Creation: Editorial Department of the Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association
In 1945, the report “Decision on Several Historical Issues” passed at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party pointed out that the petty bourgeoisie “because it is a transitional class, it has two sides: on the good, revolutionary side, most of its masses are able to accept the influence of the proletariat politically, organizationally, and ideologically, and are capable of demanding democracy and uniting and struggling for it; in the future, they may walk together with the proletariat towards socialism; but on the bad, backward side, not only do they have various weaknesses different from the proletariat, but when they lose proletarian leadership, they often turn to accept the influence of the bourgeoisie and even the big bourgeoisie, becoming their captives.” If comrades of the petty bourgeoisie want to become revolutionary intellectuals, they must undergo a transformation, proletarianize their thoughts, and accept the leadership of the proletarian party within the united front. If they do not combine with the working and peasant masses but instead try to distance themselves from them, they will ultimately achieve nothing. Yang Heping is such a petty bourgeois intellectual who, holding good intentions, has detached from revolutionary practice, underestimates ideological struggle, and thus drifts further away from the proletariat both in theory and practice. Yang Heping’s behavior illustrates why those petty bourgeois intellectuals who wish to contribute to the revolution need to accept the leadership of the proletarian party, return to the correct line, and continuously engage in ideological struggle to become active socialist allies.
Yang Heping is a well-known figure on the internet since the 1920s and has a significant influence among all self-proclaimed “leftists.” This is not only because Yang Heping has parents who lived in China for a long time and contributed to the Chinese revolution, but also because he did not become a mere “friend of the Chinese people” who appears only in official bourgeois reformist interviews. Instead, he opened accounts online, personally explains various principles, comments on current affairs, and interacts with viewers. In the past, Yang Heping was attacked and insulted countless times by bourgeois and right-wing petty bourgeois forces for publicly opposing racist remarks against Black people, narrow nationalism that hates all Japanese, bourgeois patriarchal ideas, and so on, amidst the capitalist countercurrent in China. But the facts show that although Yang Heping may have made mistakes or even serious errors in some matters, his opponents—those anti-communists—often make more mistakes than he does. Under his persistent efforts, each debate usually ends in his victory, further expanding his influence, making him one of the most respected figures in the “leftist” circle today. Now, this situation repeats itself—opposing the idea of male dominance in the incident involving Yang Li endorsing on JD.com (details of this incident are not explained here; you may investigate on your own)—and he faces attacks and insults from many self-proclaimed “leftists” and “Marxists” who fiercely support male oppression of women. Of course, as before, Yang Heping remains steadfast in his position, patiently—perhaps too leniently—discussing whether “male oppression of women” is a widespread social phenomenon with his opponents. [Yang Heping 24#259 “Reply to anti-feminist netizens”] is a response to the objections raised in the previous two videos.
In this video, Yang Heping adopts a method combining survey questions with point-by-point rebuttals. Specifically, he first reads out some harsh comments against him word by word so that all viewers understand their content, then asks viewers to support or oppose his views via bullet comments (e.g., typing 1 for agree, 0 for disagree). Before or after this, Yang Heping patiently explains most comments, demonstrating how they prove his correctness and that the opponents are wrong. For example, in this video, Yang Heping mentions a very blunt objection: someone believes that the reason women oppress men today is because women have the ability to spend money, while men spend money on women but do not get “sexual value,” “emotional value,” or “reproductive value,” and thus turn to “self-consumption,” claiming “this is a progressive phenomenon.” Yang Heping asks viewers to support or oppose this with 1 or 0, and points out that such ideas treat marriage as a transaction, akin to legal prostitution, as if two people should not marry out of true love. Then, Yang Heping moves on to the next issue. Regardless of his own views, the biggest difference between him and the lazy, arrogant leftist faction is that Yang Heping can seriously discuss different opinions with humility, rather than resorting to insults and dismissals. From this, the phrase “Political insults often conceal the insulter’s lack of ideological principles, helplessness, weakness, and annoyance”[^1] is very appropriate for those leftists who oppose Yang Heping, while Yang Heping himself is a socialist comrade with principles, willing to admit his mistakes. Previously, some people seized on Yang Heping’s mistakes to insult him wantonly. For such people, we can only give this evaluation: “Eagles sometimes fly lower than chickens, but chickens can never fly as high as eagles.”[^2] Those who try to elevate themselves by attacking Yang Heping are either already in the garbage heap of history or about to be, which is their deserved fate.
