[Ongoing] Lecture on "History of the Two-Line Struggle of the Chinese Communist Party" Book Club

烽火Flame · January 15, 2026, 6:08am

{ “content”: “Preface\nToday we discuss a brief history of the Chinese Communist Party, specifically the preface to the lectures on the history of the two-line struggle, which is timely as we are discussing this book. This is important for our deeper understanding of Marxism, especially the understanding of class struggle and line struggle.\nAs you may have seen, a summary of the first part of the conference report was posted on the forum a few days ago. Going forward, I will try to post on this forum the parts that are not related to organizational secrets or security concerns, for everyone’s reference. Some theoretical issues are also discussed here.\nNow, discussing these party histories is also to relearn the experiences of the two-line and two-class struggles in history, to serve our current class struggle.\nBack then, the proletarian revolutionary mentor Lenin led the October Socialist Revolution of 1917 in Russia, which brought Marxism-Leninism to the Chinese people. The fusion of Marxism-Leninism with the Chinese revolutionary movement produced the Chinese Communist Party, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat. Since its founding on July 1, 1921, the CCP has been more than 50 years. For more than five decades, under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought as the theoretical basis, the CCP has led the Chinese people in armed struggle to seize power and in consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, fighting bravely. After a long and arduous struggle, it overthrew the “three mountains” of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism, and achieved the great victory of the new-democratic revolution.\nChairman Mao pointed out: “A party built according to the revolutionary theory and revolutionary style of Marxism-Leninism; a party-led army; and a united front led by such a party, these three are the important weapons for seizing power and consolidating power.” This is what we commonly refer to as the “Three Great Treasures,” corresponding to the three central issues of party building, armed struggle, and united front. The central issue of the proletarian revolution was the Chinese revolution’s development along this path. After the founding of the PRC, under Chairman Mao’s correct line, the CCP adhered to the theory and practice of continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, achieving great victories in socialist revolution and socialist construction.\nIn fact, what we need now is to strengthen organizational construction, to strive for the establishment of a nationwide political party. This also means continuing along the line Mao Zedong pointed out, making full use of the Three Great Treasures. First of all, there must be a Communist Party with revolutionary theory and revolutionary style; this is the meaning of the ideological struggle and theoretical struggle we are now carrying out. How did Chairman Mao’s revolutionary theory and revolutionary style come about? It is brought about through ideological struggle, which is also called theoretical struggle. Only a Communist Party that has been tempered by fierce class struggle, and the proletariat and intellectuals it produces, can be regarded as a true Communist Party. A petty-bourgeois who has no experience of class struggle can never be regarded as part of the Communist Party, nor can they be trusted to undertake the duty of building the party.\nIn fact, history has shown many petty-bourgeois elements infiltrating the CCP, and some even seized power at one point. Why? Because the party at that time was not mature enough and could not test Marxism’s truth through practical experience, allowing certain fake-Marxists and some intellectuals to deceive for a long time. Mao said: “I urge comrades to read more, to avoid being deceived by intellectuals.” In the past, the CCP was deceived by intellectuals for a long time, for 14 years, causing huge losses.\nThe first to deceive was Chen Duxiu. From the founding of the CCP, there was no test by revolutionary practice or the actual results to elect a general secretary or form a class force. Instead they elected Chen Duxiu, a man with a famous name who had been caught by police for brothels and fights at Peking University, as general secretary. Chen Duxiu did not participate in founding or organizing the CCP, and did not attend the CCP’s first congress, yet he was exalted by a group of intellectuals to be CCP secretary-general. Later Chen Duxiu, riding on the prestige of intellectuals, established his personal authority within the party, playing factionalism, and used party-led revolution to serve his own career. Thus Chen Duxiu continuously undermined the CCP’s leadership of the proletarian revolution. He had no knowledge, no revolutionary theory, and no revolutionary experience, but only a name and vanity, and he used these as capital to direct other comrades and the entire proletarian revolutionary force, ultimately leading to a rightist capitulation line and handing over the leadership of the army to the Kuomintang, enabling the Kuomintang to launch a massacre and push the CCP to the brink of extinction.\nLater, the “August 7” Meeting in 1927 ended Chen Duxiu’s leadership in the CCP. Yet at that time the CCP was still immature. Where was its immaturity? It lay in two aspects of subjectivism criticized by Chairman Mao: empiricism and dogmatism. But empiricists always submit to dogmatists, always bow to dogmatists, and accept their command, so dogmatists again seized leadership, i.e., Qu Qiubai came to the fore.\nWhy was the party so immature at that time? Because the CCP was formed by the alliance of workers, peasants, and vast numbers of petty-bourgeois intellectuals. The working class had no deep experience in class struggle and did not grasp Marxist theory deeply enough to use it as a weapon for struggle. The peasant class had strong small producer traits and petty-bourgeois tendencies, with loose and free behaviors, not only unreceptive to Marxist theory but resistant to it. The petty-bourgeois intellectuals were more detached from class struggle and clung to private ownership ideas. Among these three groups, some lacked revolutionary experience and understanding of revolutionary theory, often making “left” or “right” errors; and some petty-bourgeois intellectuals or even bourgeois intellectuals used the name of revolution to get into the Party and turn the CCP into a tool for their own interests. Thus, without genuine revolutionary practice and training, the CCP was formed and had to be taught a lesson. Chen Duxiu’s failure thus taught the CCP a lesson.\nThen the CCP shifted from right opportunism to “left” opportunism, with Qu Qiubai coming to power. Qu was also an intellectual, and because intellectuals held power in the party and dogmatism suppressed empiricism, Qu came to power. Qu was from the same era and same place as Chen Duxiu. It is said that Ding Ling once pursued Qu Qiubai, but Qu did not form a couple with her.\nAfter Qu Qiubai came to power, he continued to use his petty-bourgeois intellectuals to turn the party into a tool for personal ambition, and aggressively promoted factionalism, attacking comrades who maintained the correct line, such as Chairman Mao. After the attack, he advocated immediate nationwide revolution, arguing that the Nationalist reactionaries’ creation of the “April 12” and “July 15” counterrevolutions did not mean a downturn in the revolution. Rather, these revolutions exposed their reactionary faces, presenting the nationwide revolution as the climax. Thus, under the threat of Wang Jingwei and Chiang Kai-shek’s joint suppression, and with Chen Duxiu having long since betrayed the CCP’s leadership in the National Revolutionary Army, he launched a nationwide armed uprising, ordering branches in all cities to rise in armed revolt. The result exposed all CCP strength in the cities; 99% of CCP forces in the white region and in the cities were crushed by the Nationalist reactionaries, resulting in bloody massacres. Under Qu Qiubai’s command, the CCP suffered a second great blow, and the party was on the edge of extinction.\nWhat was Qu Qiubai doing then? After his “left” adventurism failed, Qu Qiubai fled. While in Fujian, he was captured by the enemy. Upon capture, the enemy did not recognize him at first, and imprisoned him in a dark prison. Discontent with the conditions, Qu publicly confessed to the jailer, “I am a high-ranking CCP official, arrange me a luxurious private room.” Thus Qu moved from the dark dungeon to a luxurious private room. From then on, CCP leaders and staff of various ranks, etc., interacted daily with Qu. Qu acted as a traitor, selling large portions of CCP secrets to the enemy. He even wrote a “Excess Words” as a confession, claiming he did not have great ability, did not firmly believe in communism, and somehow became CCP general secretary.\nIn fact, this self-confession was a pledge of surrender to the enemy. He cut himself off from the revolution and claimed to be someone who entered the revolution by mistake, and in “Excess Words” leaked the internal struggles within the party, becoming a complete turncoat. After Qu Qiubai betrayed all the secrets he knew and wrote the confession, the Nationalists still did not spare him. To betray the secrets, Qu Qiubai used lavish tobacco and wine, and initially even disliked rural coarse wine, but later the Nationalist generals found him fine wine and good liquor. With such pampered treatment, Qu’s value was exhausted, and he was shot by the Nationalists.\nAfter Qu Qiubai’s death, he turned to the right again, thus opening the path for Luo Zhanglong’s right opportunism, followed by Li Lisan’s “left” opportunism. In short, the CCP was continually oscillating between left and right opportunism, but those who held real power were always the opportunists, who were very good at deception. Either they used the prestige of intellectuals, or they used the identity of veteran revolutionaries and workers to deceive. In fact, they were all dogmatists. Among the later, the CCP’s greatest dogmatist and opportunist—Wang Ming—defeated other opportunists and held party power for several years, four or five years.\nUnder Wang Ming’s control, the CCP was completely emptied. He crazily promoted his own scheming confidants, expelled opponents, and pushed Mao Zedong’s status down again and again, eroding Mao’s position and power. At the eve of the Long March, Wang Ming used various insidious methods, first adopting the left-leaning, rightward opportunist line that did not cooperate with the Fujian people’s government (referring to the Fujian Incident), did not cooperate with Cai Tingkai’s 19th Route Army, and did not join with Cai Tingkai to resist, and the fifth anti-“encirclement” campaign failed again. In this situation, Wang Ming still prioritized his own personal power and ambition, and even downgraded a frontline organizer of great importance like Mao Zedong, a military talent, and installed him in a position with no real power. At this time, the CCP Central Soviet Region’s fifth counter-encirclement campaign failed, the enemy launched a major invasion, the Red Army and party members were reduced in number, and the party faced extinction. Mao’s own military and party power were taken away, and his wife Yang Kaihui was killed by the Nationalist reactionaries. Mao’s life seemed at an impasse, yet he did not give up. For the party’s interests and the revolution, he continued to insist on line struggle, persuading other comrades. Thus he finally took the road of the Long March.\nIn this 14-year period of opportunist struggle within the CCP, the vast number of party members and masses realized the harms of opportunism, and finally, at the Zunyi Conference in January 1935, established Mao’s leadership within the Party.\nHence, Mao’s leadership within the CCP was the result of a long process, filled with many lessons learned (and experienced). If the CCP had not developed in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, if Chinese workers did not possess such advanced nature, and if Chinese peasants did not have such revolutionary basis, then how could the CCP bear 14 years of experiments? How did the CCP develop in those 14 years? It was built on a solid worker-peasant alliance, under a very powerful working class, and a peasant class that expelled the landowners in the countryside, establishing rural revolutionary bases, thus allowing the 14-year loss to be borne and for intellectuals to be misled. In an imperialist country, allowing opportunists to run such a 14-year program would have meant the party’s extinction.\nTherefore the CCP’s success was by no means the result of two individuals’ greatness alone. We cannot deny Mao’s role in China’s revolutionary history, but the CCP’s success was because China was a country with concentrated and acute social contradictions, with highly advanced and revolutionary working class and peasantry, and with a strong revolutionary and combative character. The stability of this worker-peasant alliance, the revolutionary progress of workers and peasants, and the concentration and sharpness of social contradictions, drove revolutionary forces and needs to combine, producing a revolutionary party.\nSimilarly, the Bolsheviks had such advantages. But the Bolsheviks’ advantages included intellectuals of higher quality than those of the CCP, who, after being tempered by Lenin’s leadership in the “Association for the Liberation of the Working Class,” had already undergone theoretical struggle before founding the party, defeated all opportunists, and thus established a purer Bolshevik party. Therefore, within three years after founding the Bolshevik party, they led the nationwide armed uprising (1905 Revolution); by the 15th year after founding, they led the October Revolution, overthrowing the tsarist regime and establishing Soviet Russia.\nThus, the correctness of ideological and political line determines everything. The Russian revolution progressed rapidly because the Bolshevik line led by Lenin was correct, and the CCP’s later success after 1935, including resisting Chiang Kai-shek, uniting the nation against Japan, and winning the war of liberation, was inseparable from Mao’s correct leadership and the guidance of this correct line. Therefore, the correctness of the line in thought and politics determines everything.\nIn many other countries in the past there were revolutionary crises as well. Germany experienced several revolutionary crises. When World War I was ending in 1918, Germany saw the November Revolution, Kiel sailors began the uprising, and the militarist government collapsed. The result was that there was no Communist party in Germany at that time; the Communist party was not established until January 1919, and at that time the party was very immature, lacking leadership and mass base, with little national influence, so the November 1918 revolution quickly failed. Later the Hungarian Communist Party led the 1919 Hungarian Revolution, but the party—the Hungarian Communist Party with 15,000 members and the Hungarian Social Democratic Party with 750,000 members—merged with the latter, dissolving the Communist party; this was another example of failure in the 1919 revolution. This was also because the Hungarian Communist Party was immature, inexperienced, or naive, betrayed by social-democratic traitors.\nAfterwards, Italy also experienced several revolutionary crises. During WWI, northern Italy saw workers taking over factories. In the 1920s’ economic crisis, similar events occurred. In 1923, Germany’s Ruhr occupation by France led to passive resistance and rampant inflation, merging German national and economic crises. At that time, Germany also formed a revolutionary situation; in Saxony, a workers’ government was formed led by the Communist Party and the German Social Democratic Party. But the Communist Party at that time was not mature, leadership was in the hands of opportunists like Brandler, who betrayed the German revolution, despite a favorable revolutionary situation. They even planned a nationwide armed uprising in October 1923, but Brandler’s rightist capitulationism led to the cancellation of the uprising; Hamburg ventured to rise up without notice and without cancellation, and was crushed.\nThus, the correctness of ideological and political line is decisive. Without the right line, no matter how mature the objective conditions or how strong the revolutionary forces, failure is almost certain. There are many examples, including after WWII when the French Communist guerrillas controlled most of liberated zones, or Italy’s Communist forces controlled much of the guerrilla forces; under such conditions, De Gaulle and Togliatti happily replaced, etc., leading to capitulations and handing over military and political power. Many countries experienced similar outcomes; Tito in Yugoslavia, too. Yugoslavia was among the first to resist Nazi Germany in Southeast Europe, liberated early, but later, under the leadership of ambitious opportunists within party control and their factional groups, drifted toward revisionism and finally betrayed the achievements of WWII for personal gain.\nSo the correctness of the ideological and political line is decisive.\nThe historical experience of the Chinese Communist Party and the historical experience of the international Communist movement since Marx prove this to be a timeless truth. A party’s success or failure depends on whether its line is correct. If the line is not correct, even with control over central leadership, regional leadership, and the army, it will still collapse; if the line is correct, there may be no army or no power, but power will exist. The CCP’s leadership of the Chinese people’s revolution was a victory of Mao Zedong’s proletarian revolutionary line. Mao’s correct line did not arise naturally or peacefully; it existed because it contrasted with mistakes and grew through struggle. Mao insisted on combining the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with China’s specific practice, and established the correct line, principles, and policies for the Party, guiding comrades to overcome left and right opportunism within the Party, and leading the entire people to defeat strong enemies at home and abroad. The CCP is a Marxist-Leninist party that grew and matured through the struggles of two lines within the Party and the fights against domestic and international enemies.\nWe have now reached a stage where revolutionary conditions are increasingly mature. We are still in the era of imperialism and the era of proletarian revolution; what we are doing now is to accumulate strength for revolution. Why did the CCP fail so severely at that time while the Bolsheviks did not fail? It seems hard to understand, but in fact, it is clear: the CCP was very naive, though founded under revolutionary necessity. Marxism was transmitted to China around 1919 and the CCP was founded in 1921. In this context, Marxism was supplied to China by petty-bourgeois intellectuals, who then monopolized the interpretation of Marxism. They had not been tempered in revolution, and thus capitalized on China’s extremely concentrated and sharp social contradictions, and the very strong power of workers and peasants, to easily establish the CCP. Under the objective needs and forces in China, the CCP was formed easily and subsequently easily failed, as the old saying goes, “What is easily gained is easily lost.”\nSo how was the Bolshevik party established? In Russia, before revolution matured, Marxism began to develop gradually there. Lenin explained how the Bolshevik party came about. Marxism arrived in Russia after half a century of exploration, attempts, failures, tests, and sacrifice by Russian revolutionaries, who, before leading workers in armed uprising, allowed intellectuals to engage in revolution, benefiting from a long period of adjustment and sacrifice. From the founding of the “Labor Liberation Society” to the establishment of the Bolshevik Party, twenty years passed. Lenin himself was exposed to Marxism from a young age and gained revolutionary experience through class struggle. He was not a god who descended from the heavens; he did not suddenly appear as a revolutionary in 1903 and organize a revolutionary party. In 1903 Lenin was 33 years old, but he had already begun to engage with revolution at 17, leading student movements, mastering Marxism. He had 16 years of revolutionary experience and 16 years of study in Marxism by then. He did not appear as a “parachuted strongman” to unify the Russian revolution.\nWhen Lenin was 17, he was still in school, a student. When his first leadership of student movements was suppressed by the police, the police chief said to Lenin, “You know what you are facing? A wall.” Lenin replied, “It’s only a rotten wall; give it a shove and it will fall.” This shows Lenin’s firm revolutionary will, since he had already lived in Russia’s intense political struggle before the age of 17 and was familiar with political struggle. His whole family participated in revolution; his brother was a narodnik who participated in assassination attempts on the Tsar and was executed. Lenin said, “This road we must not walk; this road is not the road for us.” He was early inducted into revolution and tempered by revolution.\nWhen Lenin studied at Kazan University, he used his schooling to form the first Marxist group in Samara. He was not yet 20. He formed a Marxist group in Kazan and brought together Marxist groups in the city and student organizations, began attempting to combine with workers, and using his law studies—though he did not graduate—to assist peasants in suing landlords. Local landlords, hearing that Vladimir Ilyich would defend them in court, trembled but agreed to the peasants’ requests. Lenin did not finish Kazan University—does that degree matter?\nLater Lenin moved to Saint Petersburg, where he deepened his engagement with the working class. In 1894 he began to organize all of Petersburg’s Marxist groups into one, to unify with the working class, to write and distribute pamphlets, and to organize workers to go on strike. This was Russia’s first attempt to combine Marxism with the working class. In October 1895 Lenin established Russia’s first Marxist organization, the Petersburg Committee for the Liberation of the Working Class, truly leading the working class. However, only three months after its establishment, in December 1895, Lenin and most of his comrades were betrayed by the tsarist regime and jailed. After more than a year, in March 1897 they were exiled to Siberia. Lenin completed hard labor in 1900, was exiled for nearly three years, and after completing his sentence, decided to continue pushing Russia’s revolution. He went into exile in Europe to establish “Iskra,” set up a vast underground network, and create Russia’s political organs in exile.\nSo how did Lenin mature? He matured under such arduous conditions and through years of revolutionary struggle. In Gorky’s Reminiscences, Lenin wrote that he knew little of Russia, only Simbirsk, Samara, and Petersburg, and a bit of Siberia. He had only been in a few places in Russia: Simbirsk his hometown, Samara where he studied, Petersburg where he organized the workers’ movement, and Siberia as exile—yet in each place he connected with the local working people, learned of their suffering, and maintained class struggle. He continued to practice Marxism in each place. Even in prison he did not abandon class struggle; there is a famous story of Lenin writing with bread and milk as ink and paper, consuming the bread when a jailer discovered it.\nLenin matured this way. In this maturation, he also identified many opportunists. Before founding the party, he had already undergone much struggle. Lenin previously made mistakes, such as not recognizing the essence of people like Plekhanov who worshipped knowledge as capital and compromised with opportunism to maintain collaboration with him. Lenin argued that the party must criticize and oppose Plekhanov’s misuses of Marxism; he insisted on a principled critique even when cooperating. This struggle is recorded in Lenin’s articles on how the Iskra editorial board almost collapsed due to Plekhanov’s manipulation.\nThus Lenin engaged in struggles with opportunists even before the party’s founding. He was opposing legal Marxists and later defending against populists in his early writings, such as “What Is to Be Done?” which condemned populism and economism. This work cleared the minds of revolutionary intellectuals in Russia of conspiratorial and economistic thought, establishing Marxism-Leninism as the mainstream among Russian intellectuals and forming the basis for the Bolshevik Party.\nWhy am I telling so much? Because it shows two scenarios. One: in China, when revolutionary momentum was high but subjective revolutionary conditions were lacking and the party was not equipped with revolutionary theory and experience, it incurred a 14-year loss and suffered great sacrifice, but eventually found the right path. The other: intellectuals led workers and peasants to sacrifice and, after decades of struggle, defeated opportunism, forged a party with revolutionary theory and revolutionary methods, and accelerated the Russian revolution’s victory. So there are two paths. A party with immature revolutionary theory and construction must bear the costs in revolution.\nSo at which stage are we now? We are like the Peterburg Workers’ Liberation Society, or the Labor Liberation Society, in the stage of revolution preparation. If we advance one more step in class struggle, gain more revolutionary experience and capabilities, and understand more revolutionary theory, we can avoid sacrificing thousands or tens of thousands in future revolutionary practice. This is the difference between the Russian and Chinese lines. If in the preparation stage a party lacks revolutionary experience and theory, it will, like the Chinese Communist Party, sacrifice thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of communists and workers and peasants during its 14-year formation.\nThus, the correctness of the line in thoughts and policies determines everything. The historical role of communists is thus to, according to the role communists play in social and historical progress, reduce losses, ease suffering, and accelerate the historical transformation. This is the role of the Communist Party and its members. In our revolutionary organization today, class struggle issues that are not yet resolved will certainly develop into bigger problems in future revolutionary practice, with greater costs. As we have repeatedly said, we must prevent revisionism, decisively tackle bureaucratism, eliminate bourgeois ideas from our organization, solve individualism and liberalism, and deal with formalism; solving these issues now is a precondition for our future stronger and more urgent revolutionary actions.\nInside the CCP, the two-line struggle reflects the social class contradictions and the old-new things in the party. If the party lacks contradictions and struggles to resolve them, its life ceases. We should all deeply feel this truth. If our association had not conducted class struggle and ideological struggle for all these years since its founding, it would have collapsed long ago. We indeed conduct struggles in all aspects, right? Our association is completely different from other groups that call themselves Marxist organizations. All members of our association are real workers, proud of their proletarianization, pragmatic and practical in standard, a revolutionary organization rooted in action rather than empty talk. Therefore we have long carried out class struggle, and it is the earliest and most frequent. At the same time, in building and strengthening party organization, we conduct continuous ideological and theoretical struggles, and use the outcomes of class and ideological struggles to serve our political struggles, i.e., in our concrete writing and propaganda activities, spreading and promoting Marxism. This is the full scope of what class struggle can accomplish in our current stage. Therefore our association truly upholds the revolutionary cause of class struggle. Only by advancing class struggle now can we avoid paying higher costs later.\nFor those “leftist circle” organizations, I won’t name them; naming them would be too low-level, as they do not deserve to provoke us. Those leftist groups that secretly smear or publicly denigrate the association, have they achieved our level in economic struggle, theoretical struggle, or political struggle? None. They cannot even figure out economic struggle; they don’t even have many who have worked; they only spread rumors. Their slanders and all online activities are only to comfort their own comfortable life and to float in the bourgeois spiritual opium of the sea, so they keep blasting us to soothe their own consciences; this is their sole purpose.\nSo today’s class struggle is to prepare for future revolutionary actions. We need not engage in online battles with these leftist and opportunist organizations; there is no need to show off. They can spread rumors to their heart’s content, but will not step forward in real actions. Yet our constant progress in practical actions, ongoing revolutionary practice, and the courage to confront, admit, expose, and criticize ourselves will push each comrade forward, and will also advance our revolutionary organization, laying a foundation for future revolution.\nThus, in the process of exposing and resolving contradictions, our association will continue to advance and progress. Those leftist circles lack such glorious traditions; they do not understand class struggle or ideological struggle. Even the robber nests formed by traitors who fled from our association will not engage in true ideological struggle, using mere slogans to boast and to dismantle opponents, then hanging a “drag on the tiger’s tail” flag, writing articles to cover their own comforts and pleasures.\nThe CCP has undergone more than fifty years of history and ten major line struggles. In the period of New Democratic Revolution, Chairman Mao applied Marxism-Leninism on the theory of violent revolution, insisted on seizing power by force, and formulated the party’s new-democratic revolutionary line led by the proletariat, guiding the party and the broad revolutionary masses in class struggle against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism at home and abroad. This is reflected in the party’s internal and external line. There were six major line struggles within the Party. Under Chairman Mao’s Marxist-Leninist line, the Party defeated Chen Duxiu, Qu Qiubai, Li Lisan, Luo Zhanglong, Wang Ming, Zhang Guotao, and other leaders of left and right opportunism; it upheld the proletarian leadership of the revolution, built and developed revolutionary armed force, organized and consolidated the revolutionary united front, carried out rural-based revolution to encircle the city, achieved city-based power and armed seizure of national power; after 28 years of struggle, established the people’s democratic dictatorship and the proletarian dictatorship to guarantee.\nDuring the socialist revolution and socialist construction, Chairman Mao inherited, defended, and developed Marxism-Leninism’s theory of continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, formulating the basic line for the entire socialist historical stage. He led the whole Party, the whole army, and the people of all ethnic groups to wage a large-scale struggle against the bourgeoisie and all exploiters, fought resolutely against revisionism during the international scenes, and in the Party, around persisting with the basic line of the Party, and through the suppression of the Gong’s, Rao’s, and Peng Dehuai anti-Party cliques, Mao personally initiated and led the proletarian cultural revolution, overthrowing Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao’s two bourgeois command centers, defeating enemies, mobilizing the masses, educating cadres, boosting the development of productive forces, guiding the country along Mao Zedong’s revolution line, and achieving the great victory of safeguarding the dictatorship of the proletariat and preventing a capitalist restoration. This was a heavy blow to all reactionary forces at home and abroad. A few domestic enemies attacked the proletarian Cultural Revolution from the opposite side, telling us that this revolution was entirely necessary and timely.\nLenin stated: “Revisionism is an international phenomenon.” It is an international bourgeois trend. In our Party, some revisionist leaders pop up to perform, and they have international backgrounds. They want to perform revisionism in China, inevitably colluding with imperialists, social-imperialists, and world imperialists to invade and subvert us. The revisionists’ agents in our Party are the tools to be brought in or pushed out. As long as we remain in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, revisionism remains the main threat. Upholding Marxism and opposing revisionism are our long-term battle tasks and a necessity to fulfill the great historical mission of the proletariat.\nMarxism-Leninism holds that the liberation of the proletariat and revolutionary people has a bright future, though the path is winding. Moving from chaos to governance is the objective law of class struggle and the general trend of history. Our Party’s history shows that the great, glorious, and correct Chinese Communist Party, guided by the correct line represented by Mao Zedong, fought long and hard against class enemies inside and outside the Party, and did not split or be crushed. On the contrary, Mao’s Marxist-Leninist line developed further, and our Party grew stronger. History convinces us that our Party has hope.\nOur study of the history of China’s two-line struggle must follow Chairman Mao’s teachings: study hard, learn Marxism to understand it; we must adopt the method of unifying theory and practice; and we must uphold the line struggle as the main thread. These are the three requirements for rectifying all problems we currently face: one: study hard, master Marxism; two: unify theory and practice so that Marxism does not become empty talk or dogma but guides our actions; three: keep line struggle as the main thread, centering all activities on advancing class struggle. By studying Chairman Mao’s works and combining with Marx, Engels, and Lenin’s works, we must use the basic theories of Marxism to arm ourselves, understand the history of the struggle between Marxism and the new and old revisionism and various opportunisms, understand how Chairman Mao integrated Marxism-Leninism’s universal truth with revolutionary practice, inherit, defend, and develop Marxism-Leninism. We must implement the principle of unifying theory and practice, correctly understand the relationship between domestic class struggle and international class struggle, and between social class struggle and internal party struggle, and we must persist with line struggle as the main thread.\nDeeply grasp Chairman Mao’s principle: “To promote Marxism, not revisionism; to unite, not split; to be open and upright, not engage in scheming.” Continue to advance the anti-Lin, anti-Right,批,批,批, and continue to criticize revisionist and孔思想的反动思想,批判资产阶级世界观. Learn from two-line struggles within the Party, especially the experiences of the tenth line struggle, further understanding the characteristics and laws of class struggle and the two-line struggle during socialist revolution, improve awareness of class struggle, two-line struggle, and continuing revolution, and strengthen the ability to distinguish true Marxism from false. Distinguish what is Chairman Mao’s Marxism-Leninism line, from opportunist revisionist lines. According to Chairman Mao’s theory and practice of two-line struggle, develop revolutionary spirit that dares to oppose the current trend, actively and correctly conduct inner-Party struggle, uphold the Party’s basic line and policies throughout the entire socialist history, uphold continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, unite for greater victory.\n

