Revelation and Reflection on Bourgeois Love Ideology in Sanshui
In high school, I came into contact with Marxism and the predecessor organization of the association. At that time, driven by petty-bourgeois fanaticism, I was full of enthusiasm for “revolution”—of course, all just to make a splash. Later, I was expelled, and my fanaticism had nowhere to vent, and my sense of “progressiveness” was also not displayed. Feeling spiritually empty, I lived in depression, only thinking about how to “go back,” how to correct my mistakes.
During this period, I accidentally met a female classmate (hereafter referred to as A), and our interaction finally gave me space to demonstrate my individualism. Her parents are workers, and she herself is very outstanding, showing me various qualities different from ordinary students during our conversations. For example, she has good life knowledge and experience in household chores. Most importantly, she listened very seriously to what I said. I felt approved, and finally found someone in real life who shared my language, making her an excellent “propaganda object.” I continued chatting with her for a long time, eager to show off what I knew and to lead her onto the “right path.” But I had no theory, only rigidly reciting scriptures. She later said that at that time, she only saw me as “someone who has read a few Marxist-Leninist Maoist works and thinks he understands society.”
I was expelled because of pornographic thoughts and the oppression of women. At that time, I still had no ideological change, so my relationship with A was also impure. After just a few days of knowing her, I confessed all my past mistakes of oppressing women and pornographic thoughts. But just like writing self-criticism in the organization, long-winded, detailed, “regret and guilt,” reciting a few lines from books, pretending to criticize. I said a lot but showed no action. I also pretended to be advanced to deceive her and gain trust, and I deliberately explained in detail, describing these sordid things to the opposite sex to satisfy my vulgar, low-level interests.
I was confident in having a thoroughly honest friend, who also often complained about family trivialities and school matters, as if sharing her feelings. But I think this was still a relationship of mutual benefit. I “promoted” to her during my activities in the left circle (referring to the leftist circle after being expelled from the association), gaining a lot of superiority; she talked about her trivial worries, and I could entertain her. In reality, I didn’t care what she was like, let alone understand her. Moreover, I had no qualification to call her my friend. I still had actions of oppressing women. A once fiercely resisted me. For every girl close to me socially, and those who fit bourgeois aesthetics, I was attracted to them, harboring “love” thoughts. Not long after meeting her, I also “took an interest” in A. The extreme individualist attitude caused oppression, often speaking to her in a commanding tone. One deep impression was when we supervised each other to sleep early because I kept asking if she had slept; she then said, “Can you stop controlling my life?” Another example is when I wanted her to do something, always “show me xxx,” a proud, commanding attitude of oppression. She also scolded me, saying I should ask politely instead of commanding directly.
Everything contains its opposite, and opposite to my bad behaviors is A’s resistance and positive influence on me. She is an independent, strong, outspoken girl. When faced with my patriarchal oppression, she immediately resisted, without holding back, always criticizing me severely to correct my mistakes. She is also generous and never holds grudges. Our conversations are not entirely reactionary propaganda and trivial daily talk; she often uses her emotional insights and various life experiences from her worker parents to counter me. I cannot answer at all, realizing my tendency to lofty talk and empty rhetoric. Although these positive aspects only account for a small part, they are also important factors that prompted me to improve.
Since I was expelled from the organization for the second time, I abandoned Marxism and my spirit became increasingly empty. Previously, I still had activities in the left circle, but I didn’t put much effort into those interactions and didn’t take them seriously. At this time, I regarded my relationship with her as an extremely important part of my life, already in the “love brain” of a subordinate male. The so-called “love brain” is actually a brain of oppression; my mind was still filled with pornographic culture oppressing women, and my close friends were inevitably doomed. During this period, I was very conflicted. I didn’t want to be sneaky, knowing it was wrong. But I also didn’t want to change. So I exposed a bunch of my flaws to show I wanted to get better. But this deeply hurt A; she, a friend I chatted with often, thought I was such a person. Facing her betrayal, she chose silence, refused to meet me, and didn’t want to talk to me. I didn’t dare to contact her, only saying I would change.
A month later, she contacted me voluntarily, and we talked happily. I thought I could restore everything to how it was. But this was just a brief flash of light; the cracks were hard to repair. Later, for a long time, we only kept in touch with very stiff communication, not even resembling friends. To recover, I turned into a “bootlicker,” constantly sending messages, long paragraphs. But she didn’t reply either. But my “bootlicker” was actually just a form of low-level oppression, an investment. Even if it seemed sincere, it was just frantic desperation of someone who couldn’t get their prey, not genuine feelings. Therefore, it only aroused disgust. Oppressors often use both soft and hard tactics; if soft doesn’t work, then hard. I guilt-tripped her, saying “Good friends should compromise,” she had to chat with me every Saturday night routinely, and always begged to meet. Under this rejection and lack of communication, my love for her not only didn’t diminish but grew stronger, because not understanding her made it easier to fantasize about her as I liked; my oppressive desire also didn’t lessen; I kept trying to make her into what I liked. I hoped to make her feel guilty: I was so good to you, but you weren’t as good to me, isn’t that heartbreaking? That’s why I started preparing birthday gifts two or three months in advance, making handmade gifts every night for a month. Chatting was the thing I looked forward to most every day, but if she forgot or didn’t talk properly, I would either blame her crazily or throw a tantrum. This is what people call PUA, right? I can’t even be called a friend who cares for the other. My thoughts come from my decayed life. This period mainly refers to my time staying at home after graduating from high school, and working in that small motor repair shop and the small black factory. The former two because I had plenty of time and felt empty; the latter because I started working 12 hours a day, and my thoughts remained the same—I just wanted to immerse myself in this kind of spiritual opium-like interaction to forget reality.
