Because I wrote a brief critique exposing Pan Hong and his creation of short videos, it has sparked discussions among people continuing the “Revolution” Society. Their remarks are as follows:
I find that this discussion is entirely based on a distortion of my brief critique. As the author of this critique, I find it necessary to publicly respond to Mr. Honghua Lanman’s arguments.
1. Do I feel distressed because of the abuse by vicious dogs?
I am actually quite puzzled by this question, because when I responded to others’ questions on this forum, I mentioned two ways of dealing with vicious dogs: one is dogs bred by the bourgeoisie specifically to attack people; the other is dogs that have degenerated into attacking humans due to being divorced from human domestication, like wolves. Both should be rendered harmless. Furthermore, I do not understand how Mr. Honghua Lanman could see my sympathy for attacking dogs in an article explaining that abuse ideas are oppressive ideas.
Perhaps Mr. Honghua Lanman, upon seeing this article, for some reason, failed to understand my intended meaning, since I did not discuss the attitude towards attacking dogs at all in this article. I also do not understand why I, or even the forum’s leadership organization LSEP (I also do not understand how publishing personal articles on a public forum represents this organization), would feel sympathy for vicious dogs, or even stand on their side.
In fact, there are two posts about dog attacks in the forum; you can find them with a search function. Here they are:
I want to point out that Mr. Honghua Lanman’s statement that the forum stands on the side of vicious dogs is actually implying that the forum and anti-Pan Hong animal protection organizations are the same. Whether my views align with those of animal protection is very clear, and another post in the forum makes the significant difference between the forum and bourgeois animal protectionism even clearer:
I can’t help but ask, when did I and the forum ever hold a “heartache” attitude towards attacking dogs?
2. Why call Pan Hong “Panzi”?
When I wrote this article, I actually investigated the speech and behavior of Pan Hong’s fans. Pan Hong’s fans affectionately call him “Panzi”. I believe this somewhat reflects that there is a shared class basis between the fans and Pan Hong—after all, one is involved in abuse, and the other is spectating and encouraging it. So, what class does Pan Hong belong to? Unfortunately, I also did some investigation while writing this article, but since the focus was not on this aspect, I did not include it in the main text. Here is the conclusion: Pan Hong is a genuine bourgeois.
Pan Hong serves as the legal representative, shareholder, and senior executive of several companies including Bai City Mei Yi Tian Qi Pet Supplies Co., Ltd. Pan Hong owns 100% equity in Bai City Mei Yi Tian Qi Pet Supplies Co., Ltd., with a registered capital of 5 million RMB.
Additionally, Pan Hong has revealed in live broadcasts how many workers he employs, what he does, with monthly income of around 700,000 to 800,000 yuan and expenses of 400,000 to 500,000 yuan. In interview videos on Bilibili, it can be basically confirmed that Pan Hong relies on short-video traffic and live-streaming sales as a capitalist in business.
So, why does the so-called “Revolution” Society, a revolutionary organization, use such unserious attitudes and speak in the same tone as fans to address a capitalist? What stance are you taking on this?
3. Is abuse reasonable? Does it have popular support, is it so-called “pleasing to the masses”?
When Honghua Lanman discusses the rationality of abuse, he claims it originates from the “revisionist society,” but with popular support, because “the masses hate vicious dogs.” In this argument, I only acknowledge that this incident is indeed caused by revisionism. But this is not original to Mr. Honghua Lanman, because it can be said that any social phenomenon of revisionism is necessarily caused by revisionism, just like 2+2=4, which is obvious and does not require “serious spirit”. (Note: To help Mr. Honghua Lanman understand, I will provide a necessary supplementary explanation: Proudhon once said that the vulgar argument that doubling wages would double the price of goods is as obvious as 2+2=4. Moreover, Proudhon liked to play dialectics like Honghua Lanman, claiming it as dialectics, but in fact it’s vulgar dichotomy.) This also reminds me that after Marxism defeated Proudhonism, Engels said that later opportunists “had to go back to their predecessors’ ideas to define their own program; at that time, Proudhon was probably unavoidable.”
In my article, I have elaborated in detail why people abuse cats and dogs, why the idea of abusing cats and dogs is an idea of abusing humans, and how it is a bourgeois worldview. The petty bourgeoisie’s consumption of this spiritual opium leads to moral corruption, ultimately degenerating into extreme individualism that kills people. That’s why I wrote this critique, calling on everyone to consciously undergo ideological transformation, rather than continue immersing in bourgeois art. Mr. Honghua Lanman’s rebuttal is essentially saying “existence is reasonable,” a classic nihilist argument, cloaked in the noble guise of “the masses.” However, in capitalist society, the bourgeois who control material production also control spiritual production, and these reactionary spiritual materials inevitably have an indelible impact on backward masses. In other words, certain reactionary arts are popular among large groups of people and are common under capitalism. But the purpose of revolutionaries and revolutionary organizations is to persuade and educate within the class struggle among the people, helping the masses shed bourgeois art and influence, unleashing their revolutionary creativity. Just like during China’s New Democratic Revolution, did the Chinese Communist Party, facing backward masses addicted to opium, consider “the people like it,” and therefore turn a blind eye? Whatever Mr. Honghua Lanman says about “the people like it,” and criticizing the people’s preferences, whose class stance does this criticism serve? I believe Mr. Honghua Lanman probably will not answer this question based on facts, because like Pan Hong’s fans, they always hide their ugly motives behind a noble veneer. It can be said that they are even more vicious than Pan Hong’s fans—because Pan Hong’s fans only abuse dogs for the sake of dogs, while they advocate women’s liberation by encouraging women to abandon their self-care.
Back to the dog abuse issue. I pointed out in my article that short videos of dog abuse are entirely serving revisionist ideological control. Why does Honghua Lanman say this is reasonable? Does socialism also need to regulate vicious dogs? Should we use this kind of oppressive, bourgeois-ideology-based abuse to make the masses “pleased to hear”? This also reminds me of the remarks by Pan Hong’s filial son and filial grandson I saw while collecting materials:
Mr. Honghua Lanman, are you sure that what you say is based on real materials? After all, these materials are easily accessible. Could it be that your “network revolution” has become so burdensome that you don’t even have time to understand the main point of my article or do simple material collection?
Therefore, it can be said that Mr. Honghua Lanman neither understands what Marxism and class struggle are, nor understands formal logic. After all, the propositions “people hate vicious dogs” and “people like watching dog abuse” are not subordinate relationships.
In summary, it is clear that Mr. Honghua Lanman neither understands the views I expressed in this article, nor the attitude of the forum and the leadership organization LSEP towards vicious dogs, nor what analysis based on dialectical materialism is. He even, for the sake of “revolution,” affectionately calls a capitalist “Panzi.” So, I also really do not understand why Xu Bogu praises such an analysis that is factually ignorant, illogical, and class-standpoint problematic. My personal humble opinion: this truly shows no trace of “serious analysis” spirit.