The Disagreement with 'The East Wind Overwhelms the West Wind' — Our Association's Principles as a Revolutionary Organization

[烽火Flame]

@East Wind Overcomes West Wind First, I will quote my dialogue with “East Wind Overcomes West Wind” to illustrate the background of the debate (excluding the speeches of others besides us):

Flame of Beacon Fire
16:33
Actually, all organizations that claim to be Marxist groups today have a serious problem: they deny the existence of gender oppression and the necessity of the women’s liberation movement. The direct reason is that their theoretical level is still at a relatively elementary stage. They have studied what to do, and often debate with fragments of “what to do.” But their mentality of studying “what to do” is problematic—it’s driven by urgency to learn first. So they often cite chapters related to revolutionary handicraft methods and sections from the All-Russian political newspaper. However, these crucial early chapters are rarely mentioned. Don’t they know that Lenin’s critique of the economism was primarily a critique of their ignorance? Lenin said that economism greatly despises theoretical struggle, seeks to praise spontaneity, and is not ashamed of their low theoretical literacy but instead tries to defend it. This becomes a “great misfortune.” Lenin said: if you know you understand too little, you should try to understand more. It seems simple, but achieving it is not easy. Without organized and disciplined ideological struggle, it’s impossible to do.

East Wind Overcomes West Wind
13:25
On the Knowledge Platform on Telegram, all active groups acknowledge the necessity of gender oppression and the women’s liberation movement, even the Liao Yuan revisionists have established a “Research Group on Women’s Liberation Issues.”

19:53
As for the reasons and evaluations, it’s clearly stated in the PDF I posted above.

On the Knowledge Platform on Telegram, all active groups acknowledge the necessity of gender oppression and the women’s liberation movement, even the Liao Yuan revisionists have established a “Research Group on Women’s Liberation Issues.”

Flame of Beacon Fire
20:51
You say they are revisionist groups, and yet you admit they are involved in so-called women’s liberation movements?

Flame of Beacon Fire
20:58
What you mean by “all active groups on Telegram acknowledge the existence of gender oppression and the necessity of the women’s liberation movement”—what exactly is this? Don’t we know? We are very clear. We proposed ideological struggle and emphasized the importance of the women’s liberation issue several years ago. Back then, these ideas were still new to other “Marxist groups.” Later, when these people realized openly advocating that pleasure is harmless and the “two-dimensional” culture was justified was no longer feasible, and that labeling ideological struggle as “bourgeois elitism” was ineffective, they started mimicking us by engaging in ideological struggle and acknowledging gender oppression and women’s liberation. But we know very well what kind of people they are. Just look at their profile pictures—many still have “two-dimensional” avatars, which probably makes up the majority. Accepting the legitimacy of these low-level interests and unwilling to break away from the pornographic culture that highlights bourgeois aesthetics—this state of affairs simply cannot be said to truly acknowledge the necessity of women’s liberation. Superficial acknowledgment or real acknowledgment—just look at how many women members are in these so-called Marxist groups, it’s almost zero.

East Wind Overcomes West Wind
21:13
Not only Marxist groups but also peripheral masses are active on Telegram, and this is an important reason why we are rooted in Telegram. Among the peripheral masses, there are many left-wing elements. Before they join the organization and undergo transformation, how can we expect them to oppose “the pornographic culture that highlights bourgeois aesthetics”?

Isn’t it a gradual process for people’s thoughts to leap from being left-wing to truly revolutionary? Isn’t this a process of slow development and progress?

Just look at how many women members are in these so-called Marxist groups.

East Wind Overcomes West Wind
21:18
And this cannot be used as a standard to judge whether a group truly acknowledges or falsely claims to acknowledge. As for the Telegram platform, among the users of Telegram, the gender ratio is seriously unbalanced, influenced by multiple factors. Supporting women’s liberation and opposing gender oppression does not necessarily mean women comrades will join the group—that’s a logical issue.

You say they are revisionist groups, and yet you admit they are involved in so-called women’s liberation movements?

East Wind Overcomes West Wind
21:18
So, I use “acknowledge” here, not “engage in.”

East Wind Overcomes West Wind
21:24
Comrade, it’s natural to feel impatient and angry at counter-revolutionaries or opportunists who are hypocritical and two-faced. It’s abnormal for a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist not to feel angry. But I think we should try to stay calm, cool down, and not let these bastards damage our health.
Carefully consider what we say to avoid unnecessary disputes.