In the past, I at least pretended to deceive myself. I thought that even if I had serious ideological problems with A, I shouldn’t fall in love with her. Love shouldn’t be a game of eating, drinking, and having fun; it should be taken seriously. Moreover, I didn’t have many interactions, so I might have just been blinded by beauty, impulsive for a moment. If I really loved her, I shouldn’t decide on a lifelong commitment so early; I should care about our physical and mental health and future. Now, the situation has changed, and I have abandoned the hypocritical “keeping the bottom line” attitude.
Last summer, because of various family conflicts, she fell into bourgeois sadness and often told me about family trivialities. Because I had long abandoned Marxism and no longer recited scriptures or discussed boring things, and because I had been working for nearly a year, my worldview had changed somewhat. I no longer was so aggressive or throwing tantrums at her but learned to respect and understand. I tried to put myself in her shoes and comforted her a lot, because our relationship gradually became equal, turning into normal good friends. It was much more relaxed and joyful. But because I lacked conscious ideological transformation, merely because I had absorbed a lot of ideological garbage from less labor-intensive work, my ideological issues still existed. Therefore, when I saw the change in our relationship, I felt there was a possibility of turning into a couple. So I silently started “pursuing” her, deliberately catering to topics during chats, sending flirtatious emojis, and so on. The relationship seemed to improve more and more, and it seemed my goals were increasingly achievable.
But my social approach still leans more toward honest and straightforward chatting. I hate superficial and hypocritical social interactions. I think this might be because of my childhood experiences and later dealings with workers in the factory. I really want to have a sincere, friend-like relationship with her. This emotionally delicate girl, who is thoughtful, sincere, and has many virtues of the working people, increasingly moved me. I felt my schemes were very hypocritical and vulgar. After frequent heart-to-heart chats, I gradually couldn’t bear myself, and I confided all my thoughts to her, promising to change. She still encouraged me without holding grudges.
At this time, I held illusions about bourgeois love. I hoped that through long-term chatting, I could establish deep feelings and profound understanding. I fantasized that our future could be two people with similar interests, deeply understanding each other, supporting each other, and progressing together. I thought such relationships could also exist in capitalist society. But in reality? It’s still just one side being completely self-centered and self-absorbed, thinking only of personal happiness, which can’t lead to shared happiness. I was just “willing to take from others, first give to them,” and the bourgeois only care about themselves. Didn’t I also used to be “so good” to her just to get her reciprocation?
I find it hard to accept these things. Were all my “good friends” just self-deception? Is this the only kind of vile interaction possible under private property society? After a month on the forum, I realized I still need to change my worldview to have such noble relationships. So I exposed a bunch of my past rotten deeds, planning to change, but after two days of writing, I was still muddled. I hope everyone can criticize me. I also showed this article to her.
Seeing some places, even though you are objectively describing, still makes me feel that the matter itself is too sentimental and distressing. How much harm can individualistic love cause to women!
So after you join the forum, do you have any specific plans for future communication with her? Is there a possibility that she would accept political disclosures?
Hmm… yes, I have disclosed everything in the past. But I only mentioned that there was such a thing, to explain the reason why I came into contact with Marxism. Because for safety reasons, I never discussed the specifics. The other party is not very interested in these either.
I have already eliminated all negative expressions that express petit-bourgeois melancholy, or thoughts like lingering love, fighting, or fussing. In terms of tone, I also try to be careful, avoiding overly gentle or childlike tones that seem to coax children, or the tone of a tantrum-throwing child. In terms of content, if the other person still has emotional sadness, or is overwhelmed by trivial daily life, or is influenced by bourgeois ideas (dreams of getting rich, longing for a life without labor, etc.), I no longer go along with what they want to say as I did before. Instead, I pay attention to their emotions and criticize these ideas.
Since coming to the forum, I have been distancing myself from her because I can’t share my thoughts with her, nor do I feel like chatting about trivial daily matters. She even said I have become boring.
I have long exposed the nature of the petty-bourgeois society, and surprisingly, it went smoothly… I didn’t even know my endorsement could make her believe. But I haven’t wanted to read books for a long time. Later, she read the forum’s manifesto, and then she was able to read books.