”,“target_locale”:“en” }

烽火Flame · January 15, 2026, 6:09am

Summary of RedGPT on 【Preface】:

1. The main purpose of this speech: Study Party history to serve the current ideological struggle

You emphasized that the preface of the “History of the Two-Line Struggle of the Chinese Communist Party” is not for “memorizing history,” but to deeper understand Marxism, class struggle, and line struggle.
You said you have already posted the first part of the conference report (an overview and theoretical issues not involving secrets) on the forum, and will try to publicly share theoretical summaries not involving security for comrades’ reference in the future.
You clearly pointed out: The significance of studying Party history lies in relearning the experiences of the two-line struggles and class struggles in history, to serve our current class struggle and organizational building.

2. The first core conclusion: Party, army, united front — “Three Magic Weapons” are the tools to seize and consolidate power

You returned to Chairman Mao’s basic judgment:
- A Communist Party built on Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and revolutionary style
- An army led by such a party
- A united front led by such a party
  These three are crucial weapons for seizing and consolidating power.
You pointed out that the “Three Magic Weapons” correspond to three central issues:
- Party building
- Armed struggle
- United front
You directly applied this to today: To build organizations and strive to establish a national party, we must follow this route and utilize the three magic weapons.
Especially the first: Must have a party with revolutionary theory and revolutionary style. This underscores the importance of ideological struggle and theoretical struggle: Without theoretical armament and struggle training, there can be no true proletarian vanguard.

3. The second core conclusion: Where do revolutionary theory and revolutionary style come from? From ideological struggle

You emphasized “ideological struggle” very firmly: It is theory struggle, forged in the tumult of class struggle.
You pointed out: Only a party formed in struggle, only a proletarian force formed in struggle and truly united with the people, can be considered a genuine Communist Party.
You criticized a dangerous illusion:
- The petty bourgeoisie without class struggle experience cannot bear the responsibility of building the Communist Party;
- Relying solely on “self-perceived revolutionary” or “reading a few books” to self-declare as Communist is politically untenable.

4. The third core conclusion: Why was the early CCP repeatedly controlled by opportunists? Rooted in “immaturity” and “subjectivism”

You used early Party line struggles to illustrate: The Party’s immaturity in its early stages allowed opportunists to infiltrate, rise, and cause great damage.

1) Where does “immaturity” manifest?

You focused on Mao’s critique of subjectivism:

Empiricism: Some practical experience but lacking theoretical weapons, unable to elevate to the level of line struggle;
Dogmatism: Reciting textbook phrases, posing as “orthodox,” detached from reality, suppressing correct lines.

You emphasized:

Empiricism ultimately tends to succumb to dogmatism.
Without theoretical weapons, it’s impossible to resist those intimidating with books, making it easy to be led by the nose.

