Here I will share some of my confusions in life and study. Welcome everyone’s suggestions, criticisms, and discussions.
10 Likes
关于淫乐问题
我想了很久但迟迟做不出解释大概是因为我曾经的淫乐都是为了逃避当下让人感到压力以及厌烦的事，所以回头看才觉得好像真的没有什么特别喜欢的。也正是因为不出于喜欢，我对很多项目的抛弃几乎是很迅速也挣扎的并不多，但这并不说明我的淫乐思想已经有了很大的改善。既然说不出喜欢，我就从曾经做这些的频率来说吧。围绕我前半段人生的主线包括熬夜和不愿起床。我甚至觉得这就是我主要的的淫乐方式，因为我几乎是为了熬夜而熬夜的，即便知道这样对身体和心理都会造成伤害，但这几乎是我最控制不住的事情。我后来发现究其根本是因为我对第二天没有什么期待，以这样的逃避来延长更多与自己相处的时间就可以有意识的让讨厌的第二天晚一点到来，毕竟一闭眼一睁眼又要开始面对让我疲惫的种种。哪怕第二天疲惫不堪我也想要把问题留给未来的自己，因为我总是自以为是，觉得把我逼到问题的临界点几乎可以解决一切。现在熬夜问题有了一定的改善因为自己的生活得到了更合理的解释且已经知道了一个该迈进的方向，但睡眠状态不知道为什么甚至不如从前，总在凌晨突然醒来且常常做梦。对于起床我仍然做的很不好，总是想着再睡一会再睡一会，尤其是意识有些模糊的时候，完完全全没有意志力可言。但实际上在时间上我的睡眠应该是已经足够了的。以前的主要淫乐项目主要就是围绕去新奇的地方玩去体验各样的风光与人文再用相机留住以增加所谓的人生经历。不过即便站在以前的角度在这些过程中我也总觉疲惫，一切都只是草草掠过而已。以前我很喜欢摄影，并有很长一段时间都以拍出真正的人文风光而非进行镜头霸凌为目标，一直在追求所谓的充满“生命力”的照片。拍不出就沮丧拍出了便认为这就是我的天赋啊。其实从小到大我都活在父母老师的否定中，他们给予的肯定往往带有别的意味，意思就是你可以也应该做得更好。所以当在摄影这样一个爱好中我收获到了来自绝大多数人看上去真切的赞美时我就觉得这就是我喜欢的事物，我觉得各种人和事物都有美的丑的一面，而我要做的就是拿起相机表达或是揭露。只是在后来的实践中我发现这些解决不了我对生活的疑惑，也很难改变什么，于是我的相机连带着这份爱好都落了灰。 我对以前读过看过并有感触的文艺似乎都是因为他们做到了一些局部的或是表面的揭露，我去理解它们并把这些当作属于我自己的深刻。以前觉得敢说敢写出来就是好的，几乎不去了解他们背后的立场，或者是以为去做这些事的人大部分都该是希望这个世界越来越好的，并不知道有阶级利益这样的说法。 我现在还是会看一些短视频或是小红书上面的笔记，虽然总是五分钟内就觉无趣并自以为以能批判的角度看待那些即时性刺激的问题。但我担心自己仍然有着寻找这些信息刺激的幻想，只是这些内容都做不到罢了。像电影这种我几乎就不去看了，前段时间里我觉得拍的比较好的有《女人世界》和《出走的决心》，《好东西》其实我也觉得不错，不过这些都是站在我小资产阶级的立场上的，女人世界讲华裔风情舞者不惧世俗眼光，完成自己生命的赞歌的故事，全片看上去淡淡的，但又将老年性别族裔等等议题融在一起，这部纪录片的表达有些模糊柔软，也正是我以前喜欢它的原因，不过究其根本还是因为它和我过去的个人主义立场相吻合。我比较好奇的有像出走的决心和好东西这种能在这个制度下上映的电影，是不是也应该以批判为主呢，因为前者似乎确实反应了对儒教社会的反抗后者呼吁着女性解放某种意义上的，我们是该说它表达的不够还是说他们的表达还是完全建立在个人主义思想上的会带妇女走向其他极端，而应当被狠狠批评呢。 我以前的淫乐还建立在增加自己的各种可供消遣的技能上，如弹琴写字什么之类的。我现在不太进行这些，也不太确定这些是不是也该决裂的。不过以前的出发点就是想证明自己在某某方面还具有一点灵气来获得一些满足。 以前很喜欢那些有强刺激的东西，如演唱会什么的，或者把耳机低频开足听一些有听觉刺激的摇滚乐，就会感到放松或是自由。我不确定这些算不算喜欢，但都是我用来在过去讨厌的生活中插空找乐子的方式，并且有一定的依赖性。
