Creation: Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association Editorial Department
Recently, Zhongxiu seems to be possessed, tirelessly reporting on the so-called “magical modification” phenomenon, extensively discussing the so-called use of “AI technology” to make large-scale changes to various “classic” works. To this end, Zhongxiu even played several clips of so-called “magical modifications,” such as Cao Cao wielding a machine gun, Lin Daiyu pulling down a willow, and Tang Sanzang flying to fight monsters in the sky. In Zhongxiu’s view, “magical modification” has seemingly become a significant social event.
What is Zhongxiu’s attitude towards these so-called “magical modifications”? Not only has Zhongxiu introduced multiple “netizens” to discuss the “controversy” triggered by “AI magical modification,” but it has also invited “legal experts” to pose as authorities, declaring various flaws in “AI magical modification.” Finally, Zhongxiu even personally intervened, instructing the State Administration of Radio and Television’s Network Audiovisual Department to issue the “Management Tips (AI Magical Modification),” claiming to strengthen the “investigation and cleanup” of “AI magical modification” without concealment, revealing a strong opposition to “AI magical modification.” Many petty bourgeoisie are lamenting such actions, claiming Zhongxiu’s move will deprive them of the joy of watching “ghostly” videos, as if Chinese culture has been controlled by Zhongxiu to the brink of extinction.
So, how should we view the phenomenon of “AI magical modification”? And how should we interpret Zhongxiu’s measures to control “AI magical modification”? This involves the fierce struggle between bourgeois ideology and proletarian ideology, a major issue worth in-depth exploration. From a Marxist perspective, to clarify the causes and consequences of this matter, from surface to depth, from this to that, and to reach a scientific conclusion, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis of “AI magical modification” and ultimately expose Zhongxiu’s true intentions in controlling “AI magical modification.”
Zhongxiu’s two accusations against “AI magical modification” are: first, “desecration of classic IP, impacting traditional cultural cognition, contrary to the core spirit of the original works”; second, “suspected infringement.” At first glance, these accusations may seem reasonable, but closer inspection reveals that both are entirely fictitious. The second accusation’s correctness is self-evident; aside from vulgar “copyright” enthusiasts, probably no one takes it seriously. However, the first accusation is quite intriguing.
Zhongxiu accuses “AI magical modification” works of “desecrating classic IP, impacting traditional cultural cognition, and contradicting the core spirit of the original works.” Such a statement is actually laughable because these accusations are a “misjudgment” of these “AI magical modification” works. Analyzing from ideological content rather than form, one finds that these seemingly “magically modified” original works actually faithfully inherit the “core spirit” of the originals and have further enriched and innovated upon them.
Indeed, “AI magical modification” has significantly altered the form of the original works, but its essence has not exceeded the scope of the original. This is because, although the characters in “AI magical modification” deviate greatly from the original, their basic traits and every move and action remain unchanged. For example, Cao Cao from feudal society, though unlikely to wield a machine gun, is depicted in the bourgeois TV series “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” by Zhongxiu not as a feudal figure but as a bourgeois ambitious man cloaked in the guise of a feudal emperor. Similarly, Lin Daiyu, a noble lady in “Dream of the Red Chamber,” cannot physically uproot a willow tree, but if Zhongxiu’s TV adaptation portrays her as a capitalist aristocrat, transforming her from a democratic thinker at the end of feudal society into a capricious, extreme individualist in a capitalist society—only talking about love and ignoring everything else—then the seemingly absurd act of Lin Daiyu pulling out a willow becomes a natural expression of her personalist ideology in capitalism. Therefore, in “AI magical modification,” the major changes do not alter the characters’ fundamental bourgeois worldview; only the form through which they embody this worldview changes. Just as “AI magical modification” would never change Cao Cao into a peasant leader during the Yellow Turban uprising under the premise of faithful historical representation, nor turn Lin Daiyu into a bandit leading Jia’s serfs to attack the Grand View Garden, the same applies to “magical modification.” This is why, in the so-called “Guiyou edition of ‘Dream of the Red Chamber’,” the scene where Lin Daiyu is distorted into a counter-revolutionary executioner suppressing peasant uprisings by landlords is popular among petty bourgeoisie.