2) Difficulties caused by complex internal composition

You explained that the Party at that time was composed of workers, peasants, and a large number of petty bourgeois intellectuals:

Workers lacked sufficient struggle experience and deep theoretical understanding, prone to losses in struggle;
Peasants were dispersed small producers, prone to laxity and resistant to systematic theory;
Petty bourgeois intellectuals were more detached from labor and masses, with strong private ownership ideas, personal reputation concerns, prone to “left” or “right” errors; some even used revolution as a tool for personal future.

This inevitably meant the Party had to pay tuition and learn lessons in its early days.

5. According to your narrative: Major line lessons during the New Democratic Revolution period

You clearly outlined each step of “wrong line — consequences — lessons learned” as you explained.

1) Chen Duxiu: Rightist capitulation line pushed the revolution to the brink of life and death

You pointed out that Chen Duxiu relied on “reputation” and intellectual circles to rise to power from the beginning, not on revolutionary practice or struggle.
He used personal authority to create factions, turning the Party’s accumulated prestige into personal capital.
He repeatedly undermined the Party’s leadership of the proletarian revolution, ultimately adopting a rightist capitulation: handing over Party leadership and control of the army to the Kuomintang, leading to the KMT’s slaughter of Communists and workers, pushing the Party to the brink of extinction.
You emphasized: This is not “personal mistake,” but a line problem: capitulating to the bourgeoisie, abandoning independent proletarian leadership.

2) After the August 7th Meeting: Although defeating rightist tendencies, the Party remained immature

You pointed out that the end of Chen Duxiu’s leadership at the August 7th Meeting was a necessary turning point.
But the Party was still immature, with subjectivism still present, especially dogmatism still overpowering empiricism, so the wrong line was not eradicated.

3) Qu Qiubai: “Left” in appearance, right in essence reckless adventurism, causing a second major blow

You explained that Qu Qiubai’s rise was also the result of petty bourgeois intellectual dominance within the Party.
He continued factionalism, attacking comrades who upheld the correct line (you cited Mao’s example).
Under severe enemy slaughter and White Terror, he promoted a “revolutionary climax” nationwide, ordering urban branches to launch open armed uprisings.
The result: The Party’s urban strength was exposed, brutally suppressed by reactionaries, most of the White Area and urban forces were wiped out, and the Party was again pushed to the brink of extinction.
You emphasized: Adventurism “left” in name is essentially “right” — it disregards preserving revolutionary strength, ignores mass conditions, treats revolution as a gamble, and in effect helps the enemy eliminate revolution.

(You also mentioned Qu Qiubai’s defection in prison and his “Extra Words” as a confession of treachery. These details illustrate that once such people go astray, they often harm the Party and masses, and may betray completely at personal moments.)

4) Subsequent oscillations: alternating right and “left” tendencies, opportunists repeatedly coming to power

You pointed out that within the Party, right and “left” opportunist lines kept recurring, shaking the Party repeatedly; these opportunists are skilled at deception, sometimes relying on “intellectual reputation,” other times on “old revolutionaries and workers,” but fundamentally still dogmatists and opportunists.

5) Wang Ming: The greatest dogmatist in control, causing the crisis before the Long March

You emphasized Wang Ming’s control of the Central Committee for many years, promoting cronies, excluding dissenters, repeatedly weakening Mao’s position.
He pursued a “left” in appearance but right in essence line, making major mistakes on key political and military issues, leading to the failure of the fifth anti-“encirclement” campaign and the near destruction of the Central Soviet Area.
Even as the Red Army shrank and crisis loomed, he prioritized personal power, disregarding revolutionary interests, continuing to attack correct line representatives.
You highlighted Mao’s role: Mao, even in extreme hardship and personal peril, persisted in line struggle for revolutionary interests, ultimately leading the Party onto the Long March.
The Zunyi Conference’s affirmation of Mao’s leadership marked a crucial turning point in recognizing the correct line and maturing the Party.

6) The political conclusion from the “14-year lessons”

You stressed that Mao’s consolidation of leadership in the Party was gained through many lessons and great sacrifices. Further, you pointed out:

China could endure 14 years of repeated failures because of sharp social contradictions, strong revolutionary tendencies among workers and peasants, and rural bases supporting the Party’s survival and struggle;
In imperialist countries, opportunists in power for 14 years would have already eliminated the Party;
Therefore, the Party’s success was not due to “a few geniuses,” but the result of the revolutionary nature of the masses and workers, combined with correct lines in struggle.

6. Key comparison you made: Why did the Bolsheviks suffer fewer losses than the CCP?

You used Russian experience not to praise foreign systems, but to illustrate the decisive importance of the “revolution preparation stage.”

1) The difference between two lines

China: Marxism was introduced relatively late, the Party was quickly established, but lacked theoretical struggle and screening, paying heavy sacrifices in practice.
Russia: Experienced long exploration and theoretical struggle before the Party’s founding; Lenin forged the team and eliminated opportunism through struggle, leading to faster, more stable revolution.

2) How Lenin was forged (your main line)

You emphasized Lenin was not an “air-dropped hero,” but was forged through long-term struggle:

Participated early in revolution, resisted Tsar repression with firm will in youth;
Organized Marxist groups, united scattered forces;
Deeply engaged with the working class, distributed leaflets, led strikes, integrating Marxism with the workers’ movement;
Organized the “Saint Petersburg Workers’ Liberation Struggle Society” (also noting its connection to our organizational name);
Persisted in revolutionary work during arrests, prisons, exile; later established “Mars” newspaper and built underground networks across Russia;
Most critically, before founding the Party, fought against opportunist and liberal distortions of Marxism, clarifying true Marxism, forging a new type of Party.

You used these examples to demonstrate:

Revolutionary leaders and revolutionary parties are forged in long-term class and line struggles, not by degrees, reputation, or rhetoric.

7. From international experience to general law: Wrong line, even with good circumstances, leads to failure; correct line, even without troops, can still win

You used examples from Germany, Hungary, Italy, and post-WWII France and Italy to emphasize the same principle:

Objective conditions for revolution may be ripe, but without the correct line, opportunists will betray;
Opportunists can cancel uprisings, surrender arms, hand over power, giving away years of mass struggle;
Conversely, with the correct line, revolutionary forces grow and strengthen in struggle: even without troops, there will be troops; even without power, there will be power.

8. Applying Party history experience directly to today: Why we must resolutely fight ideological struggle, anti-revisionism, and fight against bureaucratism

You pointed out several clear current directives:

We are now in the preparation stage of revolution, and must, like early Russia, solidify theoretical and line struggle, or future revolutionary actions will cost many sacrifices.
The issues we need to address today—anti-revisionism, fighting bureaucratism, combating individualism and liberalism, opposing formalism—are to prevent larger disasters later.
You emphasized that the internal struggle of two-line conflict reflects class contradictions within the Party:
- Without contradictions and struggle, the Party’s life ceases;
- Our organizational growth depends on daring to expose problems, struggle, and self-criticism, not on “harmony.”

9. Your characterization of the “Left Circle”: They attack us to justify their petty bourgeois lifestyle and personal ambitions

You explicitly exposed this faction at the end:

They are unqualified to criticize proletarian organizational building because they lack real achievements in economic, theoretical, and political struggles, and most lack practical labor experience.
They spread rumors and attack Marxists, not because of “misunderstanding,” but because they stand for comfort and personal interests: using the “Marxist banner” to justify personal individualism, low-level pleasures, and even personal ambitions.
We need not get involved in online fights: no matter how they stir, they won’t advance real struggle; we should focus on actual training, organization, and propaganda.

10. Your learning requirements: Three “musts” and three basic principles

You clarified the discipline of “how to learn and what to do with learning” at the end:

Three “musts”

Must carefully read and understand Marxist theory, improve theoretical level;
Must adhere to the unity of theory and practice, not treat Marxism as dogma or empty talk;
Must focus on line struggle, testing all activities within class struggle and organizational building.

Three basic principles

You emphasized deeply understanding Mao’s three principles:

Engage in Marxism, oppose revisionism;
Unity, oppose division;
Openness and honesty, oppose conspiracy and intrigue.

Applying these today means improving the ability to distinguish true and false Marxism during rectification, anti-revisionism, and the fight against bourgeois worldviews, daring to oppose currents, and continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship.

11. One-sentence summary (for those who did not participate)

You repeatedly proved through Party and international history:

Victory in revolution does not rely on luck, reputation, or rhetoric, but on the proletarian line forming and defeating opportunism in struggle; our current focus on ideological and line struggle is to train the team to be mature before the revolution, reducing countless sacrifices in the future.

北风 · January 15, 2026, 3:23pm

These three places are misspelled.

烽火Flame · January 18, 2026, 5:57am

Chapter 1, Section 1 (Part 1)

Chapter 1: The founding of the Communist Party of China, and Mao Zedong’s revolutionary line in struggle with Chen Duxiu’s rightist opportunist line.

Since the founding of the Communist Party of China on July 1, 1921, there has been a struggle within the party between the Marxist-Leninist line represented by Mao Zedong and the right-wing opportunist line. In the early period of the party’s founding, the central issue of the struggle was whether to found a party and what kind of party to establish. The two-line struggle during the first domestic revolutionary war period was the struggle between Mao Zedong’s proletarian revolutionary line and Chen Duxiu’s rightist capitulation line. The focus of the struggle was whether to uphold the leadership of the proletariat in the revolution. In the early and middle periods of this stage, the party’s line was correct; Mao Zedong’s works, such as Analysis of Chinese All Social Classes and Report on the Investigation of the Hunan Peasant Movement, represented the party’s correct line. In the later period, Chen Duxiu’s rightist opportunist line came to dominate within the party, leaving the party ill-prepared for anti-revolutionary sudden blows. When Chiang Kai-shek and Wang Jingwei betrayed the revolution and slaughtered workers and peasants, the broad masses, unarmed, witnessed the grand revolution collapse.

Section 1: Mao Zedong’s struggle to found the Communist Party of China, the party’s founding.

“To be revolutionary, there must be a revolutionary party.”
“In the historic era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, the proletariat must have its own Marxist-Leninist party, in order to lead the revolutionary masses to defeat imperialism and its running dogs, to overthrow the reactionary rule of the exploiting classes, to realize the dictatorship of the proletariat, and to advance toward socialism and communism. Marx and Engels had long pointed out: ‘In the struggle of the working class against the power of the property-holding classes, only by organizing into an independent party that stands in opposition to all old parties formed by the property-holding classes can it act as a class. It is necessary for the proletariat to organize into a party in order to ensure the victory of social revolution and the realization of its ultimate goal—the abolition of class.’”
“Lenin, in explaining the importance of building the party, also said: ‘Give us a revolutionary organization, and we can overturn Russia.’ Mao Zedong, in leading the great struggle for China’s people’s democratic revolution, also stated: ‘To be revolutionary, there must be a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, and without a party established according to Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses to defeat imperialism and its running dogs.’ Looking back at China’s revolutionary history and the party’s two-line struggle history further proves that this is a universal truth of Marxism-Leninism.”

Explanation: Yesterday, when we spoke about the preface, we mentioned that revolutionary conditions are both objective and subjective. The objective conditions are created by the laws of social history; the subjective conditions, of course, cannot be separated from those laws, but these laws operate through people’s practice. In many cases, even when objective conditions for revolution exist, due to insufficient subjective conditions, lack of correct party leadership, or choosing wrong lines, revolutions fail—countless such cases exist.

“To recognize the importance and necessity of establishing a proletarian revolutionary party in China, we must first recognize China’s social nature, because this is the fundamental basis for all revolutionary questions.”

Explanation: Therefore, to clarify the nature of revolution, to clarify its purpose, object, direction, and prospects, we must first clarify the social nature. If we cannot understand a society’s nature, we cannot correctly judge what the main contradiction in that society is, or which classes or groups, formed by which classes, are in struggle. Then we cannot make correct judgments about revolution’s nature, objectives, objects, prospects, or methods.

“Mao Zedong wrote in ‘Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China’: China’s feudal society lasted about 3,000 years. Since the Opium War of 1840, the imperialist Powers invaded China, at once promoting the disintegration of feudal society and introducing capitalist factors, turning a feudal society into a semi-feudal society; however, on the other hand, they brutally ruled China, transforming an independent China into a semi-colonial and colonial China. The characteristics of semi-feudal semi-colonial Chinese society are: although the natural economic basis of the feudal era was destroyed, the root of the feudal exploitation system still exists; national capitalism had some development but did not become the main component of China’s socio-economic structure, its strength was weak, and most of its forces had some or little contact with foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism. The imperialist oppression over China’s finances, economy, and lifeblood and its manipulation of China’s politics and military left China in disarray and disunity, with extreme imbalances in economic, political, and cultural development. Under imperialist and feudal oppression, China’s broad masses, especially the impoverished peasants, lived in poverty and lack of freedom, a condition seldom seen in the world.”

Explanation: “The root remains” refers to the feudal economic base—the feudal economic base still exists; the system of feudal land ownership still exists. Based on this feudal land ownership, the entire set of feudal production relations remains. Ownership is the first aspect of production relations; fundamentally, feudal land ownership has not been shaken, so the feudal production relations remain the foundation of feudal economy. On this basis, landlords could exploit peasants, rich peasants and landlords exploited peasants, and peasants became increasingly two-polarized.

It was on the correct analysis of China’s social nature that Mao Zedong proposed the strategic policy of peasant-based armed struggle and the revolutionary form of encircling the city from the countryside and seizing power by armed struggle. Because China is a country with semi-feudal and semi-colonial nature, regional political and economic development is extremely unbalanced, feudal economic foundations exist widely, and foreign imperialist domination continues. Under these conditions, China inevitably fractured into factions controlled by different warlords, forming the preconditions for armed peasant-based power. The feudal economy determines political fragmentation; the feudal economy is self-sufficient and opposes capitalist markets, creating regional divisions. Imperialists also developed different spheres of influence across China, supporting their agents within their own spheres. Under the sponsorship of international imperialism and on top of China’s feudal economic base, one warlord after another emerged. The continuous civil war among these warlords, along with deeply unbalanced economic and political development across China, allowed the worker-peasant alliance, the working class, and the peasant class to establish armed rule in areas with comparatively weak counter-revolutionary forces, by taking advantage of warlord fragmentation and mutual weakening.

“Therefore, ‘the contradictions within modern Chinese society between imperialism and the Chinese nation, feudalism and the people, are the primary contradictions.’ ‘These contradictions intensify the struggle; revolutionary movements develop day by day. The great modern and contemporary Chinese revolution arose and developed on the basis of these fundamental contradictions.’”

Explanation: Therefore, China’s main contradiction is between imperialism and the Chinese nation, feudalism and the people. These two contradictions are essentially one, because China’s large landowner and compradore bourgeoisie are the same people: they are landlords and compradors who must defend feudalism and imperialist rule. These landlord compradors are also imperialist agents. Jiang Jieshi, China’s greatest warlord, was a running dog of Anglo-American imperialism, representing the interests of the Zhejiang–Jiangsu capitalists and major landlords. Therefore to defeat foreign imperialist forces in China, it is necessary to overthrow the Chinese feudal landlord class and the comprador capitalists’ rule. Thus, annihilation of feudalism and imperialism and bureaucratic capitalism are consistent (these are the “three mountains”).

“From 1840 Opium War to the May Fourth Movement in 1919, Chinese people carried on more than seventy years of tireless and heroic struggle. This included the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom peasant rebellion led by Hong Xiuquan and Sun Yat-sen’s bourgeois-constitutional revolution. Although these struggles severely struck imperialist and feudal rule, they failed because they lacked proletarian leadership and its party.”

Explanation: The detailed process and the profound reasons for failure are described in “Hong Ren’gan’s Biography.” Why did peasant revolutions progress but still fail? Because there was no Communist leadership, no scientific worldview, and no revolutionary form conducted under the leadership of the Communist Party.