Of course, it should also be recognized that while Yang Heping’s overall record is more positive than negative, he is not a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist—at least not yet. According to his worldview, he still remains at the level of a socialist comrade, more specifically, a petty bourgeois intellectual. He sometimes discusses Marxist theories but does not implement their principles. This is most evident in his weak attitude towards enemies of the revolution. Marx, when discussing dialectics, pointed out that “Dialectics, in its rational form, provokes the anger and fear of the bourgeoisie and its boastful spokesmen because dialectics, in its affirmative understanding of existing things, also contains… an understanding of their inevitable demise… Dialectics does not worship anything; in its essence, it is critical and revolutionary.”[^3] Marxist philosophy is a philosophy of struggle, and bourgeois viewpoints should be fought mercilessly, exposing their essence thoroughly. This means revealing the class nature of various erroneous viewpoints and the class interests of the opponents, thereby pointing out that defending such narrow interests is reactionary—regardless of the attitude or motives of the opponents. However, although Yang Heping can refute various erroneous arguments on some issues, he often fails to expose their true nature and even tries to reconcile contradictions from all sides, which is why he remains entangled with the leftist faction. For example, in the aforementioned video, Yang Heping exposes some comments containing paternalistic ideas but does not reveal the class nature of these commenters, nor does he recognize that their remarks promote reactionary ideas justifying female oppression. Instead, he considers himself merely “discussing” or “debating” seemingly insignificant issues with these opponents. From this perspective, although Yang Heping often talks about “internal contradictions among the people,” he cannot understand that these contradictions are also class contradictions, and that class contradictions can only be resolved through thorough struggle. He fails to distinguish between petty bourgeoisie with patriarchal ideas and malicious sexual predators. As a result, Yang Heping gives these reactionary Confucian patriarchal elements a false sense of “good intentions gone wrong,” allowing them to hide after failed attacks without exposing themselves. Although Yang Heping may wish to promote correct ideas like “patriarchal society oppresses women,” he often fails to have a significant impact.
The weakness Yang Heping shows in debates, or the incompleteness of his views, stems from his petty bourgeois worldview. Although he accepts Marxism, he has not undergone long and arduous ideological struggle to thoroughly transform his worldview. Therefore, he cannot analyze social phenomena scientifically. Because the class nature and scientificity of Marxism are inseparable and unified, mastering class analysis methods requires standing firmly on the class side. Yang Heping, however, cannot do this. For example, in this video, Yang Heping opposes domestic violence, believing that it is mainly husbands oppressing wives, that male oppression of women is a manifestation of female oppression, and that this reflects women’s oppression. But he then uncritically equates family conflicts with “internal contradictions among the people,” treating these contradictions as supra-class issues, effectively negating the contradiction altogether—implying that domestic violence is merely the result of men being deceived by capitalists, with no selfish motives involved. As a result, domestic violence is reduced from malicious oppression to unintentional mistakes. This view, attributing social phenomena solely to accidental factors, is precisely historical idealism. How is this different from Kautsky’s claim at the Second International Paris Congress that the “Ministers’ Faction” and Millerand[^4] merely have “strategic differences” with social democracy? Honestly, due to Yang Heping’s consistent weakness and compromise, calling his views “centrist” is not an exaggeration.
The serious flaws Yang Heping exhibits are inseparable from his practice. Chairman Mao pointed out that “People’s understanding cannot depart from practice”[^5], and also said that “People’s correct thoughts can only come from social practice, specifically from the three practices of social production struggle, class struggle, and scientific experimentation”[^6]. Although Yang Heping’s parents participated in socialist practice and he himself lived in socialist China for a long time, he spent the latter half of his life in capitalist America and revisionist China. Yang Heping has long been detached from revolutionary practice, indulging in studying bourgeois universities and bourgeois vulgar theories, serving as a highly paid professor of bourgeois vulgar economics in bourgeois academic institutions. Even if Yang Heping eventually recognizes his past mistakes, their negative influence on his thinking still persists. Moreover, he still refuses to engage with the working and peasant masses directly, instead sitting in front of his computer, indulging in conversations with “super-class” netizens. Thus, although Yang Heping can learn about current events online and communicate with his favorite “netizens,” his disconnection from the three major practices prevents him from truly understanding China’s social reality and the essence of social phenomena. This is why Yang Heping can oppose patriarchal ideas but fail to understand their class nature, lumping various forms of domestic violence—some extremely heinous—under the so-called “internal contradictions among the people.” Only proletarianization of intellectuals can enable them to play a revolutionary role. Yang Heping, who has long been detached from revolutionary practice, merely relies on old capital, seeks no new achievements, and only wishes to peacefully converse online with petty bourgeois groups—an impossible path to revolution, only leading to further backwardness. If Yang Heping truly wants to overcome his shortcomings and make a greater contribution to the Chinese revolution, he must transform his thoughts through the three major practices. For example, if he does not engage in labor practice and class struggle with women suffering family oppression, how can he recognize the essence of domestic violence in China? He can only become a vague “internal contradiction among the people.”
