools daily force workers’ children to pay under the pretext of buying papers and exercise books, those who can’t pay are discriminated against and insulted. You still have the face to talk about compulsory education. And you still have the face to say workers’ conditions are worse than before; workers are clearly worse off than before, treated like cattle and horses, daily insulted and discriminated by the bourgeoisie. A flippant remark is like your masters’ defense of monopoly capital? Don’t even think about it.
You should stop spouting this crap. The Chinese fascist regime formed by internal power grabs and revanchism has a certain leftist faction. The democratic movement of 1989 formed a nationwide wave of “democracy” but what happened? Your seven-eight-one bandit army used machine guns and tanks to massacre openly. Still legal? Do you know Jiashi wanted to establish an independent union and was immediately crushed. Delivery riders want to form a mutual aid organization, their leader was warned. I tell you, we must overthrow this bourgeoisie that makes profits by looting the proletariat and the poor.
You have the gall to talk about the Eight-One Bandit Army; after the 1976 restoration, the revolutionaries’ cadres were killed. The restoration aligned with your so-called primary contradiction with the United States; in the 1980s CIA activities were allowed in China, attacked Vietnam in 1979, created no-go zones in northern Vietnam. After 2012, you stubbornly claim the China boy, but you draw borders with a maritime treaty signed with the United States, handing your own territorial waters to others. Every day pointing cannons at the Filipino people, isn’t that the Eight-One Bandit Army? What is the main contradiction, the United States? I think your master’s main contradiction is with us. Security costs are twice the military budget. Robot traffic police, robot special police should come first. Who are you aiming at?
Honestly, we are not the ones who pose a war threat; your master is. Your master wants to expand colonial plunder, ease the economic crisis, and build a large number of aircraft carriers and new missiles to compete with the United States. Our revolution is to prevent all Chinese workers from suffering disasters, so we have decided to revolutionize. If you say we would destroy industry and cause massive casualties so that the US could take advantage, that is very funny. Massive industrial destruction occurred, the third-line program was abandoned in 1980, layoffs in the northeast in 1990, today’s real estate sector is collapsing, many industrial sectors bankrupt. This is not our doing, but the so-called good days. Population deaths—births controlled by family planning, workers dying from industrial accidents, dying from industrial diseases, many workers starving during massive layoffs, those who died at home during the pandemic, should all count too. And you say we massacred? Your master massacred most fiercely, and then let those people fritter away domestically and abroad. Our revolution is to kill them all so these situations will not arise.
12 Likes
Just now I argued with my parents because of political stuff. I yelled loudly, and of course I was on the rational side, but my dad understands the current situation too. His plan is to do what needs to be done, not to do dangerous things, and my mom doesn’t know what the situation is like now. She believes whatever Zhongxiu says, and in the end arguing achieves nothing and only makes the relationship further apart, which makes me feel terrible.
Send another document from that group today after translation.
This is way too abstract, what does “left circle” mean?
As a skilled KFC back-of-house worker, I’m speechless about this cover 
3 Likes
What exactly did you argue with your family about, and do you often study this kind of thing? Could you go into more detail? Actually, it’s best not to expose your own political stance to anyone in real life, as there could be safety issues.
1 Like
You should publish fewer translations that are biased to the left, it feels like these things aren’t meaningful. Why not explain in detail something like
so everyone can help you brainstorm and solve this problem
1 Like
Uh… Sharing these files mainly comes from not understanding the ideological level of the organization, and I also had a preconceived notion, bringing the mindset of left-circle incompetence into a real revolutionary organization. Now thinking about it, what I’m doing is a bit awkward, and might also ruin my street cred with bystanders? Anyway, I absolutely won’t share this kind of stuff in the future.