“Chinese peasants are the main force against imperialism and feudalism, but due to the stagnant productive forces and lack of correct leadership from the proletarian party, they could not put forward a complete democratic revolutionary program. Although the Chinese national bourgeoisie participated in the revolution for a certain period and to some extent, their economic and political weakness and their close ties with imperialism and feudalism prevented them from leading a thorough anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution. Thus the responsibility to lead China’s democratic revolution fell historically to the Chinese proletariat and its party.”

Explanation: This paragraph sums up the reasons for the failures of peasant and national bourgeois revolutions. The peasant revolution failed due to backward production and lack of a scientific worldview and correct leadership, inability to persist with the revolution. The national bourgeoisie, being a exploiting class, could not lead a thorough anti-imperialist anti-feudal revolution. A large number of them originated from feudal landlords and compradors, with deep ties to imperialism, making them ill-suited to lead a democratic revolution to its end. Since 1848, after the 1848 revolutions, the bourgeoisie could no longer lead the democratic revolution to victory. The task of leadership had to pass to the proletariat, which at that point, through Marx and Engels’ works (e.g., The German Ideology, The Communist Manifesto, etc.), proposed the idea of a workers-and-peasants alliance and proletarian leadership for a democratic revolution. Lenin’s leadership of the Bolshevik revolution clarified the path: a workers-peasants alliance and proletarian leadership for the democratic revolution. Later, Mao Zedong, in formulating New Democratic Revolution, defined a path that combined Marxism-Leninism with China’s realities, leading the Chinese Communist Party to victory; in 1949, the liberation war culminated in victory, the Nationalist Party expelled from the mainland, and a people’s democratic government established, completely abolishing the feudal system. During land reform, the process of land reform began; during the liberation war, the scale of land reform expanded; in the second year after liberation, nationwide land reform concluded, completely burying feudal land ownership, and abolishing feudal relations on China’s lands.

So, what is democracy revolution? What is democracy revolution? We return to this concept. Now that we know the New Democratic Revolution and the old democratic revolution, what exactly is a democracy revolution? Democracy revolution is simple: it is a revolution to abolish feudalism and feudal relations. The nature of democracy revolution is anti-feudal. The purpose of democracy revolution is to thoroughly abolish feudal production relations. That is why the bourgeoisie can lead democracy revolutions, and the proletariat can lead democracy revolutions. Because in terms of purpose, the bourgeoisie aims to abolish feudal production relations, and the proletariat also aims to abolish feudal production relations. Abolishing feudal production relations is the prerequisite for the proletariat to begin socialist revolution; if the feudal production relations are not abolished, there can be no talk of abolishing capitalist production relations and building socialist relations.

And the bourgeoisie also aims to abolish feudal production relations, but the problem is that the bourgeoisie is ultimately a exploiting class; the conflict between it and the feudal landlords is temporary and relative; the contradictions between it and the broad revolutionary people are absolute and eternal. Therefore, democracy revolution in the hands of the bourgeoisie can never be fully completed; only in the hands of the proletariat can it develop into the most thorough democracy revolution.

“‘Huaji’ and ‘luanma’ here have two meanings. Huaji thinks democracy revolution is bourgeois revolution; luanma says democracy revolution is bourgeois revolution. Actually, these are two concepts. It is both one concept and two concepts. ‘Being one concept’ means bourgeois revolution is democracy revolution, but democracy revolution is not necessarily bourgeois revolution. Generally, bourgeois revolution is understood as bourgeois democratic revolution. Secondly, democracy revolution is not necessarily bourgeois revolution; democracy revolution can be led by the bourgeoisie, and also by the proletariat, and even by the peasant class. The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom rebellion was a democracy revolution led by the peasant class, whose aim was to abolish the feudal ownership system.”

Thus, the Taiping rebellion reached the height of utopian communism. Why? It did not fight within the old system or the old mode of production. Taiping proposed the abolition of private property and feudal land ownership. Taiping’s proclaimed social ideal was “eat together, share wealth, cultivate land together, wear clothes together, no hunger anywhere, no inequality anywhere.”

Why can only the proletariat thoroughly realize democracy revolution? Because the proletariat is a class with no private property, the most selfless, most united, and most capable of steadfast revolutionary action. Only by abolishing all oppression and exploitation can the proletariat liberate itself. For such a class, its revolutionary end is to abolish the entire class society and the entire oppressive and exploitative system, achieving communism; its own elimination ensures the end of exploitation. Therefore, the proletariat will never abandon democracy revolution midway; it will carry it through to the end. This is the meaning of “the emancipation of humanity is my own emancipation,” the class essence of the proletariat.

“From the day it was born, the Chinese proletariat grew up in struggle against imperialism, feudalism, and the bourgeoisie. Its emergence and development not only accompanied the emergence and development of China’s national bourgeoisie, but also accompanied imperialist direct operation in China. ‘Thus, a large portion of China’s proletariat is older than China’s bourgeoisie in age and qualification; hence its social strength and social base are broader.’ From the Opium War to the May Fourth Movement, modern Chinese industrial workers had grown to around two million. In addition to the basic merits of the general proletariat—its association with the most advanced economic forms, its organizational discipline, and its lack of private ownership of the means of production—there were additional advantages: it suffered brutal exploitation and oppression from imperialists, the bourgeoisie, and feudal forces, so its struggle was the most determined and thorough; without a base in social reformism, except for a few corrupt workers, the entire class was revolutionary. Once it entered the political arena, under the leadership of its party, it became the most conscious class in Chinese society. Because a considerable number of workers came from ruined peasants and had natural ties with the broad masses of peasants, it was easy to form a solid alliance with the peasantry. The proletariat’s class character determined that it would inevitably become “an independent and leading class in history, eventually seizing power and becoming the ruling class.””

Explanation: This is the proletarian class’s superiority in China. Therefore, a straightforward historical materialist principle often requires extensive practical struggle to comprehend: Why is the proletariat the main driving force in social historical development, humanity’s hope for the future, and the primary class for achieving communism? Because the proletariat has no private property. What does “no private property” mean? We must deeply understand. Private property is not a thing; it is a relationship between people—a relationship in which individuals can own social labor. The reflection of private property is the permission for individuals to own social labor in their private name, the private ownership mindset. Because the proletariat never owns social labor in its individual name and cannot own social labor in its individual name, as long as society’s relationships keep the proletariat in a position that does not own social labor but contributes to society’s labor, the proletariat will forever maintain its revolutionary and combative character until the end, because the basis of all oppression and exploitation lies in economic oppression and exploitation. The justification for private ownership is the recognition of one’s own private ownership of social labor. This private ownership mindset—private ownership consciousness—arises from private property.

Thus, in this society, all differences—class differences, the production relations corresponding to these differences, and the social relations that arise from those production relations—and the corresponding ideological awareness all foster bourgeois legal privilege, and all become soil for capitalist restoration. For example, in our revolutionary organization, there are all sorts of differences; the essence of these differences is class difference. Do not think there are no class differences in a revolutionary organization; there are. Some people do little work and take lots of money, sit in air-conditioned rooms, at desks, snack on chips, type for two to three hours a day and then go home, eat ready meals, have comrades do laundry and cook. Is this not occupying others’ labor? Is this not living a life that occupies social labor in a private name, occupying social wealth? Such a life will surely alienate them from many comrades and the working people.

As for those who dream of becoming highly paid, working for big tech firms, and who say things like “selecting the goose” or “no goose postponement” (referring to Tencent), that kind of person, after graduation, will become a programmer and contribute to fascist tendencies. Especially once students enter college, and the freedom of youth comes, oppression on them lessens; their reactionary bourgeois nature is exposed even more. Therefore, students from worker and peasant families in school, rather than being educated, are more accurately subjected to the bourgeoisie’s indoctrination. However, as Lenin said, intellectuals can also split. Among the most enlightened in society, among intellectuals, there will be differentiation. The more knowledge and experience one has, the greater the advantages of intellectuals, but intellectuals from the petty-bourgeoisie, although not the ruling class, still have the ability to connect with and support oppressed people. In this process, some shift their stance to serve the working and peasant masses, leaving the old social class alliances to support the revolutionary intellectuals serving the workers and peasants.

Therefore Mao Zedong said that the final boundary between revolutionary and non-revolutionary or counterrevolutionary intellectuals lies in whether they are willing to unify with the workers and peasants. The kind of student who stubbornly treats knowledge as capital, joining the bourgeoisie’s faction, becoming a running dog for the bourgeoisie, seeking high salaries, and doing little work, will inevitably become an anti-revolutionary intellectual as Mao described.

Thus, “proletarianization” means this: proletarianization is to break completely with traditional ownership relations and to break with all traditional ideas. It requires breaking with private ownership and private ownership consciousness, not recognizing any behavior that occupies social labor in a private name, not recognizing the social relations that occupy social labor in a private name, and opposing such ideas of private possession. Therefore, one should understand what bourgeois legal privileges are, what privilege concepts are, and why the core of bourgeois privilege is the concept of hierarchy. Because bourgeois privilege is the legal expression of capital over production relations. What is its relation to production relations? It is the power of capital, formally equal but in practice unequal, the relationship of exploiting wage labor by capital. Its foundation is the recognition of private possession of social labor.

Thus, all differences in this society, all class differences, all these differences in the production relations that give rise to these differences, all the production relations corresponding social relations, and all the ideologies derived from these social relations will breed bourgeois privilege and become soil for capitalism’s restoration. For instance, in our revolutionary organization, there are all sorts of differences; the essence of these differences is class difference. Do not think there are no class differences in a revolutionary organization; there are. Some people do little work and take money, sit in air-conditioned rooms, snack, drink coffee, type a little, and then go home to eat ready meals, with comrades doing the laundry and cooking. Is this not occupying others’ labor? This is exactly life lived by private ownership of social labor.

As for those who dream of becoming paid fifty thousand yuan a month, entering a big factory, and saying things like “choosing goose” and “no goose extension” (geese referring to Tencent), such people will inevitably become the basis of fascist class, after graduation becoming programmers who uphold fascism. Especially once students enter university and enjoy a leisure, carefree life, such reactionary bourgeois tendencies will be exposed even more strongly. Therefore, workers’ and peasants’ children in school are not so much educated as subjected to bourgeois oppression.

But as Lenin said, intellectuals can also split. Among the most enlightened in society, there will be differentiation among intellectuals. With more knowledge and experience, intellectuals’ advantages appear. Intellectuals from the petty-bourgeoisie, though not the ruling class, can still come into contact with oppressed people and shift their stance toward serving the revolutionary workers and peasants. Hence Mao said that the final boundary between revolutionary and non-revolutionary or counterrevolutionary intellectuals lies in whether they are willing to work with workers and peasants.

Thus, “proletarianization” means exactly this: completely breaking with traditional ownership relations and all traditional ideas. It means refusing to recognize private ownership of social labor, not recognizing any person’s private ownership of social labor and social wealth. Therefore, in this society, variations in life that stem from private ownership of social labor will breed bourgeois privilege, creating soil for capitalism’s revival. For example, in our revolutionary organization, there are various differences; the essence of these differences is class difference. Do not think there are no class differences in a revolutionary organization; there are. Some people do little work and take a lot of money, sit in air-conditioned rooms, at desks, eat snacks, drink coffee, type for a couple of hours, and then go home to eat prepared meals, while comrades do laundry and cook. This is owning others’ labor, living a life that privately owns social labor and wealth. Such a life will surely alienate them from fellow comrades and the workers.

As for those who dream of a 20,000–30,000 yuan monthly salary, working for big tech, who claim “selecting geese” or “not extending the goose” (geese referring to Tencent), such people will inevitably take this extremely shameful, reactionary, counterrevolutionary intellectual path. Because, to put it plainly, all these statements mean: I want to own others’ labor, and the more the better.

So, how is the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat forged? The proletarian revolutionary spirit can only be forged in a collective. Why only in a collective? Because individual life in a capitalist society naturally grows capitalism’s production relations. Individual life under capitalism serves private interests, harms others. Harming others and harming social labor will inevitably lead to owning others’ labor, to private ownership, to the private ownership mindset, and to development into bourgeoisie or spiritual bourgeoisie. Only in a collective can individual life be transformed into collective life. Those who maintain an individual life in a collective are attempting to break up the revolutionary collective. Living collectively within a revolutionary organization does not simply mean being physically located within a revolutionary organization; it means not acknowledging any life that occupies social labor and wealth in a private name. Collective life means everyone does what they can, and distributing according to need. In our revolutionary organization, we practice communism and military communism—everyone does what they can, and distributes according to need. Only in collective life, with the mindset of not owning social labor but contributing to society, can one truly develop into a proletarian. This is the entire meaning of proletarianization: to transform oneself into a person who does not own social labor but contributes labor and wealth to the revolution, and to be part of the revolution’s labor and wealth rather than owning it.

“The Chinese proletariat has, from the day it emerged, continuously fought against exploitation and oppression. For example, strikes: according to incomplete statistics, there were 11 strikes in 1913, 23 in 1917, and 30 in 1918. However, the early struggles were all spontaneous economic struggles, and such spontaneous struggles could not produce a communist ideological system. Communist ideas can only be instilled from outside.”

Explanation: Why? The What to Do has already discussed this. It is Lenin’s famous 1902 work What Is to Be Done?, which destroyed economism and laid the theoretical foundation for Bolshevik party-building. For decades in China’s left circles, many could not understand what What Is to Be Done says. It explains that communist thought can only be poured into the proletariat from the outside because the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat can only reach the level of trade-unionism. The proletariat’s struggle is economic struggle; its spontaneous struggle is economic; it can only operate within the narrow bounds of economic relations in the factory. In such struggles, the proletariat cannot realize a political confrontation with the bourgeoisie. If these economic struggles are not elevated to a political level, and the proletariat is not made a representative of all oppressed people, then the proletariat cannot awaken and cannot overthrow the bourgeois system. It will simply be influenced by market reforms, making small reforms to wages and the employment system, content with minor improvements, not touching the capitalist system. That is reformism, reformism is changing the status within the capitalist system, not abolishing it.

Thus, to instill communist thought into the proletariat, to enable the proletariat to become a conscious class and to organize as a class, is essential.

“Only by instilling Marxist scientific thought into the proletariat can the proletariat’s struggle transform from spontaneous to conscious struggle.”

Explanation: Otherwise, the proletariat cannot act as a conscious and organized class, cannot elevate itself to the level of a conscious class to lead the proletarian revolution. Without Marxist theory, proletarian revolution is impossible; “without revolutionary theory, there will be no revolutionary movement.” Therefore political struggle is very important. How can Marxist thought be instilled into the proletariat? It requires political exposure, and it requires our assimilation into the working and peasant masses while becoming proficient in Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism. Learn to identify all the unscrupulous phenomena in capitalist society, expose the economic and class relations behind each such phenomenon, and clearly reveal the political confrontation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Only in this way can the proletariat awaken as a conscious class, and only then can revolutionary politics among the various classes make the proletarian revolution possible.

“With the development of struggle, the proletariat gradually awakens to the urgent need for a scientific revolutionary theory to guide it and for its own revolutionary party to lead.”

May Fourth Movement and the spreading of Marxism-Leninism in China.
“October Revolution’s gunshot opened the way for Marxism-Leninism to reach us.” It awakened the Chinese people as never before. It produced a batch of intellectuals with preliminary communist ideas and began spreading Marxism-Leninism in China. In this process, Mao Zedong represented the correct direction of combining Marxism-Leninism with China’s revolutionary practice.