On the other hand, due to his long detachment from revolutionary practice, Yang Heping lacks the proper source of correct understanding and motivation to study revolutionary theory. He holds a dismissive attitude toward Marxist theory, despite having written some reflections on the “Communist Manifesto” and Mao’s annotations and talks on “Socialist Political Economy.” He resists systematic theoretical study and refuses to conduct thorough, comprehensive investigations into various issues, often revealing his lack of learning. For example, when discussing the Yang Li incident, Yang Heping remains stuck in vague bourgeois concepts like “patriarchy” and “feminism,” lacking understanding of the incident itself—and even avoiding the issue—and also lacking scientific understanding of women’s liberation. As a result, his evasive attitude and misuse of bourgeois concepts give the attackers an opportunity to counterattack and promote reactionary ideas justifying male dominance.
In the end, all of Yang Heping’s mistaken ideas stem from a lifestyle detached from the people and practice, a bourgeois atmosphere of poison that leads a revolutionary internationalist onto a crooked path.
Let Yang Heping look at the big-character posters posted by his parents; they clearly reveal the roots of opportunism and deeply oppose his descendants becoming revisionists:
Why are foreigners working at the heart of the world revolution pushed onto the revisionist path???—Big-character poster from foreign experts to the State Council Foreign Experts BureauWho is the devilish spirit that instructs such treatment for foreigners? Foreigners working in China, regardless of their class or attitude towards revolution, are subjected to this "five no, two yes" treatment.Five No’s:
1. No physical labor;
2. No ideological transformation;
3. No contact with workers and peasants;
4. No class struggle;
5. No production struggle.Two Yes’s:
1. Very high living待遇;
2. Specialization in various aspects.What kind of思想支配 leads to such待遇? This is not Mao Zedong Thought! This is Khrushchev’s思想! This is revisionist思想! This is exploiters’思想!
What is the purpose and result of such待遇?
- Foreign revolutionaries cannot truly grasp Mao Zedong Thought, only mouth empty slogans.
- The revolutionary will of foreign revolutionaries weakens, sliding onto the revisionist path.
- It hinders foreign children in China from growing into strong revolutionaries.
- Isolates revolutionary foreigners from their Chinese class brothers, destroys their class feelings, and undermines proletarian internationalism.
We believe this is not an individual issue but a fundamental principle of the world revolution. We resolutely oppose this待遇.
We are determined to become true strong revolutionaries!
We are determined to become firm anti-revisionist fighters!
To carry the struggle against U.S. imperialism to the end, we are determined to train and test ourselves!Our descendants must become strong and reliable successors of the revolution, and never become revisionists!
Therefore, we demand:
- Treat us as class brothers, not as bourgeois experts;
- Allow and encourage us to participate in physical labor;
- Help us with ideological transformation;
- Allow and encourage us to closely unite with workers and peasants;
- Allow and encourage us to participate in the three major revolutionary movements;
- Our children and Chinese children should receive the same treatment and strict requirements;
- Living待遇 should be the same as that of Chinese staff of the same level;
- Abolish special待遇.
Only in this way can we become revolutionaries as Mao Zedong demanded.Long live the great proletarian Cultural Revolution!Long live the unity of the world’s people!Long live the great and invincible Mao Zedong Thought!Long live Mao Zedong, the great leader of the Chinese people, the world proletariat, and the oppressed peoples and nations! Long live!