Before criticizing “East Wind Overcomes West Wind,” I want to express my attitude. I believe that “East Wind Overcomes West Wind” has misunderstood my position. Why am I dissatisfied, even angry, about him saying that “most people on Telegram acknowledge the existence of gender oppression and the necessity of the women’s liberation movement”?

Because truly acknowledging this point (i.e., recognizing the existence of gender oppression and the necessity of the women’s liberation movement) is not something to be casually said. It requires: 1. Systematic study of Marxism, especially Marx’s views on women’s issues, marriage, and family; 2. Living, practicing, and thinking together with oppressed women, engaging in serious and in-depth communication with women; 3. Through ideological struggle, breaking away from old ideas, especially from bourgeois aesthetic and pornographic thoughts.

Therefore, I judge that “all organizations claiming to be Marxist groups today have a serious problem: denying the existence of gender oppression and the necessity of the women’s liberation movement”—not only is this not subjectivism, but it is also very correct. I am not talking about superficial acknowledgment but actual acknowledgment. Because actual acknowledgment requires the above three points to be impossible, and achieving these points essentially means establishing a disciplined Marxist revolutionary organization that includes labor reform, collective life, and systematic study. However, I have not yet seen such an organization. I have read the publications of various factions of the “United Front Alliance,” which show that you have not yet grown into the kind of organization I described. (I have read “Bombing East Wind Opportunism,” <“The Workers’ and Peasants’ Liberation Newspaper” 2024 Autumn Issue - Second Issue>, “Jinggangshan Communications Excerpt No. 9,” “Revolutionary Organization Work Guide (First Edition) (Revolutionary Socialist Front RSF Editorial Department),” “How to Stagnate — On the Relationship Between Our Organizations”)

I did not publish evaluations earlier because I did not want to hurt your self-esteem publicly (even though such “self-esteem” is unnecessary and unwarranted). I believe your factions are progressive, capable of unity, and still growing, so I wanted to first do unity work, establish contact through in-depth communication, and after you understand our history and achievements, and our theoretical level, then discuss specific issues.

But because of your speech, especially the statement “Currently, active groups on Telegram acknowledge the necessity of gender oppression and the women’s liberation movement,” which trivializes the genuine Marxist women’s liberation movement, underestimates the effort needed to truly recognize gender oppression and women’s liberation, and disrespects all oppressed women, I must speak out.

Chairman Mao taught us: “A Communist Party member should be frank, loyal, active, prioritize revolutionary interests as their first life, subordinate personal interests to revolutionary interests; at all times and places, uphold correct principles, fight tirelessly against all incorrect thoughts and behaviors, to strengthen the Party’s collective life, and the connection between the Party and the masses; caring for the Party and the masses is more important than caring for oneself, caring for others is more important than caring for oneself. Only then can one be considered a Communist Party member.” (Mao Zedong: “Opposing Liberalism,” Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Volume 2)
So, I must oppose “East Wind”’s recent remarks.

[烽火Flame]

A very direct question, “Dongfeng” said: "The telegram not only has Marxist groups but also peripheral masses, and this is also an important reason why we are rooted in the telegram. Among the peripheral masses, there are many left-wing elements. Before they join the organization and undergo transformation, how can we ask them to oppose ‘2D culture that highlights bourgeois aesthetics’?

Is it possible for people’s thoughts to leap from being broadly left-wing to truly leftist and revolutionary overnight? Isn’t this a gradual process of development and progress?" My answer is:

First, since Dongfeng admits that these “peripheral masses” are “broadly left-wing” and need to “gradually progress,” then it should be acknowledged that they do not know or do not recognize the existence of gender oppression and the necessity of women’s liberation movements. Isn’t that right?

Second, Marxist groups and peripheral masses cannot be separated. The reason, as “Dongfeng” said, is that they are rooted in the telegram because of the many peripheral masses there. One of the tasks of the Marxist group on the telegram is to absorb and transform the peripheral masses. Therefore, the “peripheral masses” Dongfeng refers to must be within certain organizations on the telegram, not completely disconnected from the Marxist group—it’s just a matter of whether they are in the peripheral or internal organization.

Hence, the reason Dongfeng gives that the peripheral masses cannot oppose 2D culture is completely unfounded. Since the peripheral masses are in a group under the “Marxist group,” and the group’s task is to absorb and transform them, isn’t it reasonable to “demand they oppose 2D”? Moreover, not only should the Marxist group call on the “peripheral masses” to oppose 2D culture, which is infiltrated with sexist and oppressive ideas, but it is also entirely feasible.