Last week, over two days I first did political exposure for my sister. My sister saw Marxist-Leninist picks in my room, asked how much I’d read, then said she would buy me a biography of Putin and Mao’s selections after the restoration. I refused on the spot. She asked me why, so I started talking about a bunch of dangerous things from those two books, and even mentioned my own future employment plans. I even forwarded forum articles to her via WeChat. She didn’t react much to the political stuff, and I don’t know if she read the articles; probably not, but she did show a lot of concern about my own future employment and shared a lot of her own job experiences, and even said she would help me find a job during the summer. When she came back this week, she bought a ton of snacks. I feel my sister is politically apathetic, only cares about what’s happening around her, not too dangerous then. But I still haven’t deleted the articles I forwarded; I feel I wasn’t thinking at all at the time.
The next day I did political exposure for my mom again, but didn’t mention Buddhism. This exposure started from a book as well. To show my mom the forum articles, I pulled them up on my tablet (not forwarded). She cared a lot about these issues, but her stance is more of a reformist middle path; she might have been too worked up, and when she argued back she pointed to the materials on the article and said this isn’t quite right. When my dad joined the heated discussion, he said these kinds of things aren’t for clever people to say. I reflected on my problem, and could only admit that I was indeed too reckless and brainless. But just then he sent me a video; the cover reads, “Workers are most glorious, Chairman Xi Jinping’s remarks.” I felt extremely dumb. After that, we argued again about my personal employment problems: I said I wouldn’t go to college and would work after, and would walk my own path without their interference. My mom’s temper cooled instantly; her eyes even looked a little gentle. My dad challenged me, asking what kind of work I could do if I didn’t go to college. In the end I told them to get out of the room and locked the door, and that’s how the incident ended. My dad’s stance felt very odd: every day he scolds reformists and complains about traffic fines or bosses paying too little, yet he also sends me videos like that. Maybe he thinks high-ranking figures are good? The result of this week is that my mom, sister, and I have gotten much closer, while my dad is out driving and hasn’t come home yet.
This week I added back that Trotskyist mole’s QQ, for a reason. Regardless of his ideas, he is indeed a left-wing peer. When I chat with him, we don’t discuss sensitive content and still feel quite aligned. When I revealed the messages about my home’s scarce book collection to him, he offered to help me materially. It feels like, if there’s a chance in the future, we could even correct his ideology. He also has some contact with that Trotskyist organization, which could facilitate getting some information.
Those Trotskyist elements behind it have a website, and as you said, it should be “Defence of Marism” (Marxism), an organization they control is the RCI, distributed worldwide. In China I recall Taiwan has one, the mainland does not. It’s a completely Trotskyist organization,专门从事反动勾当. You can learn that they have something called “entryist tactics,” which could be said to present the most despicable acts as honorable and righteous.
In the early days, I had the same experience as you. I also first encountered this website, but it’s so outrageous: they published a philosophical article to promote Trotskyist idealism, even claiming Engels’s materialism is wrong.
Stalin once said in “Anarchism or Socialism” that socialism includes: Marxism, anarchism, and also reformism, also called Bernsteinism, now called revisionism. It shows that so-called socialism is not entirely Marxism, and so-called “leftists” aren’t necessarily truly “left.” They both dream of “revolution.” Liberalists are not about the Four-Text Bridge incident or the White Paper Movement as “heroic” or “revolutionary acts.” In fact, these things are nothing more than petty-bourgeois movements, and they did not last long before being suppressed. They are of no use. By contrast, the Shenzhen workers’ strike had a significant impact. Liberals are only aiming to crown themselves, dressing up as “revolutionaries,” and likewise Trotskyists who claim “Trotsky was Lenin’s student” are just polishing their image. Stalin already pointed out that those who loudly praise Lenin may have other motives, which would be to conceal deviations from Leninism in their own line of conduct.
One should not think that someone is “left” and thus automatically “revolutionary.” Marxism has long drawn clear and strict boundaries with various superstitions. Because there is only one truth, there can be many errors. But these should not be lumped together. Revolutions forever may be warranted in practice to distance Trotskyists who see themselves as “left,” which may be opportunistic. In reality, mixing Marxism with other ideologies exposes that their understanding of Marxist theory is weak and their stance is untenable. Revolutions forever should not fight with those who support Trotskyists, unless you first draw a clear line and then seek unity. Seize what’s good and stop there, because doing otherwise makes you a target for Trotskyist recruitment.