Americans: Yang Zao, Shi Ke, Han Chun, Tang Anti-Imperialist (An Tang Shan)August 29, 1966, BeijingUnlike Yang Heping, Marxists have a straightforward attitude towards women’s liberation. Marxists have always believed that oppressors cannot be liberated, and only by liberating all humanity can the proletariat finally be liberated. “The earliest class antagonism in history developed simultaneously with the opposition between spouses under monogamous marriage, and the earliest class oppression was the oppression of women by men.”[^7] Since humans entered class society, to “ensure the chastity of wives and thus the paternity of children”[^8], maintaining the private property system that reduces women to household slaves, women have suffered systematic and multifaceted oppression from the entire patriarchal social system. Oppression of women has always carried class oppression, so women’s liberation must be recognized as a form of class struggle of the oppressed people. As for equating the oppression of wives by husbands within the family as “internal contradictions among the people,” it exposes the serious problem of Yang Heping’s ignorance and incompetence. (Isn’t such irresponsible dissemination of muddled ideas by Yang Heping a kind of harmful misguidance?) Engels said: “In the family, the husband is the capitalist, and the wife is equivalent to the proletariat.”[^9] In bourgeois families, the oppression by husbands—whether to turn their wives into slaves satisfying their lust, or to use them as labor tools, or to make them bear children to continue the family line—is often accompanied by vicious verbal abuse, physical violence, and even murder. There are women who have suffered domestic violence 16 times, forced to live with fecal bags for the rest of their lives; women who have filed for divorce to escape abuse but are bound by the “cooling-off period” of the bourgeois divorce law, forced to endure long-term mistreatment; and women who finally divorced but were tracked and murdered by their husbands with knives… (Please support women’s liberation and pay more attention to social realities!) Such brutal oppression, which is ruthless and unscrupulous, clearly shows that in capitalist society, many family conflicts—especially those within bourgeois families between husbands and wives—are not “internal contradictions among the people” but a life-and-death contradiction between enemies and us.
In proletarian families, due to the influence of bourgeois ideas, the phenomenon of husbands oppressing wives can also occur. Usually, these contradictions do not reach the level of enemy and friend but are just internal contradictions among the people, such as the widespread existence of male chauvinism that looks down on women, and traditional ideas like “men ruling outside, women ruling inside.” However, these are also reflections of bourgeois ideas within the people, fundamentally possessing class contradiction characteristics. If mishandled or if the oppressed male insists on wrong views, these contradictions can develop into enemy and friend conflicts. Believing that these are just internal contradictions among the people and not conducting sharp criticism, or adopting a conciliatory attitude towards the wrongdoer, simply condemning these remarks as wrong without analyzing their essence—this is not the attitude of Marxists but of weak petty bourgeoisie. Such handling is the so-called mistaken way of resolving internal contradictions among the people and also the superstitious method of Yang Heping. It not only fails to persuade the wrongdoer to accept correction but also prevents them from recognizing the seriousness of their mistakes and the fact that their actions are oppressive to women, thus leading them further down the wrong path.
As for using this kind of reconciliation approach to handle enemy and friend contradictions, it is even more wrong, because any mercy to enemies means cruelty to comrades. If one claims that domestic violence by oppressors of women is just “internal contradictions among the people,” one will lose the support of nearly half of China’s population and hinder their revolutionary path. This only causes pain to the loved and joy to the hated. Moreover, mild criticism cannot expose the reactionary nature of enemies; it only, as mentioned above, trivializes the class issue into a question of understanding, and reduces the rotten patriarchal ideas to a momentary misunderstanding of women’s issues, allowing the oppressors to escape unscathed and continue their activities behind a false mask of “good people who made mistakes.” Marxists have always advocated “pursuing the remnants of the enemy and not giving up on the defeated”[^10], and we must “crush the drowning dog,” thoroughly expose the true face of patriarchal oppressors, criticize and condemn them, prevent them from deceiving others, raise the masses’ ideological consciousness, and mobilize them to oppose all forms of oppression against women.Ugly phenomena, thus how much to improve the plight of women in capitalist society, and ultimately achieve women’s complete liberation through social revolution.
There is a saying by Hong Xiuquan, leader of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom revolution, which is perfectly suited to admonish Yang Heping: “Who stands firm against the devil’s harm? But must repent quickly and reform oneself. Only after repenting and reforming can there be no faults; I now earnestly teach you.”[^11] As a Chinese Marxist revolutionary organization, we here with a comrade’s attitude criticize Yang Heping, hoping that he can recognize the errors in his worldview in a timely manner, accept ideological transformation, and become a “standing” Marxist.