We understand what “Dongfeng” means by “low consciousness and insufficient level among the masses,” but our policy should not be to accommodate the low consciousness and low level of the masses. We not only understand their low consciousness and level but also know that we should work to raise their consciousness and level. For example, by persuading the masses to oppose 2D culture through rational arguments, such as replacing 2D avatars, which we have already done before, and it is not as impossible as “Dongfeng” claims.

Years ago, in organizations that included many peripheral masses, we continuously carried out rectification campaigns against revisionist factions and bourgeois culture, persuading most of the masses to give up using 2D avatars. For those unwilling to give up 2D avatars, we did not impose requirements. As a result, 2D avatars almost disappeared within the group, leaving only a few peripheral masses still using them. (At that time, the group had about five hundred members, and its activity level was not like today’s organizations that seem dead—out of two thousand members, only a dozen or so were online discussing, with about two hundred maintaining online presence and over a hundred participating in reading groups regularly.)

I must point out that “Dongfeng” should not accommodate spontaneity and backwardness and defend it as a virtue; there is nothing to be proud of in that. What we need to do is change the spontaneity and backwardness of the masses. The best way is to carry out thorough ideological struggle, lead by example, conduct thorough self-criticism, actively transform our own thoughts, and break with bourgeois culture. That’s enough for now; these are things that most “Dongfeng” groups on the telegram have not yet achieved.

[烽火Flame]

The second question, “Dongfeng” said: “And this point (referring to the number of female comrades within the organization) cannot be used as a standard to judge whether a small group truly recognizes or falsely recognizes. As for the telegraph platform, among the people using the telegraph platform, the gender ratio is seriously unbalanced, and this is influenced by multiple factors. Supporting the women’s liberation movement and opposing gender oppression does not mean that female comrades will join this group; this is a logical problem.”
I originally did not want to discuss the issue of the number of female comrades, because the reason they rarely participate in Marxist organizations is because they are subjected to political and economic oppression, and are in a powerless position in society, with no time to develop their political interests. Moreover, while they are under the most severe oppression, they are also subjected to the crazy indoctrination of bourgeois spiritual opium, and thus unfortunately fail to realize the importance of participating in political movements.
However, “Dongfeng” again talks about various objective factors that determine the “serious imbalance in gender ratio,” and this objective condition again determines that “supporting the women’s liberation movement and opposing gender oppression does not mean that female comrades will join this group; this is a logical problem.” Afterwards, “Dongfeng” also discusses the different conditions and abilities of various groups, which are all “objective conditions”—in short, there are many “objective conditions.”
What kind of logic is this? This is another unwillingness to admit that spontaneity and backwardness are shameful shortcomings, unwilling to overcome spontaneity and backwardness, and instead talking extensively about the logic of “objective conditions” determinism.
Please forgive me for taking an attitude that “exceeds the bounds of politeness” in the debate. Because whenever I think about comrades who claim to be Marxists using various objective conditions to shirk their responsibilities, especially neglecting women’s liberation, I am filled with righteous indignation.
However, Lenin said: “The reason why ‘thinkers’ are called thinkers is because they are ahead of spontaneous movement, pointing out the way for it, and are better able than others to solve the ‘material factors’ of the movement that encounter theory, politics, strategy, and organizational problems early on. To truly ‘consider the material factors’ of the movement, one must critically treat them, be able to point out the dangers and shortcomings of spontaneous movement, and elevate spontaneity to consciousness. Saying that thinkers (i.e., conscious leaders) cannot lead the movement away from the path determined by the interaction of environment and factors is to forget a basic truth: consciousness participates in this interaction and determination.” (Lenin: “On the Dispute with Economists”, Collected Works of Lenin, Chinese Second Edition, Volume 5)
Only consciously active thinkers can truly estimate all the “material factors” of the movement, not followers who follow the spontaneous高潮.
Saying that thinkers can only follow the spontaneously formed path means not understanding that human activity also changes the “environment and factors.” The laws of history do not act spontaneously but through human practice.