然而并没有。那部纪录片我没看过，但是后面两个我看过。《出走的决心》她这个李红出走为的是什么？为的是自驾游的“云游四海”。她里面把这种生活不断美化看做可行的。说说她开直播、在自驾朋友那搞辣椒酱什么的小生产。这是出路吗？想想就不可能。原型苏敏能一直这样云游四海，是因为她已经完全脱离生产，靠着接单广告从商业资本那获得剩余价值来生活。2022年她就和奢侈品品牌合作拍广告了（还是在三八妇女节那天！）。她这是剥削阶级的生活，有产者的生活。电影里她就是整天游山玩水，然后和同学们聚餐，这就是她的胜利。这种出路对于大多数遭受家庭压迫的妇女来说根本就是毒害，它最符合的是渴望这种资产阶级自由主义的小资产阶级女性（何况电影里刚复辟，李红就想着投机考大学呢）。况且它在现实上根本就没有可行性，真有人想要去尝试只会被磕得头破血流，毕竟能有几个大博主呢？？最后还不是和小红书的那个“离职博主”热潮一样成为泡沫。整个社会都是资本主义社会，出走又可以逃到哪去？这个道理一百多年前鲁迅就在《娜拉走后怎样》里说过了。而它宣扬的这种自驾游剥削的生活，实际是让女性放弃和逃避了在家庭的斗争。哪怕是苏敏她这个人和丈夫的离婚也十分曲折，最近才离婚，而且还是花了20万妥协——而这20万自然是来自于她的接单收入。她是靠剩余价值完成独立的。所以这种电影中修不反对，相反特意支持，因为它不会触犯到它的儒教妇女压迫制度，还麻痹女性逃避斗争。小骂大帮忙。
《好东西》更是，如果说《出走的决心》还需要一点所谓典型化的尝试，那这个电影就说明都没有了。它的“女性主义”，就是脱口秀一般台词和桥段拼接。而在这背后，整个都是资产阶级奢侈生活的体现。它这个电影对我来说已经离谱到我一开始都无法理解她会大热。
导演自己都说了，她把这个当童话，团队给她接地气一点的场景方案她还不要。单亲妈妈，住梧桐区的大house，里面的上班自然是阶级压迫什么的都压根看不到，过去因为工作就能去平遥电影节，和大导演合照，然后和朋友们吃饭就去日料店——导演说，这都是选她自己吃过的店呢，她说不想让角色活得太难受，于是就让她们过上她的资产阶级生活方式。最后还能一起凑钱买机票出国看演唱会。这一点现实的典型性都看不到。纯粹的资产阶级生活的幻想。而且它里面铁梅和那个鼓手老师的性关系描绘得特别逆天，什么“我们是一种很脏的关系”，是“上课40分钟后的10分钟”，性爱分离。这是就是她觉得很好的那种关系，她把这个写到公众号，说明这个就是她的理想生活方式了。这说到底只是不要男性的性别压迫，而是要女性对男性的性自由，依然是种性压迫（那鼓手跟个舔狗一样）。而且描绘这鼓手还特别恶心，又是暗示手冲，又是从看片里学来的撕衣服。然后这些在里面还是搞笑的段子，对这种妇女压迫的东西都不批判，至多是“给年轻人的一点机会改正”。这个电影说到底是就是满足了小资产阶级女性对于资产阶级生活方式的幻想，就像那人自己说的，是个童话。从中看不到对资本主义社会的批判。自然，它当然可以在中修的体制下放映。相反中修还要感谢它呢，毕竟在纳粹电影票房比去年下降了100亿的情况下，还在年末贡献了7亿票房（中修：“女性消费潜力”），你不看官媒当时给了多少热度，这是自由派的《隐入尘烟》那刚上线即封杀的态度吗？
这些电影都是资产阶级的，表达的至多也只是资产阶级女权注意，而且他们都谈不到对现实的批判，反而起的是毒害女性，阻碍妇女解放的态度。这些电影在当下能火，是因为符合了小资产阶级女性和受资产阶级意识形态影响的妇女，符合了她们在资本主义社会下受到一定的性别压迫，但又幻想能过上资产阶级个人主义的生活。我集训的时候班上就特别多人喜欢这两部电影，《出走的决心》是班上集体放映的，刚放完就有同学打开豆瓣发短评，说“真好，我以后也想过这种生活”。
你喜欢这些电影，也说明你世界观的一部分与这些东西相符合。从这些东西里，无法导向妇女解放的正真道路，你该好好想想啊。
5 Likes
Are you staying up late watching videos until two or three in the morning?