Finally, it must be said that Yang Heping’s performance and that of his capitalist opponents inevitably remind people of Chairman Mao’s famous poem: “The monk is foolish but can be taught, the demon is from the ghost realm and will surely cause disaster.”[^12] Yang Heping’s spontaneous deviation after the capitalist restoration, due to losing the leadership of the Communist Party, is understandable because we cannot expect fellow travelers to have the ability to recognize the correct direction themselves. This also indicates that Yang Heping need not and should not call himself a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, as he clearly has not yet reached the level that this identity requires. On the other hand, those vicious opponents of Yang Heping, such as the unclarified figures in the left circle, are undoubted reactionaries. If they are not thoroughly criticized, these reactionaries will recklessly cause even worse influence. History has given true revolutionary organizations the task: unite revolutionaries like Yang Heping, struggle to educate the masses who do not yet understand Marxism, and isolate all opportunistic reactionary elements. The future is bright, but the road is tortuous. One day, China’s “Golden Monkey” will wave its mighty staff and rise vigorously, sweeping away all demons and ghosts like Antozi[^13], and realizing true revolutionary unity.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1UhU6Y9ELc
[^1]: Lenin: “The Political Significance of Abuse,” Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 20, People’s Publishing House, 1958.
[^2]: Lenin: “A Short Critique of Politicians,” Complete Works of Lenin, Vol. 33, People’s Publishing House, 1957.
[^3]: Marx: “Capital,” Volume I, People’s Publishing House, 1975.
[^4]: Alexander Aiden Millerland (1859-1943), originally a French bourgeois radical. Joined the socialist movement in the early 1890s. In 1899, joined the French reactionary government, serving as Minister of Commerce. Millerland’s entry into the cabinet exposed his bourgeois politician nature, which Lenin denounced as “Practical Bernsteinism.” Expelled from the Social Democratic Party in 1904, later served as Minister of Public Works, Minister of the Army, Prime Minister, and President of France.
[^5]: Mao Zedong: “On Practice,” Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 1, 1967.
[^6]: Mao Zedong: “Where Do Correct Ideas Come From,” Selected Works of Mao Zedong (Type A), People’s Publishing House, 1966.
[^7]: Engels: “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, People’s Publishing House, 1972.
[^8]: Same as above.
[^9]: Same as above.
[^10]: Mao Zedong: “Seven Poems: The People’s Liberation Army Occupies Nanjing.”
[^11]: Hong Xiuquan: “The Song of Saving the World by the Original Way.”
Bourgeois ideology seeps in from all directions like demons; if one is not careful, they will be corrupted and captured by bourgeois ideas. Without ideological struggle, who can resolutely resist erroneous thoughts? Who can “stand firm” in the face of surrounding wrong ideas? However, past errors were caused by the lack of a scientific worldview. Now, it is necessary to accelerate ideological transformation to become a Marxist newcomer. Although there were mistakes in the past, only after correcting them can one become a steadfast member who no longer makes mistakes easily. To make comrades who have not consciously transformed their worldview understand this truth, we must tirelessly carry out this kind of persuasion and education.
[^12]: Mao Zedong: “Seven Poems: Three Strikes at the White Bone Spirit, and a Poem to Guo.”
5 Likes
That day, I was so angry watching Yang Heping’s live broadcast. He might have been out of touch with Marxism for too long, always using vulgar populist arguments to explain why women are oppressed, and he dare not point out the profound connection between patriarchy and the middle-class revisionism. Facing that low-IQ male chauvinist, he couldn’t even deliver a fatal blow, which is truly frustrating.
5 Likes
I used to think Yang Heping only lacked some theoretical level and still held the correct stance, so he could unite people. Now, the more I hear him speak, the more I dislike this person. He is unlearned yet claims to be a Marxist, shamelessly making fallacious statements. As a result, what he says is all mixed with bourgeois viewpoints, and recently he even suggested that comparing humans to animals and the idea that there is innate homosexuality is valid—completely misleading people! For those fascist male chauvinists who cannot tolerate women’s liberation, Yang Heping cheerfully said he would argue with them. Without a thorough critique, without pointing out their class stance, he can’t even refute them. I seriously doubt whether Yang Heping has read about private property and the state, or understands the historical logic of how patriarchal society was formed. As a result, even unlearned fascists can debate him, which makes people furious to watch.
11 Likes
I see this person becoming more and more reactionary, even posting himself eating powder in his videos, which is very abstract. I feel like this person is just an opportunist, using his parents’ identity to attract some traffic, pretending to say revolutionary words, but actually not wanting any revolution at all.
3 Likes
This person no longer has the slightest smell of a Marxist.
Yang Heping neither deserves nor should call himself a Marxist.
In fact, he has an interview where he did not directly address what a “Chama Fan scholar” is or whether he is one.
Yang Heping seems to be beyond saving, and even the nonsense like “fans are so delicious” has started. They are willingly becoming clowns. It’s completely a smear against Marxism!
2 Likes
Thank you for the lesson