[烽火Flame]

Additionally, as a representative of an organization that indeed has some lesbian members (although their proportion is also relatively low)—the Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association. Based on my personal experiences and those of lesbian friends I have interacted with for many years, I tell you that the so-called ‘active groups on Telegram where everyone admits the necessity of gender oppression and women’s liberation movement’ are rarely attended by lesbians, not because of any “objective reasons,” but because they see no hope of salvation there!
I’ll briefly give an example: our lesbian members have joined many so-called leftist groups, only to find that they are full of people with anime-style avatars spouting abstract words and only capable of sarcastic remarks. Among those pretending to be serious, once they hear a lesbian speak, they will pay extra attention, ask questions, and inquire. I want to say, do not underestimate lesbians; they are very aware of how many men today hold vulgar thoughts and purposes.
We must acknowledge a fact: in China, a barbaric fascist patriarchal Confucian country, women’s status is extremely low, and pornographic culture is rampant, leading to the moral corruption of most men. Engels said that the modern “mixed marriage system” (I don’t intend to elaborate on this) “morally corrupts men much more than women. Prostitution only causes unfortunate women to become victims of degeneration, and they are far from the extent of degeneration that people usually imagine. On the contrary, it corrupts the character of all men.” (Engels: “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 4)
To truly recognize the existence of gender oppression and the necessity of women’s liberation, one must sincerely reflect and rid oneself of bourgeois aesthetic views and pornographic thoughts, which is a very long process. I honestly tell “Dongfeng,” our organization has been established for six years, with three years of building a base (which you call “offline,” but much stronger and under party leadership than your loosely organized “offline” groups). Our male and female comrades have lived, worked, and fought together for a long time. They recognize the importance of the women’s liberation movement because of the shared practical foundation and feelings built with women, and because they have personally heard and seen too many unfortunate encounters from them. Moreover, our male comrades have been persistently exposing and fighting their bourgeois aesthetic views and pornographic thoughts since the past, and continue to do so today. Our most valuable true Marxists are not those who speak big words easily, but those who are grounded in changing their lifestyles and ideological outlooks and actively participate in social practice.
If unfortunately, “Dongfeng” and the “active groups on Telegram” still do not realize that they are not sincere enough in their attitude towards women and have insufficient understanding of women’s liberation issues, then they will never be able to lead the women’s liberation movement, let alone participate. This means they are unqualified to represent the proletariat in establishing a party. Because the working class is the vanguard fighting for democracy, and it must speak for all strata of society.
I advise “Dongfeng” not to so easily claim that “the active groups on Telegram where everyone admits the necessity of gender oppression and women’s liberation movement” because it is contemptuous of our revolutionary struggle, contemptuous of the genuine demands of lesbians, and contemptuous of Marxism. I have always been very angry at such contempt.
Again, if I have taken an attitude in debate that exceeds the bounds of politeness, please do not mind. As a Marxist, I cannot tolerate incorrect statements, especially regarding comrades, and I have a responsibility to point out and correct them.
Honestly, I have said very little about women’s issues in this debate, which is far from one percent of what I know. (But due to busy revolutionary affairs, I cannot write a longer article.) However, all the words I have written are based on the truth I hold and my sincerity. If “Dongfeng” still wants to discuss further, I am willing to talk more with you.

[寒岳]

This is true. In the “Left” group mentioned above, many people openly shout about watching beautiful women as a form of appreciation. I went to criticize them (of course, the method was not correct; I first labeled them with a hat and then insulted them as counter-revolutionary fascists, before analyzing), and as a result, the group administrator warned me, saying that related issues could not be discussed in the group. Which organization is that? The one that has a good impression of Black Myth: Wukong. In such an atmosphere, how can women have any hope of revolution? The female comrades in our group are also not active on Telegram.

[鞍文燎]

“The East Wind Overcomes the West Wind” says:

“If a Marxist organization truly admits to women’s liberation, why not pursue it?” As you know, each group has its own unique circumstances; some focus on online activities, some on offline, some have the capacity to dedicate major efforts to this, similar to the previous “Three-Leaf Clover Voice” organization—some lack the ability. How can this be forced? Isn’t this ignoring the particularity of contradictions?