From an artistic perspective, capitalism has also experienced such large-scale “magical modifications.” In bourgeois art, “unit dramas” also exist, right? Whether it’s foreign works like “SpongeBob SquarePants” and “The Simpsons,” or domestic ones like “Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf” and “Boonie Bears,” the characters in these works are presented with new tricks in each episode. Yet, everyone recognizes them as the same characters based on appearance and basic personality, despite obvious differences in behavior and ideas. If just because of formality changes one considers it “desecration of classic IP,” then aren’t these unit dramas constantly “desecrating” themselves? Does Zhongxiu have to admit with a pinched nose that all bourgeois unit dramas are actually a mixture of self-desecration and self-degradation? Perhaps Zhongxiu can only shoot itself in the foot, calling the “Variety Martin” co-produced by Shanghai Today Animation and French bourgeoisie a “magical modification,” claiming that “Martin waking up in the second morning in ‘Variety Martin’ impacts the ‘spiritual core’ of Martin waking up in the first morning, and the third impacts the second,” and so on!
From this, it is clear that Zhongxiu’s accusations are fundamentally untenable. These “AI magical modifications” are indeed reactionary artistic garbage, but Zhongxiu’s accusations are contrary to facts. The only correct conclusion is that although bourgeois artistic forms are diverse, their essence is the same: all these arts, regardless, are the bourgeoisie’s dictatorship over the proletariat in the ideological and cultural sphere.
On the other hand, although Zhongxiu extols the “original works” as “classics” and “not to be desecrated,” it is precisely this Zhongxiu, which portrays itself as a faithful defender of the original works, that in the past, with a pragmatic attitude, sang praises for those fabricated “magical modification” bourgeois artistic works.
People do not need extensive knowledge; just look at how Zhongxiu has given a false glory to various reactionary arts that extensively “modified” the original “Journey to the West” over the years. Soon after the capitalist restoration in China, Zhongxiu, aiming to instill bourgeois reactionary ideology and dismantle the Chinese people’s class consciousness, imported all kinds of reactionary bourgeois arts from Hong Kong—such as Jin Yong novels, gangster movies, Teresa Teng albums, which were simply chaotic. Later, in 1995, after superficial modifications to Hong Kong films’ titles, it directly imported the notorious “A Chinese Odyssey” series, which was met with universal rejection from the people, and “A Chinese Odyssey” became a recognized trash film amid widespread criticism. Yet, not long after, in 2014, Zhongxiu, still unrepentant, re-released “A Chinese Odyssey.” Once played, Zhongxiu began to hype the “wonderful” aspects of the series as if it had transformed from a stench of artistic excretion into a “classic love story” and “Western film classic IP,” claiming it contained “spirits of bravery, resilience, responsibility, and duty” as a “classic.”
This is not the end. Another bourgeois artistic work, “Black Myth: Wukong,” released on August 20 this year, also received praise from Zhongxiu. Zhongxiu extolled this work filled with dark literature, erotic elements, and anarchist themes as “high-cost, high-volume, high-quality,” “appreciated Chinese aesthetics,” “Chinese culture ‘going out’,” and “opening a new window for global players to understand Chinese culture.” The most ironic thing is that “Black Myth: Wukong” not only “magically modified” Wu Cheng’en’s original “Journey to the West,” but also “magically modified” the “A Chinese Odyssey” series that itself “magically modified” the original “Journey to the West.” Yet, Zhongxiu, which claims to be a “traditional culture” defender, did not utter a single word of objection but instead kept instructing its literary hucksters to continuously praise “Black Myth: Wukong.”