Sometimes I watch videos or read books, and sometimes I review the past, but it doesn’t have to be specific events. Even just looking at the ceiling, I don’t want to go to bed early.
I only know that these movies are based on individualism, but I hadn’t considered that this mainstream feminism could have such a harmful effect. Thank you for the analysis and criticism. My worldview still has many areas that need to be transformed.
These days, friends from middle school, high school, and high school re-examination always ask me out. I agree or decline based on the relationship. Seeing what they do and say, as well as their emotional states, I often feel worried, but due to limited ability to speak and my level being completely insufficient, I basically can’t persuade them of anything, and even get mostly doubts and negation. This feeling of watching them jump into the pit I once pursued is really uncomfortable, but it is truly powerless. The current situation of female college students is mostly like this; does awakening really have to go through oppression?
Their worldview determines that they pursue these low-level pleasures to gain虚无的满足 (void satisfaction), just like you are still connected with bourgeois culture now. They think eating, drinking, playing, and dating are happiness because they believe these are benefits brought by capitalist society. Someone who considers themselves a vested interest in a capitalist society, how could they want to change this society?
1 Like
Because I think my family and academic situation are quite similar to theirs, and my vested interests are roughly the same as theirs. It took me some time to accept these ideas, so I still have certain thoughts about transforming them. Is such transformation necessarily driven by spontaneous motivation, or is there a chance of success only when I have sufficient knowledge in all aspects and target those who are willing to listen carefully to me?
You can try to instill ideas in all these people, but the degree to which they accept them will vary. Then, for those who react differently, you need to decide whether to continue to delve deeper into explaining to them. Moreover, when you decide whether to go deeper, what you tell them, you need to understand their own stance, their attitude towards revolution, and their attitude towards politics. For those who only want to live their lives or are very selfish and self-interested, no matter how much you talk, it will be useless.
4 Likes
I understand
When it comes to bourgeois art, I think of how I used to really like Titanic, believing that its portrayal of love and human life was quite good. How do everyone view JackRose-style love? Can we say that this isn’t truly love? I don’t quite understand what kind of class interests would make someone willing to sacrifice their life.
1 Like
Are the so-called love and humanistic life you mention all abstract things beyond class? In fact, the Titanic is nothing more than promoting the so-called super-class love supremacy ideology, but in a class society, there are different class thoughts and different class feelings, and inevitably there are different class loves.
Certain people live within certain social relationships, and their happiness in life depends on their position within this social system. People of different classes have different views of happiness.
The working class, living under a socialist system where the working class is in charge and everyone’s status is equal, of course, is happy. Conversely, the bourgeoisie, who think only of not working, just taking money, and exploiting others, living in a socialist society where those who do not labor cannot eat, will not feel happy. On the other hand, the working class living in a capitalist society where they work but gain nothing, serving the bourgeoisie every day, earning only enough to survive, often falling into poverty and hunger, cannot be happy. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, can live a relaxed life in such capitalism, simply exploiting and wasting the wealth earned through the blood and sweat of workers, enjoying a luxurious life.
Moreover, the happiness of the working class under socialism is not personal happiness, but building a socialist society, consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, and enabling more people to live happy lives. Striving for others’ happiness and living for others is truly noble, and those who live for others are the happiest.
The bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, based on individualism, have a happiness view that thinks about working less and taking more money or not working at all, just taking money and exploiting others’ labor, building their happiness on others’ suffering, and daily deceiving themselves by beautifying their parasitic nature, standing above the masses. To pursue their personal happiness, they must also engage in scheming and fighting with other private owners to maximize their own interests. Their happiness is narrow, pitiful, and selfish.
So, when it comes to love, should it also be based on either socialist or capitalist ideological systems? Or should it be based on the kind of collectivist, self-sacrificing love under the socialist system, which strives for the happiness of the other, thus making oneself happy? Since this kind of love is centered on collectivism, it is not for oneself or for a small family, but for the happiness of all humanity. Therefore, this kind of love must develop during the revolution and be for a noble cause. You can watch the American documentary reflecting China during the socialist period — “Half the Sky: Chinese Memories,” where women’s demands on their spouses reflect high political consciousness, illustrating the happiness concept of that era.