From this statement, “The East Wind Overcomes the West Wind” admits one thing: that active Marxist groups on Telegram are not all “pursuing” women’s liberation but merely recognizing the inevitable nature of the women’s liberation movement. “The East Wind Overcomes the West Wind” seems to suggest that, due to the unique circumstances of different organizations, conditions may not always be suitable for pursuing women’s liberation, thus hindering its smooth development. However, “The East Wind Overcomes the West Wind” appears to confuse two issues—capacity and principle. The examples given—focusing on online or offline activities, or other unspecified differences—are merely technical capacity issues. This cannot justify the claim that organizations lacking the ability to pursue women’s liberation are correct in doing so. Due to persecution and suppression by the Chinese revisionist fascist government, revolutionary organizations might be forced underground due to difficult conditions, but in their strategic approach to enemies, they would not talk about “special conditions” to justify trading principles for the sake of the struggle.

In 1878, during the vigorous development of Engels-led German Social Democratic Party, the reactionary German ruling class feared it greatly and sought to suppress the German Social Democratic Party and the German workers’ movement. They used the assassination of Wilhelm I as a pretext to promulgate the “Extraordinary Law” and launched a brutal white terror. At that time, within the German Social Democratic Party, there were two main lines: one led by Engels and Marx, the revolutionary line; the other led by Lassalle, the surrenderist line. Under Lassalle’s surrenderist line, the party was shaken, but Engels and Marx fought against the right-wing opportunism, ultimately formulating the correct line and strategy. Today’s Marxist groups, since they aim to be revolutionary organizations in China, should they abandon the pursuit of women’s liberation under so-called “unique” conditions? Can such organizations that give up women’s liberation be considered to uphold Marxist principles? Whether to insist on women’s liberation is a matter of principle, and I need not elaborate further. Since “The East Wind Overcomes the West Wind” admits the necessity of the women’s liberation movement, it should also understand that if nearly half of society is still oppressed by the other half, and if some workers try to use their social privileges based on gender to oppress others, then the Chinese revolutionary movement will be very difficult to develop.

If “The East Wind Overcomes the West Wind” wants to discuss the conditions for “pursuing” women’s liberation, then what difficulties would cause a committed revolutionary organization to abandon the Marxist principles regarding women’s liberation? If “The East Wind Overcomes the West Wind” claims that the lack of certain “leftist female comrades” makes it difficult to pursue women’s liberation, then I believe this view has already been refuted by itself. Since “The East Wind Overcomes the West Wind” considers that some Marxist groups do not pursue women’s liberation due to their particular circumstances, they should also understand that Marxist philosophy admits that, “Each thing contains not only the particularity of contradictions but also the universality of contradictions, and the universality exists within the particularity.” When Germany entered the dark era of the “Extraordinary Law,” the struggle of the German proletariat and the activities of the German Social Democratic Party indeed faced different “particularities” than before. But what was this “particularity”? It was that the ruling class adopted policies different from those towards the Social Democratic Party in the past. Yet within this “particularity” lies the general contradiction between the German ruling class and the German proletariat—this contradiction’s universality determined that the German Social Democratic Party at that time should still adhere to the revolutionary line of class struggle, rather than the surrenderist line of Lassalle or the Zurich Three. Moreover, only by maintaining the correct stance on general contradictions can one find solutions when facing particular contradictions. It is precisely because Engels and Marx upheld revolutionary positions that they formulated the line and strategy for the German Social Democratic Party during the “Extraordinary Law” period. Similarly, our contemporary Marxist groups, when faced with the contradiction of whether to stand on the side of the Chinese revisionist fascist patriarchy oppressing women or on the revolutionary side to liberate women, what particularity justifies their immediate abandonment of “pursuing” women’s liberation?

“The East Wind Overcomes the West Wind” once said:

“Therefore, I use the word ‘admit,’ not ‘pursue.’”

But since we insist on Marxism that combines theory and practice, rather than idealism that separates them, it should be clear that recognizing the necessity of the women’s liberation movement necessarily involves carrying out women’s liberation activities in organizational work. If a Marxist group that admits the necessity of women’s liberation uses various “unique” objective reasons to avoid pursuing it, then it should regard this as a mistake and admit and correct it. Conversely, if it claims to recognize the necessity of women’s liberation but does not see the mistake in not pursuing it, and instead continually argues for its reasonableness, then it is essentially a false admission.

[寒岳]

I have a question: if there are no women within the organization, is the women’s liberation movement mainly a ideological struggle against male members, fighting over aesthetic views and pornographic ideas?