This was written in the bathroom while idling, so please forgive the messy words. I was idling for too long and had to get out quickly.
Isn’t it also possible to tell the other side about the contradictions in your practical work and the struggle against capitalists and their lackeys? The prerequisite is that you set an example yourself.
Of course, this is all frequently discussed. Including talking about how officials are hypocritical and ugly, and how workers work. I am also helping her with problems encountered when working in a factory during the winter vacation. But there is one issue, which is how to connect individual fate with the entire class. Talking about this every day is nothing more than personal complaints, or abstract personal effort, such as telling oneself not to be too sad, to keep going, to work hard to improve oneself, and not to live aimlessly. It doesn’t have much positive significance.
I think this person is quite progressive among students. Firstly, they are relatively frugal and simple. During holidays, they help their mother with chores and are willing to do manual labor in factories; their monthly living expenses are only a thousand, yet they can save over two hundred, accumulating several thousand including wages; they also never care much about eating, drinking, dressing, and accessories, preferring cheap goods, and are not interested in makeup, believing that inner qualities are more important. Secondly, they are quite ambitious, consciously resisting low-level hobbies like watching videos, playing games, reading online novels, and dating, hoping to learn interesting things and live a meaningful and valuable life. Thirdly, they have a simple class consciousness, holding relatively correct views on various matters. They are quite resentful and disgusted with bourgeois bosses, celebrities, and the upper middle class around them, criticizing their selfishness and hypocrisy. They care about and admire those who are not wealthy like themselves, and look up to those who sacrifice themselves. They never dare to do it themselves but are genuinely kind and generous, accepting every apology I make.
However, their flaws are also obvious. They have a narrow perspective, only seeing their personal life. For example, they live frugally but only because they dislike waste; in fact, they still dream of getting rich. They resist low-level hobbies, but their interests are only aimed at pursuing personal life and are very focused on exams, hoping to find a good job and live a good life. Even if they know the future will not be good, they would rather find a “partner to get by”. They are not very concerned about things outside personal interests, things that benefit exams or future earning potential. In short, they are not interested in anything beyond their narrow life. So reading is difficult for them. They are also somewhat weak, indecisive, and easily sentimental. They often feel very upset over small interpersonal issues, dislike “social etiquette” but are afraid to break with classmates, fearing being isolated. This emotional and narrow perspective also shows in their usual thinking, where they only look at surface issues and fail to see the essence.
> Actually, I mainly want to understand what mindset you had when writing this exposé. Because from my reading, I don’t think you believe that engaging in petty bourgeois love is impossible; instead, it seems to lean towards the direction of “reforming together, and after the reform, discussing proletarian love.” Especially regarding exposing organizations, it’s very unsafe and can only serve your own desire for self-expression.
First, about exposing organizations, that was said two years ago, about a few months after I was expelled. It indeed had the purpose of self-expression; at that time, I thought it was something worth showing off.
“What mindset” I have, I mentioned in my self-introduction that due to various reasons, my thoughts changed, and I hoped to lean more towards revolution. To do that, I need to reform myself and change what I do. My contact with Person A in this article takes up a significant part of my life (you could say chatting is my main entertainment…). I understand that this relationship cannot be maintained. So I wrote this article to carefully review from start to finish, to see what I have done, what I was thinking, what problems still exist, and then to reform. But I still have petty bourgeois feelings; on one hand, I lean towards revolution, but on the other hand, I am weak and reluctant, which is very contradictory.
My understanding of these issues is still abstract; I only know they are “wrong” and should be hated and corrected. But I don’t have genuine emotional understanding, nor can I precisely grasp how serious the errors are, how harmful they are, and I can’t really change. I also know that this article still uses the most intense words to say the most ordinary things, and there is a particular reluctance because feelings cannot be faked. Once I truly hate the errors with genuine emotion, I will be close to overcoming them.
But after all, these are mistakes, and I can’t just ignore them because I am “weak.” So I post this here for criticism and to learn more.
After reading this, I feel that the author’s thoughts are actually very contradictory, and self-deception is also quite serious. I used to have very serious pornographic thoughts and did many things that hurt women, so emotionally I can understand many of the author’s past mental ideas from a reverse perspective. The fact that the author is willing to reveal and criticize their own problems is a good thing, but the extent of these criticisms and reflections is clearly still insufficient, so I decided to help analyze the past thoughts reflected in the author’s posts.