Capitallist love is based on individualism. They deceive each other daily by saying “I love you,” but in reality, they treat the other as their private property, a tool to satisfy material or spiritual interests. The so-called love at first sight is just a lie that can be told to a thousand women. Isn’t the movie Titanic full of such lies? As for sacrificing life for love, who among the so-called love supremacists, who elevate love to a divine level, can really do it? The bourgeois view of love is based on individualism, which would not make these people sacrifice their lives.
Moreover, the protagonists in Titanic are all wealthy upper-class people. Their real lives are full of scheming against each other, chasing pleasure, living in drunken luxury, full of low tastes. For these people, love is just a hollow phrase, involving legal seduction and prostitution. Do you still expect such people to sacrifice their lives to save others? Isn’t that nonsense?
Look at the plot of Titanic: the male lead drawing a nude portrait of the female lead— isn’t that blatant yellow (pornography)? What kind of love is that?
Looking into the director Cameron’s filming process, he forced actors to perform many scenes, even making them soak in cold water for hours, causing many to catch colds or pneumonia. Although this does not directly relate to the content of the film, it reflects the bourgeois nature of such movies. He is merely a director, forcing actors to perform false scenes for commercial interests. Under socialism, movies are not like this. Socialist films must have noble political content, reflect noble communist morals, and depict the reality of socialist revolution. This requires actors to voluntarily improve their political consciousness and consciously perform content that truly reflects the spirit of communism.
10 Likes
Just in time, I have two articles criticizing capitalist love songs, which also critique the reactionary ideas reflected in bourgeois art, and are related to so-called love. You can take a look for reference.
Looking at the ‘love’ in yellow songs through several examples_ Zhou Yongxiang.pdf (268.2 KB)
YELLOW SONGS ARE TOXIC, MUST BE ERADICATED!_ Wang Yunjie.pdf (249.7 KB)
2 Likes
I found that when I only look at the words without analyzing, I can’t distinguish which are yellow songs and which are not. In the future, I need to be more careful in identifying the reactionary elements in these literary and artistic works; the less obvious they are, the more subtly they influence me. This is also one of the reasons why I tend to have a somewhat idealistic view when examining issues.
1 Like
If you can’t tell the difference, it means you’ve learned too little. Learning has two aspects: one is learning through reading, and the other is learning through practice. In the future, you should pay attention to observing the ideological outlook of various people and classes in society to understand their true thoughts and motives, and learn to distinguish their class interests. On the other hand, you should also study more Marxism and learn to use Marxism to view various social phenomena and classes.
Many news articles on the forum are worth studying, especially those in magazines. You can learn class analysis from them.
3 Likes
Is there such a love as the small-bourgeoisie describes, working hard for the “happiness of the other” and thus making oneself happy, but only for the small family and not for the happiness of all humanity? In other words, is selfishly pursuing only the happiness of one’s own small family considered “collectivism” for family members? An example would be, “destroying the whole world for you,” and so on.
For a small family is for oneself, and being for oneself means not being for others. Being for oneself and being for others are opposites that can coexist, but only one can take the main position. The so-called “for family” of the petty bourgeoisie is actually for themselves, a case of “desire to take, must first give,” superficially for the family, but in reality for oneself.
The worldview of the petty bourgeoisie is based on bourgeois individualism, and due to their narrow practical activities, they are most concerned with themselves and their surroundings, focusing on personal interests. The so-called “for family” is just because family is the most stable, most利益最大, and most needs management relationship for the petty bourgeoisie.
Is there such a thing as a super-class family? Family members and oneself are also in a certain class relationship. What does “destroy the whole world” mean? It’s impoverished language, hollow content, just like a scumbag telling women “pick stars, pick the moon” — just lies that can be said to a thousand women.
“13-year-old boy in Sichuan scored 18 points, killed by his father with a samurai sword,” how did the parents treat the child in this event? When the child touches their利益, making the parents think the child is disobedient and has no future, and cannot bring them利益 in the future, they can even kill. Isn’t this exposing the petty bourgeoisie’s hypocritical preaching of “for the family” completely?
7 Likes
Isn’t this kind of love everywhere in capitalist society? You could say every private household is like this, the so-called “striving for the other to make oneself happy,” “destroying the whole world for you,” these words are all typical scumbag remarks, just brainwashing women. If we talk about the love of love supremacists, Lu Xun depicted this profoundly in “Regret,” pointing out that pursuing personal happiness cannot bring happiness, and the harm to women is especially severe.
Subjective altruism, objective and selfishness—such a situation does not exist. Because once you consider personal gains and losses, you are already treating people and matters with egoism.