[Annah]

“The east wind prevails over the west wind” suggests that a person’s thoughts cannot suddenly transform from so-called “pan-left” (in fact, I personally feel this term is very vulgar and does not speak to class) into true revolution. The reasoning is indeed like this; no one can progress without ideological struggle. However, using this reasoning, the east wind is used to argue that from the beginning, one should not expect the pan-left elements who have not undergone reform to oppose the 二次元 (second dimension). Isn’t this a logical fallacy? At any time, even in peripheral groups, shouldn’t we adhere to the principles of Marxism? If the other side is backward, should we conform to their backwardness at the expense of principles?

“The east wind prevails over the west wind” says “Isn’t this a slow process of development and progress?” It seems to be about the progress or setbacks of comrades, but why, when comrades make mistakes (such as not opposing 二次元, using 二次元 avatars, etc.), do we not criticize and correct them, but instead indulge them? How can this be considered ‘progress’? Doesn’t this become contradictory?

[寒岳]

@Annah

If the other party falls behind, should we submit to their backwardness, even at the cost of principles?

They are practicing tailism.

[luanma]

  Dongfeng’s remarks are completely unprincipled reconciliation; how can principled issues be compromised? Issues like opposing 二次元 (second dimension), opposing pornography, promoting Marxist theory to women—these are all principled matters. 二次元 is an extremely reactionary bourgeois ideological system, full of content that glorifies capitalism and its rotten elements. Supporting such things and wanting to allow 二次元 supporters to operate without restrictions is akin to siding with thieves. How much Marxist influence does this organization itself have? Supporting capitalism and still talking about revolution—how can that be? If a revolutionary organization truly opposes capitalism and wants to expand its size through propaganda, it cannot tolerate 二次元 as a toxic influence within its peripheral organizations. Even if not banned, it should be criticized logically; not criticizing it would imply that the purpose of these peripheral groups is merely to chat about 二次元 and not care about the revolutionary cause at all. Is this organization just a bunch of leftists who only want to talk about 二次元 and have no real revolutionary purpose? Do organizations like Dongfeng and others on Telegram want to establish various peripheral chat groups? Is that the revolutionary method? If so, that is a profound insult and trampling on Marxism.

  If pornography is not opposed, how can we face the issue of women’s liberation? Clearly, the target of women’s liberation struggle is the material and spiritual oppression of women by capitalism and private ownership—materially, wage discrimination, violence, patriarchal discipline, commodification of women; politically and legally, support for patriarchy by bourgeois states; spiritually, promoting pornography that justifies oppression, and bourgeois reactionary art that instills bourgeois notions of love into women. The bourgeois promote pornography to justify their oppression of workers and women—these are the same principles. If a revolutionary organization opposes bourgeois oppression of workers but does not oppose bourgeois oppression of women, then such an organization is irrelevant to the proletariat because the interests of the proletariat include supporting all oppressed groups, uniting all groups oppressed by capitalism, and overthrowing the capitalist system. Opposing women’s liberation weakens the revolution—seriously weakens it, because women constitute nearly half of the population. If women do not participate in the revolution, how can it succeed? Moreover, if a Marxist organization truly cares about workers, the compassion, hatred of oppression, and good intentions to help others that are understandable in the proletariat should also be understandable in women oppressed by capitalism. This only shows that such an organization has no feelings for any oppressed group, because there is no situation where it only cares about some oppressed groups and not others, only advocates for some and not all. The liberation of the proletariat and the liberation of women are dialectically unified—though different, they are conditions for each other. Without proletarian liberation, women’s liberation cannot be fully achieved; without women’s liberation, proletarian liberation is impossible. Moreover, in reality, many women are both workers and women, facing dual oppression of class and gender. Can we tolerate organizations in their periphery telling newly joined female workers that “women’s liberation is irrelevant; just focus on how capitalists exploit and oppress you”? If so, such organizations are merely tools to serve their own purposes, not genuinely promoting revolution for the happiness of others. Isn’t that absurd?

