Note: This article was originally submitted to the Telegram “Worker-Peasant Liberation Society”. Previously, I saw forum administrators say they would not comment on the Blaze of the Bureaus, and I hope this article can reveal their problems.
Author’s Preface: Blaze of the Bureaus once published three articles in a row, slandering the late revolutionary comrade Hongliu. Today, I feel compelled to write this article.
The three articles by Blaze of the Bureaus:
In the forest, a big tree fell.
The animals were all shocked by the fall of this tree, but if we talk about who jumped up first, it was the ant living under the tree. It happily said:
“People say ants shake trees hard,
But the big tree falls because of me,
How correct I am,
How powerful I am!”
However, the animals only felt angry. The squirrel living in the tree’s branches fluffed up all its fur and said:
“I live in the big tree every day, protected and helped by it. We know better than you, you little bug! Shameless stinky thing.”
The usually steady deer also said: “The big tree was clearly blown down by the wind. If it hadn’t blocked this wind for you, you would have long gone! Stop bragging!”
The ant was immersed in the joy of shaking the big tree and naturally couldn’t hear these words. It never takes responsibility for its own words:
“The strong wind does exist, but it’s not the main reason. It’s obviously me who shook the tree down! This tree’s path is different from mine, blocking my way, so it must fall. And even if there was a strong wind, it was my wisdom. Who told it to stand in the wind? I’ve always been in the ground, fighting with my own cleverness for advantageous conditions to fight the tree!”
Once these words were spoken, everyone could no longer tolerate this arrogant little bug. The squirrel originally suggested digging out the ant and throwing it into the wind to let it feel it, but the deer reminded him that this wouldn’t work. The forest’s strength is still very weak, and the real enemy should be targeted.
So everyone ignored it, and the ant continued singing its song as usual:
“People say ants shake trees hard,
But the big tree falls because of me,
How correct I am,
How powerful I am!”
Response to Readers’ Letters in “The Record of the Ant Shaking the Tree”
I read Mr. Lu Xun’s articles and was inspired to write this “Record of the Ant Shaking the Tree”. After finishing, I looked back and felt that I had only learned the form but not the profound connotations of Mr. Lu Xun. I didn’t expect to gain recognition from many comrades, which made me feel somewhat unworthy.
Today, I received a private message from a political newcomer who should be a supporter of Blaze of the Bureaus. I’ll call him “New Sprout” to protect him. I won’t share his specific words here, only paraphrase.
His main point seems to be that he doesn’t understand. He believes that although Blaze of the Bureaus’ articles are overly aggressive in language, their main line is correct. Why not criticize someone who has gone down the wrong path and died?
I really want to answer his question, but I feel I cannot casually dismiss it, so I wrote a dedicated reply:
- How should a true revolutionary (even with flaws) treat Hongliu?
In the future, in our ranks, no matter who dies—whether a cook or a soldier—as long as they have done some beneficial work, we should give them a funeral and hold a memorial service. This should become a system. This method should also be introduced to the common people.
— “Serve the People” Mao Zedong
“New Sprout” believes that Blaze of the Bureaus’ criticism of Hongliu is only overly aggressive in words, but their line is correct. However, my conclusion is exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, I dare not claim to be a great revolutionary. I can only quote Mao Zedong’s words to indirectly show how past revolutionaries treated fallen comrades.
First, we must ask: why did Hongliu die? Was it due to bad luck or illness? Was it for personal gain? No, he died for China’s proletariat, resolutely engaging in workers’ work, participating in labor during the day, doing political writing at night, and dying from overwork. If Hongliu had been slightly selfish and thought, “Revolutionary writing can wait, my health is more important,” he might have lived much longer. Unfortunately, he didn’t consider that, on a personal level, from the perspective of Blaze of the Bureaus, he was a “line-incorrect” piece of wood. But according to Mao’s standards, why did the comrade die? For the revolution! His minor flaws, in the face of his sacrifice, are insignificant. If these flaws are truly flaws, they shouldn’t be exaggerated shortly after his death.
Did Blaze of the Bureaus really only make a mistake of “rhetorical intensity”? Even if Hongliu had flaws, facing a comrade who sacrificed himself for the revolution, is it appropriate to deny any recognition and immediately spread his faults after his death? Is this the attitude of a revolutionary? I invite comrades to think about this.
- Is Blaze of the Bureaus’ line correct?
Regarding this question, I think “New Sprout” currently cannot understand. Everyone can see that Blaze of the Bureaus and various united front organizations have had multiple debates. However, political newcomers generally find it hard to understand accusations like “economic faction” and “handicraft organization.” Therefore, I do not intend to discuss Blaze of the Bureaus’ issues from this angle. Instead, I want to tell comrades from a completely new perspective:
The most widespread criticism of Blaze of the Bureaus is that they do not integrate with the workers and stay online. This is indeed a flaw. But if it were only that, it could be accepted. The reasons for not integrating with the workers can be many—such as being too young, physical defects, or simply incapable of physical labor. Many comrades are like this. They may not dislike labor but simply lack the conditions or ability to participate. My online profile also states: “Can accept comrades without ability, but cannot accept revisionists.” Ability can be cultivated over time. If Blaze of the Bureaus is truly a revolutionary organization, then “not integrating with workers” and “only online propaganda” are just insignificant flaws.
Just like our “New Sprout,” who cannot understand the debates between organizations, has no conditions to participate in labor, and blindly chooses to join Blaze of the Bureaus, writing articles. For him, if he can persist in revolutionary activities in the future, his current online activities and theoretical level are just minor flaws. “New Sprout” writes articles with a simple revolutionary wish, and he also sees many like-minded comrades writing articles, enthusiastically discussing on the Blaze of the Bureaus platform. Therefore, he recognizes it as a revolutionary organization, which is quite normal and aligns with dialectical understanding.
However, I hope “New Sprout” can understand more deeply. I admit that their joining Blaze of the Bureaus is based on naive revolutionary wishes. But what exactly does this wish cause? Have you truly participated in the decision-making of Blaze of the Bureaus? Perhaps it’s true that a secret organization like Blaze of the Bureaus cannot implement the “most extensive democracy,” but can they, without democracy, gather the revolutionary demands of the masses and form a revolutionary line? Do “New Sprouts” become revolutionaries just by writing articles day after day, punching in, and listening to prescribed lectures? Only “New Sprout” himself can answer this question…
I feel sorry for these comrades. They are like farmers, while Blaze of the Bureaus’ revisionist authorities are like snakes. The farmers think they understand snakes, believe snakes have the same fiery heart as themselves, but in fact, snakes are cold-blooded. Snakes know that the farmers’ hearts are fiery and aim to use the farmers to keep warm, but the farmers don’t realize that the snakes’ hearts are cold!