The author’s self-deception and beautification started here. From fanaticism to depression is a common problem among petty-bourgeois, only by坚持正确剖析自己的错误才能逐步克服这个问题。只要是愿意革命、愿意承认自己过去的错误并下决心改正的人，马克思主义组织一定是会接纳的，不可能有人愿意悔改而将其完全拒之门外。同样的，对沾染了一身资本主义习气的小资产阶级来说，也只有在革命组织里才能最好地改造自己。而楼主这里说自己“只想着如何才能‘回去’，如何才叫改掉错误”，其实并不是真的只想着如何改正错误，不是单纯的追求“正确”，而是因为“‘先进性’也没人显摆了”，至于“改掉错误”只是给自己套的合理的借口而已。其实这种狂热性是很有害的，就是因为是为了个人私利的狂热性，所以个人私利（名誉、地位）得不到实现后，就会郁郁寡欢，就会从积极转入消极。然而无论是积极还是消极，建立在谋取个人私利的基础上，都是坏的，应该否定掉这种为了个人私利的狂热性。
Pursuing fame and status necessarily involves oppressing women. In this paragraph, “her parents are workers, and she is very outstanding… excellent qualities” are not important, they are just reasons to seduce women with a legitimate excuse. For typical petty-bourgeois men, interests vary; for those in the left circle, it’s about “revolution” and “progress.” In reality, what is valued is the woman’s appearance or other aspects that conform to one’s pornographic oppressive ideas. So “most importantly, she listened very carefully to what I said” is just to deceive the other person, gradually disciplining her. And “I felt approved, and finally found someone in real life who shared my language” is also an excuse. Imagine if it were a man, or a woman who does not meet your capitalist aesthetic standards, would you have the same thoughts? It’s actually a premeditated plan to seduce women, but you still use “friend” as a reason.
The author previously said that he was expelled from the organization for petty-bourgeois fanaticism driven by pornographic thoughts, and that he had not changed his thoughts at that time, so his relationship with A was also impure. Actually, this contradicts earlier statements, but it’s truthful — the “impure” purpose of contact with A was “because of pornographic thoughts.” So, the author’s earlier claims of finding a confidant, feeling understood, or praising A’s qualities are just beautifications of an unrealized fantasy of seducing the bourgeoisie. It’s good that the author admits this problem, but the critique is not deep enough.
The behavior described here is very malicious. Confessing all past mistakes about pornographic thoughts within a few days of meeting, yet being long-winded and detailed, is not just “pretending to be progressive to deceive” but sexual harassment. Imagine if someone suddenly dumps a bunch of disgusting things on you, how would you feel? Why focus only on her and not others? It suggests a very vulgar, sexually harassing mindset, and also a desire to use false sincerity and self-criticism to make the other accept your attack unconditionally, treating her as “stupid” women to seduce. Today, many in the left circle use Marxism as a banner to do all kinds of hooliganism, which has severely damaged the reputation of Marxism.
This paragraph’s self-deception is also very serious. “I am confident that I have made a thoroughly honest friend,” but earlier the author admitted that his intentions were “impure” due to “pornographic thoughts,” now he claims to be confident because of “genuine friendship.” Can good intentions really exist? It’s actually bad intentions. The author previously committed acts akin to sexual harassment, yet the other person regarded him as a confidant. This is a very bad result, because a woman oppressed and without an outlet was deceived by a lustful man. If you follow petty-bourgeois spontaneity, the ending would be tragic. The so-called “mutual benefit” is also fallacious; it’s just an oppressed woman being deceived and disciplined by fake Marxism, and the man satisfying himself through sexual harassment and fantasy. Can this be called “mutual benefit”? If so, can we say that the buying and selling of labor power between capitalists and workers is also “mutual benefit”? “Mutual benefit” implies equality, but the relationship of oppression cannot be called equal. This is also a characteristic of capitalist society — formal equality, actual inequality. As Marx said: “In the family, the husband is the capitalist, and the wife is the proletariat.”
Today, male chauvinists in the petty-bourgeois middle class also promote this view, claiming that men earning money and women doing housework are “doing their part,” and then saying that men earning and women spending is male oppression, ignoring the fact that many women face gender discrimination and oppression. They distort the fact that women without economic independence are not regarded as independent persons under capitalism, and they use patriarchy and men’s status to “buy” family and sexual slaves. Although the author admits his mistakes, it’s obvious his thoughts have not fully shifted, and he has not escaped the male chauvinist logic. Position determines understanding; understanding issues is a matter of stance.
It’s clear that the author has actually romanticized love as propaganda, and love is actually a beautification of his true pornographic thoughts. Like Ju Chunsheng’s depiction of Zhi in Lu Xun’s writing, who “gains a lot of superiority in propaganda.”
Although the author later admits: “In fact, I don’t care what kind of person she is, let alone understand her? And I don’t have the qualification to call her my friend. I still have actions that oppress women.” But this level of reflection is obviously insufficient. Also, “I still have actions that oppress women. A once fiercely resisted me.” These two sentences do not clarify the specific situation — how exactly is the oppression carried out, and how does she resist (probably not about the sleeping matter mentioned later, which doesn’t seem to be “fierce”)? This must be clarified. Moreover, since there has been “fierce resistance,” why still confide in her as a “thoroughly honest friend”? It seems that the author still has a good self-image, so he does not emphasize this issue.