  And as @烽火Flame said above, women are oppressed politically and economically, with little opportunity to access Marxism, and are poisoned by bourgeois ideology. Only a tiny minority of women actively transform their minds into Marxists. If Dongfeng and other Telegram organizations acknowledge this but treat it as natural and do nothing to change it, then they are essentially unwilling to have women participate in revolution—meaning women’s liberation is irrelevant. This is just an excuse for their spontaneity and backwardness. Many organizations on Telegram have probably read Lenin’s “What Is To Be Done?” Lenin specifically explained that Marxist consciousness cannot spontaneously arise within the proletariat but must first be grasped by bourgeois intellectuals and then injected into the proletariat, because the oppressed proletariat has no leisure to study science and culture, and is influenced by bourgeois ideology. If a few workers (like Dzerzhinsky) do this, they cannot remain workers but become revolutionary intellectuals. The same logic applies to oppressed women: if it applies to the oppressed proletariat, how can it not apply to women? Is this not an economic fallacy disguised as spontaneity in the women’s liberation issue? If organizations like Dongfeng follow Lenin’s “What Is To Be Done?” and promote “merging workers” (regardless of whether this theory is correct), then promoting Marxism among workers becomes a joke. Why wouldn’t they also dare to promote “merging women”? Even according to their own logic, claiming “a small group supports women’s liberation and opposes gender oppression, but that doesn’t mean women will join this group—this is a logical issue,” is absurd. Truly, organizations that promote Marxism among workers should also promote it among women.

  This so-called propaganda for women’s liberation, which actually neglects women’s liberation and treats it as a tool to elevate their own reputation, ultimately reflects a disregard for revolution itself. Any revolution requires the revolutionary leadership class and the leadership forces within it to unite all possible allies to fight isolated hardline enemies. Forming a united front without uniting the oppressed? Should we unite oppressors? In socialist revolution, the proletariat, the Communist Party representing proletarian interests, and various revolutionary organizations representing proletarian interests must unite all oppressed forces—peasants, women, petty bourgeois students, small artisans, disabled persons, oppressed nationalities, etc.—or the bourgeoisie will use their cunning and reactionary tactics to deceive these oppressed groups, leaving the proletariat isolated and leading to failure. Isn’t this obvious? In history, Chen Duxiu, Qu Qiubai, Li Lisan, Wang Ming—were all opportunists advocating only for the proletariat, ignoring oppressed peasants, and even proposing alliances with the bourgeoisie to seize revolutionary leadership? Wasn’t it this kind of enemy-friend confusion and pushing away potential allies that caused China’s revolution to experience over a decade of setbacks? During Mao’s era, a united front was established, uniting peasants, petty bourgeoisie, national bourgeoisie, women, ethnic minorities, and all possible allies, isolating the reactionary Kuomintang. China’s past revolution succeeded this way; shouldn’t we do the same now? Is this still something to hesitate over? If one does not understand these principles and does not value women’s liberation, then read “Selected Works of Mao”. To be blunt, if Dongfeng, the “United Front,” and other organizations on Telegram do not understand this principle, then their “united front” will ultimately become a loose coalition, a chatting leftist organization disconnected from revolution.

[寒岳]

This trend is now very clear

[Annah]

Tolerating 二次元 (anime/manga) is very problematic. The so-called pan-leftist factions of peripheral organizations are backward. The “East Wind overcomes the West Wind” should not continue to tolerate their viewing 二次元, or even watching hentai? Repeated mistakes? The East Wind organization allows this phenomenon to exist but does not stop it, and still talks about recognizing women’s liberation? Those so-called “pan-left” on Telegram who want to watch 二次元, watch hentai, and think they are justified in feeling behind are people who cannot even transform their pornographic thoughts for the sake of women’s liberation. Fundamentally, they do not recognize women’s liberation and do not respect women.

[寒岳]

The situation has become more serious, and criticism of masturbation is prohibited from discussion.

[红术]

It’s crazy, basically openly admitting that masturbation is reasonable and taking the side of the men below. But why does Han Yue know about these things? Are you in their group?

[寒岳]

I encountered this group earlier when I was active in the left circle.

[艾尔斯洛克]

@烽火Flame

On Telegram, within the known platforms, all active groups acknowledge the necessity of gender oppression and the women’s liberation movement, even the Revisionists of Liao Yuan have specifically established a “Research Group on Women’s Liberation Issues.”

Dongfeng should understand that we are clearly not talking about whether people verbally admit or deny the “necessity of gender oppression and the women’s liberation movement,” but whether these organizations are truly prepared to support the women’s liberation movement. If we ignore the objective reality of these organizations’ positions, then even Nazi Germany, which could verbally claim to fight for the welfare of the working class and established the notorious “German Labour Front,” would still be making absurd conclusions like “Nazi Germany’s Labour Front serves the workers.” When some organizations verbally propose “existence of gender oppression and the need for women’s liberation,” it does not mean they fully acknowledge everything; it only indicates that, given the current unfair social position of women, these organizations, even the revisionist ones, have to admit that women need liberation.