On December 26, 1893, Mao Zedong was born into a peasant family in Shaoshan, Xiangtan County, Hunan. From the start of his revolutionary involvement, Mao studied Marxism-Leninism seriously, engaged in practical struggle, and learned from the workers and peasants. In the summer of 1917, Mao conducted social investigations in rural Hunan. In the same year, he founded the workers’ night school in Changsha, personally taught, and promoted revolutionary activities. Through contact with workers and peasants, Mao absorbed inexhaustible wisdom and strength. In April 1918, Mao organized the revolutionary group “New People’s Study Association” aimed at transforming China and the world, conducting revolutionary activities in Hunan and other places, cultivating cadres such as He Shuheng, Cai Hesen, and Xiang Jiyu. In September of the same year, Mao traveled to Beijing to organize revolutionary youth to France for work-study, studied Marxism-Leninism and the Russian October Revolution in a systematic way, and visited Changxingdian locomotive factory to understand the workers’ hardships, propagating revolutionary truth to workers. In early 1919, Mao spread Marxism-Leninism in Beijing, Shanghai, and Changsha, and conducted anti-imperialist and anti-feudal propaganda and organization work.

In this period, a large number of intellectuals with preliminary communist ideas also spread Marxism-Leninism. Li Dazhao published articles like “The Victory of the People” and “The Victory of Bolshevism,” praising the October Revolution and propagating Marxism-Leninism.

Explanation: (Someone asked whether the French study group included Deng Xiaoping, Zhou Enlai, and others) Of course it was them, that group. At that time, Mao Zedong and Yang Kaihui were in love and preparing to marry, but Mao did not hold a wedding ceremony. After marriage, only a few close comrades ate a meal at home, then went north to Beijing to ask Hu Shi for money to organize this study group’s trip to France. They obtained 4,000 taels of silver, which were given to these students going to France. Deng Xiaoping said he suffered greatly in France; his monthly living allowance left him with only about 200 francs; he said he was short of money in winter in France. Later, from the study group, he received several hundred francs of relief money, barely surviving a winter, managed to dine on steak, croissants, coffee, and watch games. So Deng Xiaoping’s classic photo is him studying in France, standing in front of the Louvre, wearing a suit, leather shoes, a fine suit, and a coat, with a hat. This is the dress of a student who dreamed of becoming a programmer. Deng Xiaoping was adept at freeloading in a way.

“Under the influence of the October Revolution, Lenin called for China’s May Fourth Movement. In 1919, China’s May Fourth Movement erupted: the basic reason was imperialist aggression and the Beiyang warlords’ government’s internal oppression and capitulation. Its fuse was the Paris Peace Conference’s failure in China’s diplomacy in 1919. At Paris, under the control of British, American, and French imperialists, it not only refused China’s rightful demands for territorial integrity and sovereignty, but also decided that Japan would assume Germany’s privileges in Shandong. The Chinese Beiyang government’s government prepared to sign this so-called peace treaty. News of this aroused mass anger. In May 4, Beijing students organized protests. The May Fourth Movement is not only an unprecedented anti-imperialist and patriotic movement, but also a thorough campaign against feudal culture, as Mao later said: “The extraordinary historical significance of the May Fourth Movement lies in its uncompromising anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism.” It was part of the proletariat’s world revolution and marks the beginning of the new democratic revolution led by the Chinese proletariat.

In the May Fourth Movement, communist intellectuals recognized the power of the proletariat and the necessity of uniting with workers and peasants. They resolved to go to the workers and peasants to propagate Marxism-Leninism and organize.

Explanation: At that time, communist intellectuals did not retreat to offices or to big factories, nor sit in air-conditioned offices as “high-level intellectuals” or programmers. They went to workers’ areas, workers’ homes, and factories to become workers themselves.

“Thus, the May Fourth Movement promoted the spread of Marxism-Leninism in China, connected Marxism-Leninism with China’s revolutionary movement, and prepared for the founding of the Communist Party of China in terms of ideology and cadres.”

Explanation: How can a student be great? A student can only become great through proletarianization. The Communist Manifesto states that the petty-bourgeoisie is conservative, even reactionary, because they try to turn history’s wheel backward. If they are revolutionary, it is because they will soon join the ranks of the proletariat. The May Fourth Movement produced such an outcome: Mao’s May Fourth Movement called for the revolutionary and anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolution, with proletarian leadership.

After the May Fourth Movement broke out, Mao immediately engaged in battle, organizing and leading the Hunan Students’ Federation and Hunan’s various progressive groups, launching a city-wide student strike in Changsha, and initiating a large-scale boycott of Japanese goods. He actively guided revolutionaries to unite with workers and peasants.

Explanation: So those who advocate “massist backwardness” will fail again. The working class rises to the stage of history through political strikes and even armed rebellion. In Britain, France, and Germany, this is how it happens; in China as well. The working class rises to the stage with political struggle, not with concerns solely for personal interests.

“May Fourth Movement not only was an unprecedented anti-imperialist patriotic movement, but also a comprehensive anti-feudal cultural movement. ‘The time’s double banner of opposing old morality and promoting new morality, opposing old literature and promoting new literature, stood as the cultural revolution’s two flags, achieving great功.’ It first openly attacked the feudal ideological remnants that had sustained the landlord class for thousands of years, shouting the slogan ‘Down with Confucianism!’ It promoted democracy and science, opposed feudal rites that harmed people, created revolutionary theory, and produced a vibrant new cultural movement. After the May Fourth Movement began, the whole country saw a wave of dissemination of Marxism-Leninism and the Russian October Revolution, becoming the mainstream of the New Culture Movement.”
“Great Leader Mao Zedong gave the May Fourth Movement high praise. ‘The May Fourth Movement’s outstanding historical significance lies in its uncompromising anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism, which was necessary to achieve the goals not previously achieved by the Qing Revolution.’ ‘The May Fourth Movement was part of the proletariat’s world revolution at the time.’ It marked the beginning of the leadership of China’s proletariat in the New Democratic Revolution.”
“In the May Fourth Movement, communist intellectuals recognized the power of the proletariat and the necessity of combining with the working and peasant masses. They decided to go to the workers and peasants to propagate Marxism-Leninism and to organize.”

Explanation: Therefore, the communist intellectuals of that time did not stay in offices or big factories, nor did they sit in air-conditioned offices to pretend to be high-class, or to be programmers; they went to the workers’ districts, workers’ homes, and factories to become workers themselves.

“Thus the May Fourth Movement promoted the spread of Marxism-Leninism in China, and the combination of Marxism-Leninism with China’s revolutionary movement prepared for China’s Communist Party to be founded, ideologically and in cadres.”

Explanation: How can a student become great? Only through proletarianization. The Communist Manifesto says petty-bourgeois are conservative and even reactionary because they try to reverse history. If they are revolutionary, it is because they will soon move into the ranks of the proletariat.

“After the May Fourth Movement broke out, Mao immediately engaged in the struggle, organizing and leading the Hunan Students’ Federation and Hunan’s United Fronts, initiating a general student strike in Changsha, promoting the nationwide boycott of Japanese goods, and actively guiding revolutionary intellectuals toward a path that integrates with the working and peasant masses.”

Explanation: Therefore, calls for “out-of-touch with labor” are very reactionary. Out of touch with labor, writing without connection to workers, resulting in being detached from the masses, leads to hollow and tasteless output. Just like certain people who, for months, cannot produce anything useful; their minds are filled with thoughts of high-salary jobs, comfortable living, or parasitism and occupying others’ labor.

“May Fourth Movement’s aftermath produced a wide, wave-like spread of Marxism-Leninism and socialism-focused thought in China. Societies and journals promoting Marxism-Leninism and socialist ideas flourished. Zhou Enlai organized the “Awakening Society” in Tianjin and published Awakening; Huny and Ying organized mutual-aid societies in Wuhan, publishing Mutual Aid. It is estimated that more than 200 new periodicals with socialist propaganda in some degree appeared nationwide.”

Marxism-Leninism’s spread in China elicited extreme hatred and fear from class enemies. The right-wing intellectuals, such as Hu Shi, claimed that Marxism was not suitable to China’s conditions and argued for bourgeois liberal reforms, opposing Marxist revolutionary violence. Some landlords and compradors, under the guise of socialism, promoted capitalist cooperation with capitalists, Parliamentarian reformism, and other reformist fallacies, opposing Marxist revolutionary violence. Some anarchists promoted absolute freedom, denying all authority, opposing Marxism’s theory of proletarian dictatorship. The Mao Zedong-led communists clashed decisively with these anti-Marxist currents. Mao believed only Marxism-Leninism could solve China’s path forward. He stated: “A doctrine is like a banner; once the banner is raised, people have hope and know what to follow.” Mao also asserted: “All reactionary ruling classes in history will not resolve their own fate until someone comes to overthrow them; hoping they will return to virtue is a fantasy. Only by following the Russian path of violent revolution can China’s society be thoroughly transformed.” Adopting the Russian path, reformism, parliamentarianism, and anarchism were all ineffective. This struggle crushed class enemies’ assaults, promoted the wide dissemination of Marxism-Leninism in China, and created favorable conditions for the founding of the Communist Party of China.

(The following is a Q&A session)
Question 1: Why could Deng still pretend until later?
Answer: Why could he pretend until later? Because you are looking at this with a priori theory and wearing a priori glasses; you know the ending. But the people at that time did not know the ending. Ask yourself: who among us knows who would betray later? You don’t know. Why don’t you know? Because you have not engaged in revolutionary struggle, you have no revolutionary practice and experience, and you have not elevated your Marxism-Leninism level, so you cannot distinguish true Marxism from false. Just like some new comrades who cannot distinguish true Marxism. Some people talk about establishing a “small sacred treasury,” and then hand over 300 RMB. It was extorted to buy snacks. Afterward, this comrade who learned of it could not believe it. This shows the inability to differentiate. Of course, they cannot pretend forever; opportunists must go bankrupt in front of Marxism. It is not a lenient matter; it is about helping them transform. Only those who stubbornly resist and refuse to reform, who do not give up their exploitation of others’ privileges, will eventually become traitors.

Question 2: Please repeat the difference between Old Democratic Revolution and New Democratic Revolution you mentioned at the study group’s opening?
Answer: I’ve said it all; why do you ask again? It shows you didn’t listen carefully. Both are democratic revolutions, both aim to abolish feudalism and feudal production relations. The Old Democratic Revolution refers to bourgeois leadership of democratic revolution; the New Democratic Revolution refers to proletarian leadership of democratic revolution. The Old Democratic Revolution is not necessarily led by the bourgeois; it can be led by the peasant class. The key point is that it is mainly led by the bourgeois, not the proletariat. The New Democratic Revolution is led by the proletariat.

Question 3: Is the bourgeois revolution meant to be led by the bourgeois, or is its subjective aim to realize capitalism, or is it enough that objectively it benefits capitalist development?
Answer: The concept of bourgeois revolution can be intricate. Generally, it refers to a revolution led by the bourgeois. But sometimes it carries the meaning of a revolution that advances capitalism and abolishes feudal production relations, i.e., the democratic revolution. For example, it is said to have “bourgeois revolutionary character.” But generally we understand it as bourgeois-led. So there are several interpretations.

Question 4: Does socialism’s superstructure appear before or after socialism’s economic base?
Answer: Socialist economic base cannot arise in a capitalist society. In capitalist society, socialist production relations cannot arise spontaneously. Only after abolishing capitalist society, seizing state power, and transforming the entire society’s economy can socialist production relations emerge. Because socialism first requires public ownership; how can it exist in a capitalist society? It cannot; you must seize power, confiscate private property, especially bourgeois private property, and implement nationalization. Only then can socialism be implemented.

Question 5: What kind of students are willing to revolutionize?
Answer: Oppressed students are willing to revolutionize; students who can accept proletarianization are willing to revolutionize. Those who want to become rich or want to work less and take more money, to exploit others, and those who want to be programmers are not willing to revolutionize. Those who want to hold stock market manipulation will not revolutionize. oppression does not always lead to revolution; we must look at what kind of oppression is involved. Take the example of a noodle shop owner couple. The wife is oppressed by the husband; but if she sides with her husband against the movement, she is not oppressed but part of the wealthy petty bourgeoisie who oppress others; thus she is not oppressed. Some drivers’ wives also manage to network and profit from their husbands’ labor, living off others’ labor; they are not oppressed but oppress others. Thus one must examine social relations to determine who is oppressed and who is not.

For example, the Huawei 251 incident: a person was targeted by Huawei; netizens pushed back and pressured Huawei; after the person was released, he expressed thanks to Huawei and the company as if the netizens were too aggressive. There are many such cases, including the parents in the Pu City incident who, after receiving government compensation, betrayed the memory of their deceased son and urged “don’t incite.” There are people who have received revolutionary organization education and have learned Marxism, but later forget the organization’s ideals, forget their oppressed identity, and live a comfortable life in university, while still insisting on becoming programmers and oppressing others. Such people are not oppressed; they want to oppress others, so we must evaluate from the entire social relations.

Note: The above is a faithful translation preserving formatting and terms.

烽火Flame · January 18, 2026, 6:00am

RedGPT Summary:

Alright, below I will do only one thing:
Organize this entire section you provided into a systematic summary that even someone who hasn’t seen or heard it can directly grasp the core ideas and the logical structure.
No evaluation, no correction, no additional external material, no change of stance, only faithfully distill what this section discusses, how it justifies step by step, and where the conclusions point to.

Chapter 1 · Section 1 · Part 1

Core content systematical summary (for learners who did not participate)

I. The fundamental problem awareness of this section: Why must the Chinese revolution establish a proletarian party

From the very beginning, this section explicitly poses a fundamental proposition:

If there is to be a revolution, there must be a revolutionary party; without a proletarian Marxist-Leninist party, the Chinese revolution cannot be accomplished.

Around this proposition, the section answers four progressively deeper questions:

Why must China establish a proletarian party, rather than rely on existing forces?
What are the objects, paths, and leading classes of the revolution determined by the nature of Chinese society?
Why cannot peasant revolution or bourgeois-democratic revolution achieve final victory?
Why can only the proletariat and its party carry the democratic revolution through to the end?

II. The fundamental reason for revolution’s success or failure: subjective conditions — the line and the party

1. Revolution depends not only on objective conditions but also on decisive subjective conditions

This section begins by emphasizing a basic historical materialist judgment:

The objective conditions of revolution come from social-historical laws;
But social-historical laws can only act through human practice;
In reality, many revolutions fail even when objective conditions are present, because:
- There is no correct leadership by the party,
- There is no correct line.

Therefore, revolution failure is not “the people are incapable,” but rather subjective conditions are not mature.

III. To understand the Chinese revolution, one must first understand the nature of Chinese society

1. Social nature is the starting point for judging all revolutionary issues

To clarify:

Revolution’s nature
Revolutionary object
Revolutionary goals
Revolutionary path
Revolutionary prospects

The prerequisite is only one: the social nature and the principal contradiction must be clarified.

2. The fundamental characteristics of semi-feudal, semi-colonial China

You systematically explain Mao Zedong’s analysis in “On Protracted War” and “On Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party” about Chinese society:

China’s feudal society has persisted for thousands of years;
After the Opium War:
- On one hand, feudal natural economy was disrupted;
- On the other hand, feudal land ownership and feudal exploitation relations still existed;
National capitalist forces were weak, under dual control by imperialism and feudal forces;
State sovereignty was lost, political, military, and economic lifelines controlled by imperialism;
Domestic political and economic imbalances were extreme, warlord fragmentation existed for a long time;
The broad masses, especially peasants, suffered unprecedented oppression and exploitation.

3. The main contradiction of Chinese society

From this, the conclusion is drawn:

Imperialism vs. Chinese nation
Feudalism vs. the broad masses

These two contradictions in China are not parallel but highly overlapping:

Landlord class = comprador class
Feudal forces = social base of imperialism’s rule in China

Therefore, the struggle against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism is essentially one and the same revolutionary struggle, i.e., to overthrow the “three mountains.”