This is very honest.
This already fully exposes the true face of wanting to make women slaves, and it seems that the author’s pornographic oppressive thoughts are very serious.
This paragraph sounds very strange. The author praises A as “independent, strong,” and “resisting patriarchal oppression,” but also says “she is generous and never bears grudges.” If we compare the relationship to that of a master and a slave, it becomes very bizarre. The relationship from the beginning was abnormal, with A being deceived and harassed, maintaining this unequal relationship while engaging in ideological struggles, which feels very strange. I do not deny A’s progressive thoughts, but I think if the author’s purpose was to deceive and seduce her, then he would not have become “better” but would continue to deceive himself and use tricks.
The author’s statement that his love brain is actually oppression brain is fine, but I think it was already oppression brain before, and after being expelled from the organization, his thoughts became more reactionary and crazy. Being expelled from the Marxist organization indicates a decline in moral level and ideological consciousness, because originally he was a petty-bourgeois comrade capable of participating in revolutionary activities, but only those who are unwilling to be comrades and are solely focused on satisfying their private interests would be expelled. Her breaking off with him was probably because she saw his problems, and her decision to break up was correct.
It’s unknown why she contacted him again; no specifics are given.
This paragraph’s narration and analysis are quite honest and correct, but it also reveals the author’s shocking experience of disciplining women. Such patriarchal thoughts are like chains, constraining the spirit and life of women, even across the internet. But it would be better if the author could specify past promiscuous experiences (practice determines thought).
It’s good that the author improved his thoughts through labor, but he must not continue to have the idea of love as a tool for pornographic oppression. What exactly is the situation now? The past hurts can’t be simply erased by time, right? This issue must be clarified; otherwise, he might just wear a new mask to do worse things. If they talk, it should be more about Marxism, revolutionary matters, social news, and political situations, not reestablishing old relationships. But I still have concerns because the author’s past reactionary practices require a tough ideological struggle to overthrow, and the words “relationship is okay, getting better, goals increasingly achievable” are very alarming.
[quote=“Sanshui, post:1, topic:806”]
My social approach still tends to honest and sincere chatting; I dislike superficial and hypocritical socializing. I think this is because of my childhood experiences and later dealings with workers in factories. I really want to have a sincere, friend-like relationship with her. This emotional delicacy, thoughtfulness, sincerity, and many virtues of the working people increasingly move me. I feel that my conspiracy is very hypocritical and vulgar. After frequent heart-to-heart chats, I gradually couldn’t bear myself, confessed all my thoughts, and promised to change. She still encourages me without holding grudges.
At this point, I have romantic illusions about petty-bourgeois love. I hope that long-term chatting can build deep feelings and profound understanding. I fantasize that our future can be mutually interested, deeply understanding, and supporting each other to progress. I thought such relationships could exist even in capitalist society. But in reality? It’s just one side being completely self-centered and self-deceptive, and only seeking personal happiness. I was just “wanting to take, first give”; petty-bourgeois only care about themselves and whether others treat them well. Didn’t I also “treat her well” just to get her in return?
I find it hard to accept these things. Were all previous “good friends” just self-deception? Is this the only kind of vile interaction possible under private property society? After a month on the forum, I realize that I must change my worldview to have such noble relationships. So I expose all my past rotten deeds, plan to change, but after two days of writing, I am still confused and hope for criticism. I also showed this article to her.
[/quote]I think you can update the general situation of your communication under this post in the future (without involving privacy). Shared feelings are built on shared practice; without shared practice, feelings can only be false. You need to seriously think about this issue and stop deceiving yourself like in the past.
Fenghuo posted his past speech on love issues under Jihe’s self-introduction, which you can learn from:
[quote=“Fenghuo Flame, post:2, topic:731”]
Yesterday, I posted two pictures, which are excerpts from the comic “How Steel Is Made.” What is the purpose? It is to clarify the essence of bourgeois love. In these two pictures, it tells of Donyia, who became a good friend of Pavel in youth and with whom Pavel developed feelings. When she encountered class stance issues, she revealed her position as a wealthy heiress, ultimately breaking with Pavel. The first part discusses Pavel trying to guide Donyia onto the revolutionary path, inviting her to participate in workers’ and peasants’ soviet meetings. She dressed beautifully, like an aristocratic bourgeois lady. At the meeting, she was out of place among the workers and peasants, even looking down on them. From this incident, Pavel learned that sincere feelings cannot exist between people of different classes, and he parted ways with Donyia.
So, I want to say: do not hold a fluke mentality when dating bourgeois objects. Such a fluke mentality, engaging in bourgeois love, is actually just to satisfy material or spiritual needs, focusing only on personal interests, subjective wishes, ignoring objective facts, and cannot have a good result. You must understand that “Donyia” cannot be brought into the proletarian revolutionary ranks; if you want revolution, you cannot date “Donyia.”