These acts of Zhongxiu perfectly illustrate their consistent pragmatic stance. Zhongxiu is not fundamentally opposed to “AI magical modification” itself, nor to the reactionary ideological core within these “AI magical modifications,” but only furious at works that dare to disobey its orders and modify “original works” independently.
Isn’t the bourgeois “magical modification” of reality enough? Zhongxiu, which only allows the officials to set fires but not let the common people light lamps, has no shame in talking about “magical modification.” If it really wants to criticize petty bourgeois “AI magical modification,” it should first look in the mirror and see whether it is a socialist country capable of truly criticizing reactionary bourgeois arts!
As previously stated, Zhongxiu’s accusations against “AI magical modification” are unfounded because these modifications do not truly change the core spirit of the original works. This raises a question: if “AI magical modification” is truly faithful to the original, then what are the original works like?
As is well known, in the 1980s and 1990s, Zhongxiu, eager to promote Confucian ideas, traitor philosophy, and bourgeois lifestyles, fabricated the so-called “Four Great Classical Novels,” and even used a large amount of manpower, material, and financial resources to produce notorious reactionary bourgeois TV dramas such as “Journey to the West,” “Dream of the Red Chamber,” “Romance of the Three Kingdoms,” and “Water Margin.” Here, a brief discussion of what these four so-called “classics” are!
The earliest “Journey to the West” was adapted from Wu Cheng’en’s reactionary feudal novel of the same name. In the original, Wu Cheng’en already promoted the reactionary fallacy that peasant uprisings could not succeed and feudalism would last forever, depicting Sun Wukong, the leader symbolizing the broad masses of farmers, as a reckless, arrogant, and vain rebel who was subdued by Buddha Tathagata and then lost revolutionary spirit, sighing and begging for mercy from the representatives of feudal rule—heavily caricatured as a peasant uprising army. This highly reactionary mythological “Water Margin,” which is a distorted version, was claimed by Zhongxiu to be faithfully adapted into a TV series. This can only show that Zhongxiu, like the reactionary feudal scholar Wu Cheng’en centuries ago, harbors sinister intentions to suppress the people, using “Journey to the West” to vilify and belittle the working people, and to promote traitor philosophy.
“Dream of the Red Chamber” is a TV series adapted from Cao Xueqin’s novel of the same name. Although the original “Dream of the Red Chamber” is a great political and historical novel, Zhongxiu’s TV adaptation is not aimed at inheriting the original’s progressive anti-feudal democratic ideas but at distorting it into reactionary art that suits its own interests. Zhongxiu gathered a group of bourgeois reactionary “Hongxue” authorities and heavily distorted the ideas conveyed by Cao Xueqin, deliberately emphasizing various romantic scenes, praising reactionary love with bourgeois vulgarity, and turning the love entanglements of Jia Baoyu, Lin Daiyu, and Xue Baochai into a disgusting “triangle” plot. It exaggerated the image of the feudal landlord class represented by the reactionary landlady, Baochai, and used her to promote Confucian “Three Obediences and Four Virtues” patriarchal ideas. Furthermore, the TV series shamelessly glorified the wasteful, decadent lifestyle of the feudal landlord class, thus glamorizing the decadent life of the bourgeoisie, which was many times more wasteful than the landlord class. After the capitalist restoration, proletarian revolutionaries like Zhang Chunqiao, who still fought against this “Dream of the Red Chamber” craze, wrote:
“Someone once said that when he first read ‘Dream of the Red Chamber,’ he was most interested in the delicious food described in the book. The chapters describing snacks and banquets attracted him, and he read them over and over. Later, when he read again, his interest shifted to the characters and events, with love and hate, joy and anger. Only after learning Marxism did he realize that it depicted the rise and fall of feudal aristocracy, and he learned to analyze the characters’ class backgrounds. This person’s understanding of the book deepened step by step from youth to adulthood. I think this is realistic and representative. Of course, it does not represent everyone. For example, in Beijing, there is a ‘Lai Jin Yu Xuan’ restaurant in Zhongshan Park, which recently launched a ‘Red Chamber Banquet’ selling dishes from ‘Dream of the Red Chamber.’ The idea was not from young people but from old Qing Dynasty remnants. It shows that some people, after decades, still stay in the same place, still doing their ‘Red Chamber Dream.’ The newly built Grand View Garden in Beijing even calls for revisiting the old dream of the Empress Dowager’s visit. It shows that people’s love and hate are not determined by age.”[^4]