IV. Why armed peasant-fighter carve-out areas and rural encirclement of cities is the inevitable path

In this section you clearly point out:

Feudal economy’s self-sufficiency → inevitably leads to political separatism;
Imperialism builds代理 in different regions → intensifies warlord clashes;
Warlord clashes + regional development imbalances → anti-revolutionary rule is not a solid block;

This provides the practical premise for:

Armed peasant-fighter carve-out areas, rural encirclement of cities, and seizing power by force,

not a subjective choice.

V. Why the old democratic revolution failed

1. The fundamental cause of peasant revolution’s failure

Peasants are the main force in anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle;
However, constrained by backward productive forces;
Lack of scientific worldview;
No leadership by a proletarian party;
Inability to propose a thorough democratic revolutionary program;

Therefore, peasant revolutions can only repeatedly fail within the old制度 framework.

2. The fundamental cause of bourgeois-democratic revolution’s failure

National bourgeoisie is weak economically and politically;
Deeply tied to imperialism and feudal forces;
Fears awakening and growth of workers and peasants;
Cannot and does not dare to mobilize the broadest masses;

Therefore, bourgeois-democratic revolution must inevitably fail halfway.

VI. The true meaning of the democratic revolution: fundamental difference between old and new democratic revolutions

1. The essence of democratic revolution

The essence of democratic revolution is not “democratic制度,” but:

Abolition of feudal制度, feudal land ownership, and feudal relations of production.

2. The fundamental differences between old and new democratic revolutions

Old democratic revolution:
- Not led by the proletariat (mostly upper bourgeois or peasant classes)
- Incomplete; ultimately fails or reverses
New democratic revolution:
- Led by the proletariat
- Based on a workers-peasants alliance
- Can carry the democratic revolution through to the end and transition to socialist revolution

3. Why only the proletariat can completely complete the democratic revolution

You present the section’s core, most systematic theoretical argument:

The proletariat has no private property of its own
Private property is not a thing but:
- A social relation of private ownership of social labor in the name of individuals
The proletariat:
- Does not own social labor
- Does not agree with private ownership of social labor
- Can only liberate itself by abolishing all systems of exploitation

Therefore:

The class nature of the proletariat determines that it will never abandon the democratic revolution midway.

VII. The class advantages of the Chinese proletariat

You systematically summarize the particular advantages of the Chinese proletariat:

Directly arises from imperialist enterprises in China;
Subjected to triple oppression by imperialism, feudalism, and the bourgeoisie;
No reformist economic base;
Naturally connected with the peasantry;
Once on the political stage, engages in political struggle rather than only economic struggle;

Therefore, the Chinese proletariat possesses a high degree of revolutionary character from the outset.

VIII. Students, petit-bourgeoisie, and the problem of “proletarianization”

This section has the strongest practical relevance within the whole chapter.

1. The class nature of students

Students as a whole belong to the petit-bourgeoisie;
They are both rebellious and wavering;
Their revolutionary potential comes from “on the verge of collapse”;
Reactionary tendencies stem from long-term parasitism and possession of others’ labor.

2. Differentiation within the petit-bourgeoisie

You clearly distinguish three categories:

Students willing to proletarianize → can become revolutionary forces
Students who are wavering and watching → require struggle and transformation
Students attempting to become exploiters through “struggle” → as the right-wing petit-bourgeoisie, the class basis for future fascism

3. The true meaning of proletarianization

Proletarianization is not an identity, but:

Break completely with private ownership of the means of production;
Not owning social labor in a personal name;
Living, working, and fighting collectively;
Transforming “owning labor” into “contributing labor.”

IX. The meaning of Marxism being “imposed from outside”

You tightly connect to the core conclusion of “What to Do”:

Proletarian spontaneous struggle can only reach syndicalism;
It remains at the economic level of struggle;
It cannot spontaneously rise to political struggle;

Therefore:

We must expose politically, to inject Marxism into the proletarian ranks from the outside, so that it becomes a conscious class.

X. The historical significance of the May Fourth Movement

1. The triple nature of the May Fourth Movement

Anti-imperialist patriotic movement
Anti-feudal cultural movement
A milestone for the proletariat stepping onto the political stage

2. The decisive role of the working class in May Fourth

Political general strike
Directly changes the balance of struggle
Proves that the proletariat is not a class only concerned with small profits

XI. The spread of Marxism-Leninism in China and the preparations for party building

Influence of the October Revolution
Mao Zedong combined Marxism-Leninism with China’s realities
Revolutionary intellectuals moved toward the workers and peasants
Struggles against reformism, parliamentarianism, and anarchism

Thus:

Ideological preparation + cadre preparation → historical condition for the founding of the Chinese Communist Party

XII. The overarching conclusion for the entire section

The content ultimately boils down to a clear conclusion:

China’s revolution can win not by accident, not by individual heroism, but because the proletarian party, under the guidance of the correct line, combines Marxism-Leminism with China’s revolutionary reality and with the masses of workers and peasants.