The second part is about Pavel during the railway construction in the north. After the railway was built, a fuel-depleted train entered their railway. The political commissar asked the passengers to get off and help clear snow to facilitate railway passage and construction work. After getting off, Pavel saw his old acquaintance Donyia, who was with her husband. During this encounter, what did Donyia say to Pavel? She saw that Pavel, who had been involved in the revolution for so many years, was still a grassroots soldier, ragged and shoveling snow, and she refused to shake hands with him, with contempt in her eyes. She said: “Pavel, I didn’t expect you to end up like this. Can’t you get a better job in the current government than digging? I thought you had become a committee member at least!” She looked down on Pavel, and Pavel was even more disgusted with Donyia. Old friends reunited, but she had completely become a person detached from the working people, a thorough bourgeois lady. Pavel contemptuously replied: “You don’t need to worry about my life; your life is even more rotten than I thought. Two years ago, you extended your hand to the workers without blushing, but now you have no courage left. I have nothing to talk to you about anymore.”
This is the difference between a Marxist revolutionary and a private owner. To fantasize about love between these two is only possible for the most foolish and self-deceiving people.
Many hold naive ideas, thinking: “I am a ‘leftist’, my ambitions are so lofty, I will definitely attract bees and butterflies.” There is a hilarious video on Bilibili about “Let comrades pursue common happiness,” where a matchmaker is matchmaking people. They think: “I am a ‘leftist’, I will do ‘revolution’ in the future, I must find Yanni to match me.” I want to respond to these people’s dreams: “This is impossible.” If you want to date a bourgeois, why would you meet Yanni? Only Marx can meet Yanni. Bakunin and Proudhon are absolutely impossible to meet Yanni. “Like attracts like,” and mutual attraction, friendship, partnership, and lifelong companionship require a common worldview. People with different worldviews cannot unite. Holding a private owner’s selfish worldview and aiming to date bourgeois can only find objects with the same private owner mentality, and cannot meet socialist-minded objects, cannot meet Yanni.
So I give this answer regarding the so-called “love” issue. Starting with the mentality of dating the other person and then doing ideological transformation is a self-deception, a lie to others and to oneself. Thinking that if the transformation succeeds, dating is justified? I am transforming him openly now, isn’t that enough? But what is really in mind? It’s not about ideological transformation, but about wanting to date. The main contradiction in this behavior is whether dating or ideological revolution is the main contradiction, which determines the nature of this matter. Wanting bourgeois love is just craving for their body; no matter what noble excuses are used to “find a partner,” these facts cannot be hidden.
Recently, I encountered a member of XXX Society who wanted to do a short-term attack on bourgeois love. He confessed to his object of transformation, and I analyzed two routes and two outcomes of his love. First, he said he wanted to confess during the New Year’s attack, and after success, continue his so-called transformation work. I think this is completely impossible.
First, this confession is opportunistic and adventurous; at the time of confession, the worldview of the other person and yours are not confirmed. There is no guarantee that you are a steadfast Marxist, and the other is also a steadfast Marxist. It’s impossible to establish a long-term relationship based on a shared worldview, or to have feelings that surpass ordinary class feelings and turn into love, based on mutual attraction in common cause.
This kind of short-term attack is unjustified in motivation and fundamentally violates the objective laws of development, violating Marxist principles. Without a common ideological foundation, without mutual understanding and shared life built on such a foundation, lasting love is impossible. Engaging in short-term love is actually to satisfy personal material or spiritual desires; a private owner’s love, based on selfish class psychology, is just mutual satisfaction of personal desires, a commodity exchange. Such “love” shows its end from the start, as “start chaos, end abandonment.” Without careful consideration of the material and ideological basis of love, how can such a relationship last? Isn’t this irresponsibility to the other for short-term desire? Especially for those without economic independence, who cannot decide their own future, how can they guarantee a shared future? Such private owner love is worthless and bound to collapse.
Conversely, when two people’s worldviews are highly aligned, and through long-term mutual interaction, they recognize each other’s worldview and, based on a shared worldview, think and act together, they have a common future and goals. At this point, it’s natural; there’s no need for confession. The ability to stay together firmly must be based on a shared worldview, long-term joint activities, and feelings on this foundation, which are the so-called two routes, two outcomes.
Marxist love is built on a shared socialist worldview, with a firm common goal, striving long-term for this shared cause, and thus having an inseparable common future. Nothing can separate them. For example, Marx and Jenny, although Jenny was from a bourgeois family, she accepted Marx’s ideological transformation and became a steadfast Marxist. So even in the face of great difficulties, Jenny would not leave Marx. They are both Marxists, with the common goal of revolution and the liberation of all humanity. Their happiness belongs to all humanity, not just personal selfish happiness, so no difficulty can separate them. This is true great love, proletarian love, Marxist love. Marx, in exile among various governments, homeless, penniless, and destitute, Jenny would never leave him. Could bourgeois do the same? Absolutely not. The principle of bourgeois interaction is selfishness; their lifestyle is free and lax; their worldview is based on individualism and liberalism; their love is for self-satisfaction. They cannot consider the future based on a shared worldview, shared goals, and shared future; they only prioritize their own future. This is very realistic. Why do so many hypocritically say: “Love is so noble, love is so great, our first love, due to irresistible factors, had to part, moved away and can’t see each other anymore. How helpless, how tragic!” Marriage afterward is just a result of life’s pressure. The initial love was crushed by harsh reality; the first love of students was the most beautiful, and that love had no material interests."