“Romance of the Three Kingdoms” is a reactionary TV drama adapted from Luo Guanzhong’s novel of the same name. It inherits the reactionary Confucian dross of the original, vigorously promoting the so-called “orthodoxism,” inciting the evil trend of “respect Liu, belittle Cao,” and vilifying the historical legalist Liu Bei as a hypocrite and a benevolent and righteous man. It also heavily distorts Cao Cao, a prominent legalist politician, turning him into a bourgeois ambitious man shaped by bourgeois stereotypes, and especially maliciously distorts Zhuge Liang, the legalist politician of Shu, portraying him as a charlatan who tricks gods and ghosts and blindly believes in fate. The negative influence of the “Three Kingdoms” adapted by Zhongxiu has long distorted the historical legalist figures of the Three Kingdoms, truly inheriting the foul “Three Kingdoms” original.
“Water Margin” is a continuation of the infamous reactionary feudal novelist Shi Naian’s novel “Water Margin,” officially titled “Loyal and Righteous Water Margin.” The entire book wildly advocates surrenderism, greatly glorifies the landowning class who eagerly accept the Song Dynasty’s imperial amnesty and serve as loyal dogs of the feudal landlord class, betraying the peasant revolution for wealth and fame. It praises the treacherous Song Jiang, who infiltrates the Liangshan peasant uprising, as a “timely rain” and “Huo Bao Yi” (righteous hero). After joining Liangshan, Song Jiang schemed to usurp power, formed factions, and used various pretexts to recruit landowners into Liangshan, allowing them to sit on the top seats for decades, and finally “expelled Chao Gai from the 108 heroes,” “transformed the loyalty hall into the Loyalty and Righteousness Hall, and accepted amnesty.”[^7] Lu Xun exposed the reactionary nature of “Water Margin” sharply: “Their banner is ‘acting on behalf of Heaven to do justice.’ They oppose treacherous ministers, not the emperor… A ‘Water Margin’ clearly states: because they do not oppose the emperor, when the army arrives, they accept amnesty and fight for the state against other bandits—bandits that do not ‘act on behalf of Heaven.’ They are ultimately servants.”[^8] It must be pointed out that, because the Chinese people, during the socialist period under Mao Zedong’s leadership, deeply criticized “Water Margin,” Zhongxiu, after the capitalist restoration, could not directly turn “Water Margin” into a TV drama, but had to superficially downplay the reactionary scenes of feudal loyalty and betrayal, especially altering the content that slandered the great peasant revolutionary leader Fang La, twisting him into a scheming ambitionist who pretended to be noble but secretly conspired to establish feudal rule, thus vilifying Fang La’s heroic image. This is one of the most vicious parts of “Water Margin.”
What has Zhongxiu said about these reactionary arts that distort history and promote historical nihilism? Nothing at all! Moreover, Zhongxiu is even more enthusiastic about beautifying all kinds of imperial and royal figures in history, using feudal ghosts to promote capitalist ideology, so that:
“In this era of revolutionary crisis… tremblingly summon the spirits to help them, using their names, slogans, and costumes, so that they can wear these revered clothes and perform new scenes of world history.”[^9] Zhang Chunqiao sarcastically wrote about this:
“Every day on TV, you can see an emperor promoting noodles. ‘To be emperor, you must be a good emperor; to eat noodles, you must eat good noodles.’ At first, I thought it was funny: the emperor became a salesman. Then I thought, this is not surprising. Wealth can make ghosts push mills; European kings also advertise, including ribbon-cutting ceremonies. But that is Europe, not China. Chinese emperors, including the last emperor, have long died out, so why should they be salesmen?”