烽火Flame · February 6, 2026, 11:55am

Chapter 1, Section 1, Part 2
Today we are talking about the latter half of the first chapter, first section, of “The History of the Two-Line Struggle within the Chinese Communist Party.” Actually, this part isn’t long, but it is quite important. Everyone should relate it to the world historical background at the time and specifically analyze how the founding line of the Chinese Communist Party was formed and what kinds of struggles it experienced.
Indeed, when we spoke about the preface and the first section before, we already mentioned features in the development of the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP was established after the October Revolution, especially under the conditions of Marxism’s introduction to China during the May Fourth Movement. The May Fourth Movement was a turning point in China’s democratic revolution. The democratic revolution before May Fourth is called the old democratic revolution; the democratic revolution after May Fourth became the New Democratic Revolution. The distinction lies in: the old democratic revolution was led by the bourgeoisie or another class—perhaps the peasant class; while the New Democratic Revolution is led by the proletariat. We have discussed the differences between the bourgeois democratic revolution and the New Democratic Revolution and old democratic revolutions before.
We also discussed what characteristics the development of the CCP has had. Because the CCP was a party with immature practical experience, just emerging from the state where workers’ movements and socialist movements were separated, it joined them together. Merging these two is truly what happened. The workers’ movement has a long history, but socialist movement was just beginning.
Where did socialism come from? It came from Germany. Why from Germany? Its precursor—utopian socialism—originated in France and Britain. Because France and Britain were the earliest to develop capitalism, and the flaws of capitalism were exposed earliest there. In these places, there was a section of bourgeois intellectuals who were dissatisfied with the capitalist system, who understood its decay, and who understood the people’s living conditions, and thus proposed utopian socialism. But the problem is utopian socialism is a socialist from the stance of intellectuals, not of the working class, not scientific socialism, and cannot serve the proletariat. It criticized capitalism, proposed some correct socialist principles, but did not provide a scientific method for transitioning from capitalism to socialism and communism; nor did it stand on the correct stance to propose communist principles.
Why could Germany form scientific socialism? When did the Communist Manifesto appear? Everyone knows that the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. At that time, Britain and France had already degenerated; the bourgeoisie had come into power for over a decade. In France, the July Revolution of 1830 brought financial bourgeoisie to power; in Britain, the Reform Act of 1832 brought industrial bourgeoisie to full power. The old aristocracy and landed nobles who used to hold power had changed. After the bourgeoisie came to power in Britain and France, they quickly decayed and degenerated; vulgar economics had spread in these places. There were propertied socialists among the bourgeoisie in these places who were dissatisfied with capitalism, understood its decay, and understood the people’s living conditions, so they proposed utopian socialism. But utopian socialism is a socialist based on the stance of intellectuals, not workers, not scientific socialism, and cannot serve the proletariat. It criticized capitalism, proposed some correct socialist principles, but did not provide a scientific method to transition from capitalism to socialism and communism; nor did it stand on a correct stance to propose communist principles.
Why could Germany produce scientific socialism? The Communist Manifesto appeared in 1848. The reason Germany produced scientific socialism is that three major workers’ movements occurred, giving the British, French, and German workers a place on the political stage; Germany had the best conditions among them. In these three workers’ movements, the British Chartist movement was the largest in scale and longest in duration, but it had significant problems: parliamentaryism, reformism, and pacifism influenced it. It did not advocate overthrowing the bourgeois rule, nor abolishing private property; it only advocated universal suffrage. The Lyon uprising in France, although advocating a republic and overthrow of monarchism (as it was still a constitutional government at the time under Louis-Philippe and the Orleans monarchy), did not clearly explain why to overthrow the existing government and did not oppose private property completely. However, the 1844 uprising of the Silesian textile workers in Germany, which developed into the first clear call to abolish private property, was a distinction of the German workers’ movement.
Why? Because the German workers’ situation was worse than that of Britain and France, and German workers faced double oppression. In Britain, the ongoing bourgeois revolution and reform movement had transformed feudal land ownership into capitalist large-scale landholding; in France, the revolution had almost destroyed feudal ownership, though the Bourbon Restoration briefly returned, Louis-Philippe later rose again, so the power of landowners was not fully reestablished. Germany was different: its workers were very revolutionary and very poor, oppressed by capitalists and by Junker nobles. They hated capitalism even before German capitalism had developed, so German workers were the most combative. Moreover, economically, Germany could inherit classical political economy and utopian socialism from Britain and France, and also developed its own mechanical materialism and dialectics.
Marx and Engels, two of the greatest philosophers, thinkers, and revolutionaries of modern times, extracted the rational core of Feuerbach’s materialism and Hegel’s rational idealist dialectics, and together with the rational core of classical political economy and utopian socialism—essentially taking the essence and discarding the dross—and transformed these bourgeois old knowledges through their revolutionary practice and experience into Marxism. So the three components of Marxism are: dialectical materialism, political economy, and scientific socialism. That is how it was born. On the one hand, it drew from English and French experience; on the other hand, it arose from the progress and strength of the workers, producing communism in Germany.
At first, the German workers and communism did not unite. The German workers were initially still on the far left of the bourgeois democratic camp, during the 1848 revolution they became the far-left of the petty-bourgeois democratic faction. This is what we later learned: the movement to defend the empire’s constitution in 1848–1849 involved petty-bourgeois leadership and Prussian armed conflicts. Marx and Engels believed the proletariat had not yet fully awakened, so they advised the proletariat to participate in the movement as the far-left of the petty-bourgeois democratic faction.
Marxism did not develop smoothly. There was no Communist Party in Germany at first. What existed initially in Germany? A brotherhood-like organization called the League of Just Men. Later, under Marx’s efforts to combine the worker movement and socialism, including leading the 1848 revolution and educating and training German communists, collaborating with socialist internationals worldwide, they gradually fused the worker movement with socialism, and transformed the League of Just Men into the Communist League. The world’s first Communist Party was thus established. It defeated various opportunist socialist currents such as Proudhonists, and, against the bourgeois socialist, capitalist socialist, feudal socialist, and utopian socialist, in theory and practice, established the Communist Party. Later, in 1864, during the Polish uprising, the First International was formed. So, the German Communist Party’s establishment was solid and real.
As for the Russian Communist Party, the Bolshevik Party, how was it established? It was also formed along the line directed by Lenin. But China is different: the CCP’s establishment has a big feature—it was transplanted from foreign countries. While we cannot say this is a problem by itself, because the Bolshevik Party in Russia also came from Marxism transported from Germany. The problem lies in the domestic intellectuals not fully comprehending Marxism and not uniting with the workers.
Thus the CCP in its first fourteen years suffered many losses. Many left-leaning petty-bourgeois intellectuals and ambitious individuals joined the party to seize power. Then, freed from labor, they became professional revolutionaries, seized power, and then engaged in sectarianism, purges, and personal power grabs, leading various opportunist lines. All opportunist lines were born from individuals or small groups for their own interests, harming revolutionary and class interests.
Chen Duxiu, Qu Qiubai, Li Lishan, Luo Zhanglong, Wang Ming, Zhang Guotao all behaved thus. They sought personal benefit, sometimes posing as advanced intellectuals to deceive others, or using the supposed advanced worker identity to mislead, thereby seizing party leadership. Our organization itself has had similar episodes, such as XXX trying to pose as an advanced worker to deceive—ridiculous. There were also many petty-bourgeois opportunists, reformists, and schemers who tried to turn knowledge into capital for themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to fight these opportunists. First, there must be a process of proletarianization of revolutionary intellectuals, transforming petty-bourgeois intellectuals into revolutionary intellectuals, by embracing the workers and peasants. As Chairman Mao said, there must be a shift in class stance and class feelings. In the past, students could not bear heavy labor; clothing worn by workers and peasants was not acceptable to intellectuals who preferred long gowns or even suits. Some members of our organization were like that. Later, Chairman Mao said that true revolutionaries who engage with workers and peasants undergoing a transformation in their class feelings and stance would no longer look down on intellectuals. Although workers’ and peasants’ hands may be dirty, they are the cleanest, cleaner than any intellectual. This is the change in class stance and feelings. So we must achieve proletarianization as well. The CCP’s early losses came from a group of such intellectuals who, in a petty-bourgeois position, failed to unite with workers and peasants, and instead pursued personal gain, ultimately betraying the party and the revolution.
This is a brief history of the background. After May Fourth Movement, as Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese revolutionary movement merged more and more, the task of building the CCP grew more urgent. Of course, we should note that the lack of experience and lack of unity among intellectuals does not mean we should reject founding the party. The task of party-building is before us; it is a revolutionary need. Because of revolutionary necessity, the Communist Party is inevitable. Here lies a line dispute: should we possess this experience or not? Should we unite with the workers and peasants or not? Here is the line struggle. If uniting with the workers and peasants to engage in political struggle and follow the correct path can mature the party quickly, letting intellectuals go through some trials and transformation, then that path is possible. But at that time the CCP did not walk this path. Because Marxism was still new to Chinese intellectuals, and the relationship between Chinese intellectuals and workers and peasants was not deep enough.
If we must say, the CCP at that time had another characteristic: some individuals in history did not perform to their full potential. Chairman Mao didn’t have very high prestige inside the CCP at that time. He had made many contributions by combining with workers and peasants, but at that time he was still growing, leading farmer movements and worker movements, and this was different from Lenin and Marx’s conditions. Lenin, when he built the party, was already renowned; he joined the revolution at seventeen, founded the party at thirty-three, and after sixteen years had authority. When he formed the Petersburg Workers’ Liberation Committee, he was an old revolutionary. Who would dare oppose Lenin? Of course some did. But Lenin had already gained authority through actual struggle, and through his activities since 1894, including his ties with the peasantry. He was exiled to Siberia, studied revolutionary theory further. Lenin was a dominant figure in the Russian Marxist world; who would dare debate him? Lenin debunked them, including the debates with “Legal Marxists” and the “Economists,” with his exceptional theoretical level, crushing their reformist and bourgeois socialist tendencies. On this basis, a cadre of professional revolutionaries led by Lenin formed. This group, aligned with the worker-peasant alliance, led to the creation of the Bolshevik Party. This is the difference between Lenin and Chairman Mao’s conditions. Personal influence in history is thus very important. Of course, it would also have been possible that if Lenin hadn’t existed, another Lenin could have emerged—that is a historical question hard to answer.
Thus Mao Zedong’s prestige was built after the CCP’s founding, through his work in party affairs. How did Mao’s prestige come about? By leading peasant associations, forging the united front against the Kuomintang, and building rural revolutionary bases; it grew in this process. Lenin’s prestige existed before founding the party; Mao’s prestige was not that high before, so the CCP’s First National Congress elected a nominal Chen Duxiu as Secretary General.
Should we establish a proletarian party in China? Should we follow Lenin’s Bolshevik model and build a proletarian revolutionary party; or should we follow the Second International’s revisionist path and build a bourgeois reformist party? Chairman Mao insisted on Marxist-Leninist party-building principles and fought fiercely against all anti-Marxist-Leninist ideas.
In fact, this is not a coincidence; Russia had been an imperialist country with advanced capitalist relations. Lenin had long been tempered by revolution there. In the 19th century, the populists in Russia—who themselves tried to lead the revolution—were ancestors of Chinese student movements; thus Russia’s revolutionary history and democratic revolution history are longer than China’s. Russian capitalism, especially its capitalist history, is longer than China’s. China’s past revolutions were peasant revolutions. There were intellectuals among peasant revolutions, but they were not capitalist ones; they lacked capitalism-based knowledge. Although there were some prominent revolutionaries among peasant revolutions in China—like Hong Xiuquan and Hong Ruan—both understood capitalism, at a time when global capitalism was not yet developed, 1850s and 1860s, before imperialism era. They had only limited knowledge of capitalism, which was not enough for this era.
Marx grew up in Germany and later lived long in London, so he understood capitalism well. Lenin lived in Russia, an imperialist country, and had long had a grasp of capitalism. The workers’ movements in Russia had already appeared in the 1860s–70s—South Russian Workers’ Union, North Russian Workers’ Association—so Russian workers and intellectuals already had experiences with capitalism. That is why Lenin could emerge there. It is not a historical accident. It is not that the Chinese Communist Party could not produce a great figure like Mao Zedong; China did produce Mao. The “Great Savior” of the people was Mao Zedong. How did this “great savior” arise? Precisely when social contradictions became concentrated, and revolution required a revolutionary class leader. So whether sooner or later, whether before or after founding the party, is a Chinese national characteristic. China’s national character also has advantages: Mao was better at understanding peasants, as China’s society is split into two halves with more peasants. Although Russia also had many peasants, Lenin, as a professional revolutionary, spent more time in urban areas; Mao’s connection with the peasantry was deeper.
This aligns with the needs of both countries’ revolutions. Lenin led an urban-centric revolution in an imperialist country; Mao led a rural-centric revolution in a country with two social halves. Lenin understood the proletariat better, Mao understood the peasantry better; this is natural. Without understanding the peasantry, one could not argue with Qu Qiubai’s “one blaze to burn the peasant houses” theory; that would be a failure. Therefore, China’s revolution had its own characteristics. China’s revolution could persist for twenty-two years partly due to leaders like Mao who connected with peasants. Mao himself came from a peasant family, although—being a wealthy peasant—he knew the peasants’ lives well.
If there weren’t intellectuals like Mao among the peasantry, why would the CCP place such emphasis on workers and peasants union from the start? Our study of international revolutionary history shows that many worker movements failed due to not integrating with peasants. The CCP did not face this problem; from the beginning it organized peasant associations, and even before the National Revolutionary Movement expanded, peasant associations had already grown to 12 million members, wiping out warlords! If Chen Duxiu had not persisted in rightist opportunist capitulation, using the peasant associations plus the leadership of the workers, China’s revolution could have achieved success in the 1920s. However, immature revolutionary parties and lack of experience required more lessons, so we studied for more than a decade. What was gained was ultimately what fortified our revolutionary path.
Chairman Mao, in a letter to Cai Hesen and other members of the New People’s Study Society, clearly stated: the proletariat must establish its own party to carry out revolution. Because it is the organizer, propagandist, vanguard, and combat unit in the revolutionary movement.
The CCP’s immaturity was not just the problem of one party; it was a global issue. After the success of the October Revolution, communist parties around the world emerged like mushrooms after rain. Lenin promptly established the Communist International as a world Communist command center. So why after the CCP’s founding did there exist a choice between following Lenin’s path or Kautsky’s path? Because Lenin established the Comintern, and the Second International had become rotten. Why did the CCP follow Lenin’s path? Because the great October Socialist Revolution was a model. Who would listen to Kautsky when there was a new model? After the October Revolution, no country’s workers believed in Kautsky. Lenin wrote “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” and “What Is to Be Done?” With all the leftist immaturity within the new parties, they often took a leftist path, with anarchist tones, etc. So the CCP was established under this international influence, under Lenin’s vanguard party and the victory of the October Revolution. Its basic line was correct, following the Russian path. But in formulating and implementing policies, errors occurred; it did not continue along Lenin’s line but instead promoted Chen Duxiu to the position of general secretary.
In truth, the CCP’s founding process involved ongoing struggles. At the time, most intellectuals were not highly awakened, so it was impossible to elect Chairman Mao as general secretary outright; Chen Duxiu was elected. In this sense, comparing it to Paris Commune provides a nuance: the Paris Commune’s leadership was two-thirds Blanquists and New Jacobins, with one-third Proudhonists. Yet because the Commune was run by workers, the leadership, even if theoretically incorrect, was corrected by the workers’ actions. The CCP, however, was theoretically correct but its practice deviated from theory more and more. Thus, the greatest danger to the CCP was dogmatism, which we must guard against even today.
When socialism and the workers’ movement are not combined, subjectivism will inevitably arise, and there will be subjective forces that damage revolutionary development. There are two kinds of subjectivism: dogmatism and empiricism. But empiricists are always subservient to dogmatists. So Chairman Mao said: I urge you to read more to avoid being deceived by intellectuals. If you don’t read, you will be deceived.
Look at Qian Renling; wasn’t he deceived? The “China-Mao-Communist” people said: “Students can lead the revolution, go to factories to work and reform themselves, then return to school, study theory, and become professional revolutionaries.” Qian Renling liked this approach. He said, “I want this approach: go to the factory to metallicly gain capital, come back, continue to drink coffee and lead the revolution, continue to be a coffee revolutionary.” Right? Coffee revolutionaries, air-conditioner revolutionaries, sofa revolutionaries, computer revolutionaries.
There are many titles of revolutionaries, but not all truly revolutionary.
Chairman Mao firmly argued that in China we should establish a new-type proletarian revolutionary party guided by Marxist-Leninist principles, following the path of the Russian October Revolution. He pointed out that the party’s worldview must be grounded in dialectical materialism and historical materialism, that the party must follow the path of proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship, and that the principles of proletarian internationalism must be upheld. Chairman Mao defended the party-building principles of Marxism-Leninism, representing the correct direction of building the party.
I tell you, studying party history is to guide today’s revolution, which has significant real-world relevance. So don’t fall asleep at study sessions today; what we discuss today is a real problem, very similar to a hundred years ago. Today’s demons and spirits still shout under the banners of Marxism-Leninism: “I am Maoism! You are revisionist! I am Maoism!” It’s all loud. Who doesn’t support Maoism? Everyone supports Maoism. But who is the real Maoism? We are Maoists; they are revisionists. Why? Because we engage in practice, we engage in revolution and practice; they do not. They don’t engage in revolution, they don’t engage in practice. They don’t proletarianize, they do not give up personal interests, they do not give up their intellectual elite status. These people do not follow a practical revolutionary path, they do not give up personal status. In essence, they are not truly revolutionary as declared in The Communist Manifesto: “to rupture completely with all traditional relations of ownership… to rupture completely with all traditional ideas.” They won’t do genuine revolution.
That is the touchstone for true or fake Marxism. Will you rupture completely with traditional property relations? Will you rupture completely with traditional ideas? If you don’t rupture with private ideas, you won’t rupture with intellectuals who stand above the people and with capitalist ownership relations. Then what revolution are you going to undertake? You won’t revolutionize.
The Communist Manifesto states: “The communist revolution is to rupture completely with traditional ownership relations; naturally, in its own development, it must rupture completely with traditional ideas.” Therefore, in today’s situation with so many revisionist factions shouting Maoism, we must always uphold: oppose both empiricism and dogmatism; follow the path of the unity of theory and practice. What did Chairman Mao say? In “Rectification of the Party’s Style” and “Transform Our Learning,” he highlighted three tasks: one is to study history, one is to study Marxism-Leninism, and one is to study theory and the integration of theory and practice. Lenin’s tasks for the youth league also mentioned: what tasks should new revolutionary youth have? Three tasks: absorb the culture of the old humanity, learn to combine theory with practice, and learn communist morality.
Are these three taught equally? Essentially yes; one of them is especially important: the combination of theory with practice. Theory that does not connect to practice is a deceitful thing; it serves certain class interests as a lie.
Why not connect theory with practice? Because the proletariat must connect with practice; without practice there is no revolution. In other words, theory without practice is counterrevolutionary. From the very start, such theory does not serve revolution but serves personal interests.
This is not a question of knowledge but a question of stance. Theory without practice serves personal interests, serves opportunism, serves revisionism. Conversely, practice without theoretical guidance cannot succeed.
Without guidance from theory, practice will be led by dogmatism. People who do not unite practice with theory will follow those who do not unite theory with practice.
Chairman Mao, to build a new-type proletarian revolutionary party in China, did a great deal of propaganda and organization work. In August 1920, Mao founded the Cultural Book Society in Hunan, promoting Marxist-Leninist works and progressive publications nationwide, and, with the New Youth’s outstanding members as the backbone, formed the Russian Studies Society. Since then, the theoretical study and propaganda of Marxism-Leninism entered a more organized and planned stage. Mao not only led members to study Marxism-Leninism but also emphasized tying theory to practice, doing field research, and engaging deeply with workers and peasants. In late 1920, Mao personally conducted social investigations in Pingxiang and six other counties, visited textile factories, locomotive repair shops, flour mills, and other industries’ workers, opened night schools, spread Marxism-Leninism, organized unions, and led workers in strikes. In autumn 1920, Mao established a Communist group in Changsha, and soon established the party’s preparatory unit—the Socialist Youth League. Mao’s early party-building ideas and activities show Mao as an outstanding representative of combining Marxism-Leninism with China’s revolutionary movement, and one of our party’s great founders.
Thus, there are two lines of struggle in the Chinese Communist Party: one spontaneous, one conscious. Chairman Mao represents this conscious line, i.e., the two aspects of the contradiction. We say the CCP was juvenile in its early period in the sense that its main aspects had not fundamentally changed, but we cannot say the CCP had nothing good. Without good, it could not have built the Party. The CCP’s founding had mainly positive significance; its errors were secondary. Without the CCP, Chinese revolution could not have entered the New Democratic stage; without the Party’s leadership, the proletariat could not consciously fight as a class. It’s inevitable to have mistakes because it was immature; through struggle, Mao’s line gradually rose to leadership and gained control.
Before and after, Shanghai, Beijing, Wuhan, Guangzhou, Jinan, and overseas Chinese students in France and Japan also established Communist groups in succession. From then on, the conditions for building a proletarian revolutionary party in China matured. With active help from the Communist International led by Lenin, in July 1921, twelve representatives from local Communist groups, representing over fifty members, attended the First National Congress of the CCP in Shanghai. Great Leader Mao Zedong attended the congress. Also present were Dong Biwu, He Shuheng, Chen Tuanqiu, Wang Jinmei, Deng Enming, and others.
There is no Li Da here; perhaps because Li Da’s issue had not been fully studied at the time, and there were some complex struggles during the Cultural Revolution, so Li Da was not included.
The congress discussed current political tasks, the party’s fundamental tasks, organizational principles, and the leadership body’s issues. While discussing these, Mao opposed the view that the party should be reduced to an academic group merely propagating Marxism-Leninism and waging legal struggle, or the view of opening the door to socialist revolution and excluding revolutionary intellectuals from the party, i.e., “closed-doorism.” He adhered to Marxist-Leninist party-building principles. The congress established that the party must follow Lenin’s Bolshevik model. The congress passed the party constitution, elected the central leadership, and solemnly declared the CCP’s birth. The congress elected Chen Duxiu as general secretary.
Chen Duxiu was a professor at Peking University; he was not a Marxist-Leninist but a bourgeois radical democrat. Chen Duxiu did not truly believe in Marxism; there was always a copy of Karl Marx’s Capital on his desk, but he never read it. He was someone who used the party for personal gain. Chen Duxiu was absent from the First Congress but was still elected general secretary, indicating the intellectuals’ lack of understanding and unchanged stance at that time.
Chen Duxiu did not attend this congress, but because of his role in the May Fourth Movement, editing “New Youth,” and living through the party’s preparatory work, and given the party’s lack of experience in the early stage, he was elected to the central leadership. The CCP’s founding in China holds epoch-making significance in Chinese history. As Chairman Mao said: The founding of the CCP opened a new era in Chinese history. Since the CCP’s founding, the face of China’s revolution has been renewed. This began a new era in Chinese history.
Look at Li Da’s assessment of the situation at the time. In a collection analyzing Li Da’s issues, Li Da’s evaluation of Mao Zedong during Mao’s lifetime is discussed.
And so on, with Li Da’s views: that in the party’s early days, Mao’s leadership, Mao’s high academic achievements, and Mao’s practical leadership in combining with workers and peasants, and Mao’s critical role in guiding the party’s early development. Li Da described Mao’s learning, his constant study of Marxism-Leninism and its Chinese applications, and Mao’s ability to combine theory with China’s practice, turning theory into a practical path for Chinese revolution. Li Da’s remarks included quotes about Mao’s ability to analyze and critique, and his approach to reading and applying works to China’s realities. Li Da’s descriptions highlighted Mao’s distinctive leadership, his foresight, and the way he integrated theory with China’s revolutionary practice. Li Da’s praise for Mao reflects the situation at the time, showing that Mao was a genius in revolutionary leadership. It is thus necessary to recognize his role.
Even the Trotskyists, anarchists, and even liberal democratic flows attacked Lenin and the vanguard party. Their critique of the vanguard party’s leadership relied on the idea that Lenin’s vanguard party was a party of a few professional revolutionaries who commanded all others to follow a few leaders. In short, it was still the Kautsky faction; they argued for a democratic approach to and a dictatorship by the masses. The Communist Party’s organizational principle is democratic centralism: to unite democracy and centralization; to have free and vibrant democratic practices, but also strict revolutionary discipline. So in Lenin’s writings, in Left-Wing Childishness, the greatest problem is that it separates the connections among class, party, and leader. The masses are organized for the class; the party is the vanguard of the class; the leader is the most experienced and capable among party members. Thus, the concepts of the masses, class, leader, and party cannot be separated. Lenin mocked bourgeois democrats for their anti-socialist party dictatorship. They claimed that parliamentary elections in Germany, after many years, still produced the same Li Bachnov—be the same as replacing emperors. This demonstrates that the democratic-centralist organization led by the Communist Party and the discipline of the party is strict and inviolable.
The party’s Second Congress, Mao as the leader, the An-yuan Workers’ Movement
After the party’s founding, it concentrated its efforts on leading the workers’ movement, establishing the Chinese Labor Combination Secretariat, and conducting vigorous anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggles. The revolutionary practice further required our party to present a clear and concrete revolutionary program and lead the people to fight. In July 1922, the party held its Second National Congress in Shanghai, formally proposing the highest program of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat and achieving communism; the lowest program was anti-imperialist and anti-feudal democratic revolution. The congress drafted the party program and defeated bourgeois reformist ideas, which was of great significance for the Chinese revolution. However, the congress did not clearly propose that the Chinese democratic revolution should be led by the proletariat, nor did it clearly address armed struggle and the peasant land issue, which showed the CCP’s immaturity.
After the Second Congress, the party strengthened leadership over the workers’ movement further. Starting from the Hong Kong seafarers’ general strike in January 1922, up to the seventh of March 1923 strike at the Wuhan-Han railway, it sparked the first nationwide workers’ movement. More than 100 strikes occurred nationwide, with over 300,000 participants. In this wave, Mao’s leadership of the An-Yuan workers’ movement became a bright banner of the national workers’ movement. An-Yuan Lukuang was a bureaucrat capital enterprise controlled by imperialism; the workers, under imperialism, comprador capitalists, and feudal bosses, faced a miserable situation, and contained enormous revolutionary power. Mao arrived at An-Yuan in the autumn of 1921, went underground with workers, and engaged in heart-to-heart talks. Under Mao’s care, the An-Yuan Party branch was established in February 1922, and the An-Yuan Railway workers’ club was established in May; the workers organized themselves into conscious revolutionary struggles. Capitalists sought to extinguish the struggle by threatening workers and withholding wages; this further spurred workers’ will to fight, and a general strike was on the verge of breaking out.
In this context, there was a fierce struggle between Mao’s revolutionary workers’ movement and Chen Duxiu’s follower Liu Shaoqi’s right-wing surrenderist workers’ movement line.
It should be noted that the An-Yuan workers’ club was organized by Mao, and the An-Yuan general strike was of great historical significance. However, after the founding of the People’s Republic, Liu Shaoqi twisted history, shamelessly claiming that he led the An-Yuan workers’ strike, and even made a film called “Liao Yuan” about it. The protagonist in Liao Yuan is Lei Huanjue, whose name was originally Li Shaoli; this film merges Li Lisan and Liu Shaoqi, promoting Liu Shaoqi. This film is a genuine revisionist movie. Its main theme is to praise the absolute leadership of bourgeois intellectuals in revolution, and to present the Chinese Communist Party as being led by intellectuals detached from the people and workers; portray revolution and proletarian revolution as peaceful strikes; and present intellectuals as elites who stand above the people and lead peaceful strikes. This is an extremely reactionary form of white-collar bureaucratism and revisionism.
Thus today’s leftists are very fond of Liao Yuan. Why? Because the film’s plot features exactly the kind of detaching from the people, sipping coffee while making revolution, wearing long robes, and turning to the people to lift their fists for support. This is their ideal. In the film, An-Yuan railway workers are living in dire conditions; a gas leak and a mine explosion occur at the mine, causing many deaths. At this critical moment, Lei Huanjue—the Liu Shaoqi character—arrives. He first tells the workers to strike. The workers say they cannot, because the capitalists are too strong; they claim the word “gong” (labor) is too dangerous to utter. Then Liu Shaoqi—Lei Huanjue—explicitly argues that the word “gong” is big, reaching for the heavens, and that the two characters together form the character for “heaven.” One hundred years later, in that sleepy era, this depiction is used to mislead. This is a vicious depiction of attacking workers’ understanding of class struggle, and even their grasp of economic struggle; instead, intellectuals who do not labor are taught by them about exploitation.
In this film, what is Lei Huanjue’s image? He is a very clean-faced young man, with not a speck of dust, wearing robes, guiding workers. The first act features a chalkboard reading “Workers,” and when the two characters join, it forms the character for “heaven.” He tells the workers they are uneducated; he shows his high cultural level. In the second scene, when workers complain about low wages during meals, Lei Huanjue lectures that “you don’t understand; this is exploitation.” They even smear the workers as ignorant of exploitation, and require a cultured intellectual like Li Shaoyi to teach them.
In the book, the most reactionary scene is negotiating with capitalists peacefully, promoting a peaceful transition and class reconciliation. When the workers’ general strike was about to erupt, Liu Shaoqi claimed the movement was too radical, that “two fists cannot defeat four hands,” that the other side had guns and cannons, and that violent revolution could not succeed; thus he proposed peace strikes, civilized strikes. The film is like this as well: Lei Huanjue proposes civilized strikes and the creation of the An-Yuan railway workers’ club. The film credits Liu Shaoqi with establishing the workers’ club and shamelessly shows him advocating the slogan “Vent feelings, cultivate virtue” and the club’s purpose being to cultivate bias and virtue rather than to fight with capitalists. In other words, it teaches the workers to “build relations” and “cultivate virtue” so as not to oppose capitalists. This is an outright misrepresentation.
How does the film depict the strike’s victory? Lei Huanjue goes to the capitalists’ mansion alone to negotiate. The capitalists, under pressure from Lei Huanjue, finally agree to the strike conditions. After Lei Huanjue’s successful negotiation, the workers’ chorus resounds outside the mansion: “We are not beasts, we are humans, brothers, wake up.” Then a contrived scene appears in which workers rush out of the mine, singing, while Lei Huanjue stands with his back to the capitalists, looking pleased. Is this not the dream of leftists—a useless, coffee-drinking intellectual person who pretends to be revolutionary? If one actually follows that path, one would have long since lost one’s head, and not be revolutionary at all.
In September 1922, Mao returned to An-Yuan to investigate the workers’ struggles, carefully analyze the favorable revolutionary situation, and make decisive, wise decisions to lead a massive strike. He insisted that the strike’s aim was not only to increase wages or shorten working hours, but to raise workers’ political consciousness and advance toward the complete liberation of the entire class; to encourage workers to unite and fight. The An-Yuan workers began their large strike on September 14 with the slogan “From cattle and horses to people.” At this time, the traitor Liu Shaoqi disobeyed Mao’s revolutionary workers’ movement line and attempted to sabotage the large strike. Before the strike, he cursed the strike as reckless; after the strike broke out, he raised the banners of “civilized strike,” and demanded workers to be more civilized than usual, “return to their homes,” to suppress the massive strike. When he saw the strike could not be eliminated, he asked capitalists to negotiate. Initially, he was only seeking a reduction of working hours and improved benefits, and attempted to sell out workers for personal gain.
Why did Liu Shaoqi act this way? He had long been a betrayer and a traitor. Liu Shaoqi joined the party as a member of the exploiting class’s intellectuals who were strongly anti-people and who loathed labor; after joining the party, he refused to proletarianize (as Qian Renling preferred) and insisted on maintaining his separatist, comfortable status, living a parasitic exploiting life. To implement this life, he continued to order crowds as an intellectual figure, ruling over them, and, in order to preserve his own power and personal profit, suppressed strikes and used revolutionary interests to serve personal interests. He attempted to convert the workers’ struggle into his personal gains so that he could reap benefits when negotiating with capitalists, pleasing both sides, and prospering. Therefore, Liu Shaoqi betrayed early on. In the twenties, when he was captured by reactionaries, he betrayed the country and was a traitor; he secretly surrendered, becoming a shameful traitor, and jumped into the Chinese party and government high ranks after the revolution, where he collaborated with reactionary warlords and the Kuomintang. He publicly surrendered to the Nationalist Government. Liu Shaoqi’s traitorous history is long; as early as before the First National Congress, he betrayed. Later, he was responsible for white-area work. In reality, “white area work” did not require violent struggles or risking life. Of course, white areas also carry risk; his traitor status carried no risk. Thus, under Liu Shaoqi’s leadership, a large number of people all became traitors, signing confessions and pledging not to participate in communist movements again. Later, these people climbed to high positions in the Chinese Party and government and lived in the high life. They could endure this to be able to implement the Revolution in the 20s and to walk on Tiananmen Gate later, saying “I am pleased.”
Under Mao’s revolutionary line, An-Yuan workers did not fear the reactionaries’ crackdown, nor did they fall for worker traitors’ deception. They fought bravely and tenaciously, ultimately achieving the great victory of the strike. The victory at An-Yuan was the result of Mao’s leadership and the success of Mao’s revolutionary line. The traitor Liu Shaoqi, who boasted of leading the An-Yuan workers’ movement, attempted to distort history and deceive people. In February 1923, the京汉 Railway workers in Zhengzhou established a general union; on February 4, the entire 京汉 Railway workers went on strike after Wu Peifu’s illegal ban. On February 7, the strike was violently suppressed: over 40 dead, over 300 injured, dozens arrested, over 1,000 dismissed. The leaders Lin Xiangqian and Shi Yang sacrificed themselves honorably. Lin Xiangqian, when captured, refused to order a return to work under duress, shouting that “the head may be cut, but workers cannot be forced back!” He died with fury and heroism, showing the revolutionary spirit of communist cadres. Afterwards, the workers’ movement suffered a severe blow, and the national workers’ movement temporarily declined.
However, in the vigorous strike wave, the Chinese working class and its vanguard were tested and refined. Revolutionary practice showed that in semi-colonial, semi-feudal China, to achieve revolution, the proletariat alone cannot win; it must unite with all possible classes and strata and organize a broad revolutionary united front based on the worker-peasant alliance to seize the revolution.
Now, the Q&A segment: Why do the capitalists want to purge Li Da? The Cultural Revolution was a life-or-death class struggle. Shouldn’t these enemies purge their own enemies? If not, the proletariat will purge the bourgeois and the bourgeois purge the proletariat. The Cultural Revolution is to purge the capitalist class’s power and status that the running capitalists had seized. Would they be willing to purge? If they take such high positions and enjoy so much surplus value, they will kill you if you purge them. Why purge? Because as a capitalist running the country, they use capitalist law to serve personal interests and attempt to restore capitalism. If you oppose them, you prevent them from becoming officials; you prevent them from restoring capitalism; you prevent them from grabbing surplus value. So they will purge you. We don’t even have party-building yet, no revolutionary power yet; criticizing bourgeois law power will provoke resistance. We must purge people like Qian Renling who come with serious personal ambition to join our activities; aren’t we already against them? Another question: why wasn’t Liu Shaoqi unmasked before the founding of New China? How to unmask? Are you a prophet? Predicting Liu Shaoqi would betray would not help. Any line problem is only discovered and solved after the actual error is exposed. You can’t unmask in advance; you can’t know the contradiction before it reveals itself. It is a historical idealism question to say that a traitor could be foreseen. What about the question: “Why did the CCP’s First National Congress not propose that democratic revolution be led by the proletariat? It did not resolve armed struggle and peasant issues clearly.” The main reason is intellectuals did not understand. If they did not understand, how could they propose it? Democratic revolution led by the proletariat; if they had not united with the proletariat, how would they know? They thought the revolution would be led by intellectuals, and by Chen Duxiu; then Chen Duxiu pointed to Chiang Kai-shek’s leadership. Why didn’t it clearly resolve armed struggle and peasants’ land issues? They did not understand Marxism. Like Li Da said, many comrades appeared to understand surplus-value theory and historical materialism superficially, but could not apply them to China’s problems. They had no real revolutionary experience and did not understand China’s actual revolutionary conditions.
You all know that China’s dual social structure, feudal economic basis, warlord factional fighting, anti-revolutionary forces, unequal distribution, and unbalanced political economy made it possible to establish a rural revolutionary base areas. They did not know then. Today, isn’t what we know recorded in past books? Then you go back in time and you would know? You don’t know. We must solve the peasant land problem, must conduct armed struggle; all this was learned through revolution’s practice under the conditions of that era.
Why hold the first National Congress in Shanghai? First, Shanghai had the highest concentration of industrial workers. Shanghai was the place with the most concentrated industrial workers as well as the most developed capitalism; communism itself emerged from capitalism.
Why did only Chairman Mao achieve the combination of theory and practice? That’s because everyone’s world view differs. Mao’s life trajectory was forged in revolutionary struggles, shaping his revolutionary world view and refining it through practice. For Mao, there is the necessity for the party to have sacrifice spirit not for personal fame or wealth but for the revolution’s future and class interests; thus he is bound to connect theory with practice. Didn’t I just say this? I have already argued this from the opposite side. Theory detached from practice serves personal interests; otherwise it cannot be detached. Theory detached from practice becomes opportunism or revisionism. Why must theory detach from practice? For the proletariat, theory must connect to practice in order to make revolution succeed. In other words, theory without practice is anti-revolutionary. From the outset, such theory serves personal interests.
Was Qian Renling always present during lectures? He was there from the start? Then why didn’t he react? I denounce Qian Renling’s worship of “China-Mao-Communist” and his unwillingness to give up the bourgeois intellectuals’ status, wanting to depart from the people and serve personal interests. When the leftists were present, why didn’t you respond? Why not respond?
I advise Qian Renling not to pursue individualism or anarchism, to accept the leadership of the proletarian dictatorship, to accept the authority of the proletariat, and not to serve personal interests by constantly boasting. Do not become a reactionary, labor-averse intellectual detached from the people.
The “two-hearted” faction is also insane to become a “revolutionary” who benefits personally through wealth. They want to work less and get more money, exploiting others’ intellectuals. I urge Qian Renling and the “two-hearted group” to discard this kind of self-serving ambition for revolution, not dream of being a “coffee-revolutionary” who sips coffee and stirs revolution. If you want revolution, you must proletarianize and discard all capital, including knowledge and credentials. The old society’s knowledge existed to serve the bourgeoisie to divide surplus value. You must discard ownership of knowledge.
Qian Renling, stop touting that “China-Mao-Communist” nonsense, stop praising that group, thinking you have found a few good lines and can rise with their help. There is nothing useful here. Qian Renling loves “China-Mao-Communist” because that group is inherently like this.