What nonsense! This is bourgeois self-deception, dressing oneself up as noble and passionate. In fact, it’s love based on bourgeois selfishness, individualism, and liberalism. The so-called first love of students and later “love based on material interests” are no different; they just satisfy different personal desires, the former possibly satisfying lust, the latter satisfying material enjoyment. The so-called “irresistible” reason is just a choice after weighing pros and cons; for the bourgeois, the common goals and future with the object of love (if any) cannot surpass personal goals and future. Therefore, they cannot sacrifice their personal interests for the future and goals of the relationship. They won’t give up moving for love, nor their future, nor wealth and honor. Impossible.
Let me give a real example: B6’s girlfriend is like this. B’s girlfriend dated him for several years. Later, B bought a house to marry her, but she ran away. He still has a mortgage on the house and lives alone. Why? Because this petty bourgeois woman has her bright future to pursue, having been accepted as a civil servant in another city. She prefers to be a civil servant there, seeking her own bright future, and to find another man in the city. “Men are everywhere.” But the opportunity to be a civil servant is not easily available for her petty bourgeois class.
This is two routes, two endings.
As someone aspiring to be a Marxist, if you fail to see this in love, it’s a huge mistake. The so-called love you pursue cannot be Marxist love, proletarian love; it can only be petty bourgeois or bourgeois “love.” This kind of “love” cannot be lasting or stable. Not only in China, but worldwide, is there any love that transcends class and is everlasting? No. Only proletarian and Marxist love is lasting; bourgeois love cannot last. Even if bourgeois form “love” connects their lives, after marriage and family, they still consider only themselves. Otherwise, why is there a law on property division after divorce? Such laws are just a reflection of social relations, based on private ownership of property and transactional relationships.
As mentioned before, bourgeois “love” is empty and fake, useless waste. Even if you have bourgeois love, the one who loves you may not consider you at all or may not prioritize you. They do not consider a shared life or future; they prioritize themselves. Husband and wife are like birds in the same forest, but when disaster strikes, they fly apart; this is the truth. Therefore, bourgeois “love” cannot be happiness; it is not true love.
This is the difference between bourgeois and proletarian love. Many members of organizations have asked me how I view love issues, what should proletarian love relationships look like? Today, I believe I have given a thorough and detailed answer. I have clarified the two routes and two outcomes regarding love. Love issues are just one aspect of ideological struggle, a typical problem. A member of XXX Society once asked me if students can date during student days. I replied then, and I repeat now: what does proletarian or socialist love guided by Marxism look like? It should be based on both parties having a socialist worldview, on a shared worldview, which leads to mutual recognition and shared social activities. Such shared social activities and ideas determine mutual recognition and a shared future. When social activities are aligned, life goals are aligned, and the future is aligned. If social activities and life goals differ, the future cannot be the same; one must compromise, and if not, they will part ways. Therefore, love under the socialist worldview should be based on a shared socialist worldview, built on Marxism, with common goals, future, and worldview. Only then is it proletarian love or Marxist love. Such love is genuine, lasting, and resilient. When you are sure of this, you can date if your worldview is solid and you have set common goals and future. But I think most students now do not have this possibility. Without economic independence, unable to decide their own future, how can they guarantee a shared future?
When Mao Zedong and Yang Kaihui fell in love during their student days, they only admired each other. It was only when Mao went to work-study and organized a Marxist study group that their admiration turned into love. Their love grew during their joint revolutionary pursuit. Can students do this? Can they engage in revolutionary work? Can they have such common pursuits? Can they build a shared future on this basis? I think it’s mostly an abstract possibility, not much a practical one. The main focus should be on ideological struggle and transformation; why bother with love? If the feelings are sincere, will they fear losing each other? Can bourgeoisie come and steal a Marxist’s attraction? Absolutely not.
Yanni waited for Marx for years before they eloped and married. Did Marx worry every day about some rich young master stealing Yanni while he was studying communism? Would he? Bourgeois are eager to engage in bourgeois love, thinking about short-term decisive battles, worried that everyone is dating early, and what if someone steals their partner? They rush to act first, which is a complete violation of Marxist principles. This is what bourgeois worldview leads to. Lenin and Krupskaya, would they worry about such things? Would Lenin worry about being exiled to Siberia, or Krupskaya being taken away? After so many years apart, they still haven’t married; could someone else marry her? Impossible. As long as they are committed to Marxism, have such a worldview, shared social activities, and revolutionary goals, nothing can separate them. Lenin was exiled to Siberia, and Krupskaya went with him, living in exile, and they married there.