“Now, the material promoting people’s improved life often features the home with a TV. I think the Chinese emperor did not enjoy such happiness because there was no TV then. Without TV, they couldn’t do TV ads. Now, there are many plays about emperors on TV. It’s rare not to see an emperor every day. I don’t know which one was a good emperor or a bad one. One thing in common is that they transcend time and space, full of words like freedom, democracy, equality, and benevolence. Artists have creative freedom; emperors, gods, and all kinds of creatures can be used by artists.”[^10]
Besides these scandals, the so-called “AI Qian Xuesen” and “AI Teresa Teng” fabricated by Zhongxiu are extremely absurd and glorify reactionary figures. The recent highly reactionary works of historical nihilism promoted by Zhongxiu, such as “I Open a Supermarket on the Long March” and “When Marx Meets Confucius,” are equally disgusting and repulsive. It is evident that bourgeois reactionary arts themselves are a crude distortion of reality, and if we talk about “magical modification,” Zhongxiu itself is the greatest distorter!
The absurdity of Zhongxiu’s so-called “AI magical modification” has been exposed, but it is still necessary to further criticize Zhongxiu’s accusations and uncover its true purpose in talking so much about “magical modification.”
As previously mentioned, Zhongxiu’s accusations against “AI magical modification” are not truly against “magical modification” itself but only against those “magical modifications” that do not conform to Zhongxiu’s intentions. Therefore, Zhongxiu tolerates “A Chinese Odyssey,” tolerates “Black Myth: Wukong,” but cannot tolerate “magical modifications” like “Cao Cao holding a machine gun” or “Lin Daiyu pulling out a willow.”
Why did things turn out this way? Ultimately, it is because the “AI magical modification” works that Zhongxiu disapproves of, although they belong to bourgeois arts, are created by petty bourgeoisie and carry strong anarchist tendencies beyond Zhongxiu’s control. These “repackaged bourgeois individualistic” artistic works turn Cao Cao into a comic figure rather than a scheming “villain” practicing bourgeois conspiracy, especially when Zhongxiu elevates Confucian moral exemplars like Zhuge Liang, “loyal ministers,” “Liangshan heroes,” and others into objects of ridicule by petty bourgeoisie. Zhongxiu’s Confucian authority is thus undermined, and its revisionist rule faces spontaneous challenge from bourgeois liberal ideas. Therefore, to maintain its dominance, Zhongxiu naturally imposes certain restrictions on these reactionary arts.
But on the other hand, Zhongxiu does not really intend to eradicate all “AI magical modifications,” only hopes to keep these “AI magical modifications” within its controllable scope at a high tone. Therefore, even though Zhongxiu has issued some policies and regulations now, it will not and cannot completely eliminate “AI magical modification” in the future. Those petty bourgeois who derive pleasure or profit from creating such reactionary arts can rest assured that as long as they do not truly hate or despise this reactionary art, they are still part of the bourgeoisie under bureaucratic monopoly rule.Ultimately, they are just “comrades” in the same capitalist trench, and it is predictable that Zhongxiu will give such “comrades” preferential treatment.
However, for the proletariat, this is undoubtedly a major bad thing. Although Zhongxiu will not truly ban “AI modification,” it can use the excuse of banning “AI modification” to suppress various online works that reflect the demands of the people and embody proletarian thought—regardless of whether they belong to the literary and artistic category—and impose bans on charges such as “desecrating classic IPs, impacting traditional cultural cognition, contradicting the core spirit of the original works.” Therefore, we must not treat Zhongxiu’s remarks as merely a joke; they actually contain an intention to further strengthen the dictatorship over ideological and cultural fields for the proletariat.