So I advise everyone: discard such bourgeois love ideas immediately. True revolutionary partners are born in revolutionary activities. If you pursue bourgeois love, it is useless; it’s not true love. I advise those with bourgeois love ideas: don’t engage in such love, it’s pointless and will not lead to good results.
Your analysis is really comprehensive and very helpful to me. Thank you for your carefulness! Now, I will answer your questions.
At this point, I am just fooling myself like this. If I only “correct” mistakes just to return to the collective, then it’s a opportunistic purpose. Just coming back for the sake of coming back might be to use everyone, or to show off within the collective, gaining fame and status. Moreover, such people cannot truly change; they only care about personal gain and refuse to hurt themselves. In reality, it’s just self-deception. Only for the revolution, realizing that one’s own problems are harmful to the revolution, can one truly and thoroughly change.
I understand now. For me, listing a bunch of reasons is just to reduce guilt; the only important thing is that she can be deceived by me. If it were any other person, I seem to be able to find a bunch of advantages as reasons.
Understanding Marxism is really impressive; I can see that. I have always been like this, as I mentioned in my self-introduction, because of my childhood environment and later exposure to internet culture and anime, I have looked down on others, believing there was nothing to communicate with, and later I looked down on people with “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist” ideology.
This point is also very correct. I used a lot of quotation marks in this expose because I didn’t know how to express it properly. From my current perspective, I only know that those things are wrong, but I can’t pinpoint exactly what is wrong and why. So I can only narrate with the past viewpoint, adding quotation marks.
Here, I want to look lofty and show off fake Marxism, partly for showing off, and also with a kind of personal heroism, as if I am the savior of the ignorant masses. Because I “save” others, sexual oppression becomes even more justified.
During nearly half a year afterward, I still openly discussed pornographic content with her. I said it was for self-criticism or criticizing reactionary pornographic thoughts to “broaden her horizons” so she wouldn’t go astray in the future. Later I realized this was complete self-deception because normal-minded people wouldn’t often think about these things. It’s too much like a monk full of low-level desires, but still constantly talking about being desireless.
You are right. “Thorough honesty” is fake because I have never told her what I really think of her or what vulgar thoughts I have about her. It’s only a one-sided benefit for me; it’s not a commodity exchange relationship. When she chats with me about daily life, even if it’s to entertain her or relieve her worries, it’s just me pretending to be righteous to deceive her into trusting me and then sexually harassing her. Everything is based on my own benefit. Just like in modern marriage, when men buy “pocket red envelopes” for women, it’s only to keep women more obedient as slaves for sex and housework, clearly an “unequal treaty” of small favors.
I don’t have the kind of intense conflict you imagine with her. We almost never argued; the most intense was the one mentioned below. She preferred to use indifference to resist this oppressive relationship. When facing my harassment (such as rigidly reciting or dumping her various sad and negative thoughts), she would not reply for days. Later, she would say she was busy, or she didn’t see it, or she didn’t want to reply at the time, then forgot. At this time, to maintain this unequal relationship, I had to act out, apologize, and dump more ideological garbage. This cycle continued for a long time, and she would only say a few words when she had something to say.
Your comment about “self-satisfaction” is very accurate. Because although she said she didn’t want to reply, she was actually fed up with me long ago. It’s wrong to say I was “confiding,” she would indeed tell me some things, but she could tell others the same things, so it’s not really heartfelt.
From your analysis, I think it should be like this. The so-called “positive influence” mentioned here is actually a positive influence on counter-revolutionary forces. Just like the oppressors learn lessons from suppressing slaves, making their methods more sophisticated, and figuring out how to prevent slaves from resisting, rather than treating everyone equally from then on. I only changed her dissatisfaction with my mistakes so I could more easily deceive her and get what I wanted from her.
Because at this time, it was not a breakup, just that she wanted to cool down and downplay these hurts for a while.
I won’t go into specifics about my lewd experiences here; I need to think about how to write it first. But roughly, I learned to be a “licker” and chat with someone from elementary school, and I almost never stopped, only changing people. But I never really fell in love. I don’t know where these reactionary experiences came from, nor have I consciously studied them.
I also find it hard to judge the specific situation. She said that she initially found my problems hard to accept, but because I kept talking about them, they gradually seeped into her life, and it became less difficult to accept, but she still didn’t think it was nothing.
As for the conversation topics I suggest, I will try to find things she is interested in. She is too dull politically. I try to connect everyday trivial matters to larger issues. But if she only cares about personal life and doesn’t care about news, I can’t do much. I think the most important thing is to learn Marxism well and improve my ideological transformation so I can set an example. She is already reading “Outline of Philosophy,” and I also urge her to read books.