烽火Flame · February 6, 2026, 11:59am

Summary of RedGPT

“History of the Two-Line Struggle of the Chinese Communist Party”

Chapter One, Section One, Part Two — Analysis and Systematic Summary

I. The main theme of this section: The party-building route is not a formal issue, but a class route issue

The core point repeatedly emphasized in this section is:

How the Chinese Communist Party was founded from the very beginning was a struggle between two lines, not a technical, procedural, or experiential issue.

The fundamental disagreement between these two lines is:

Whether it is the proletariat’s conscious party-building route
Or the petty bourgeois intellectual spontaneous, opportunistic, parasitic party-building route

This section does not discuss “party-building historical materials,” but answers a more acute question:

Why did the Chinese Communist Party pay a huge price in the first 14 years? Where did these costs come from? Are they accidental?

II. The background of world history: Why did scientific socialism emerge in Germany, not in Britain or France

1. The class limitations of utopian socialism

You first clearly distinguish three things:

Utopian socialism originated in Britain and France
It has progressive content, but is not scientific socialism
The fundamental reason lies in: the stance is that of intellectuals and petty bourgeoisie

The problem with utopian socialism is not about “kindness,” but about:

Cannot stand on the proletarian stance
Cannot propose a realistic path from capitalism to communism
Can only “criticize,” but cannot “lead the revolution”

2. The rise of the bourgeoisie in Britain and France → Rapidly reactionary theory

You point out a key historical turning point:

1830, the French financial bourgeoisie comes to power
1832, the British industrial bourgeoisie completes its dominance

The result is:

The bourgeoisie no longer revolutionizes
Classical political economy quickly degenerates into vulgar economics
The bourgeoisie shifts from “anti-feudal” to “anti-proletariat”

But at the same time:

Workers, peasants, students still engage in revolution
The revolutionary task shifts to the proletariat

3. The particularity of Germany: The soil for scientific socialism

You emphasize that Germany possesses three decisive conditions:

The working class is under double oppression
- Capitalists
- Junker aristocrats
The workers’ movement is more thorough
- The Silesian textile workers’ uprising initially called for abolition of private ownership
Concentrated inheritance of theoretical resources
- British and French classical political economy
- The rational core of utopian socialism
- German dialectics and materialism

Under these conditions, Marx and Engels:

Did not “create new theories”
But revolutionarily transform old theories
Unified philosophy, political economy, and socialism into Marxism

III. The Communist Party was not “naturally formed,” but established through struggle

1. The German Communist Party: Theoretical and practical struggles

You clearly state:

The German Communist Party was not “formed in one moment”
Instead, it was formed through:
- Repeated struggles against
  - Proudhonism
  - Petty bourgeois socialism
  - Bourgeois socialism
  - Utopian socialism
- The transformation from “League of Justice” to “Communist League” was not just a name change, but a line shift.

2. The conditions for the maturity of Lenin’s line in the Russian Bolsheviks

You especially compare the historical conditions of Lenin and Mao:

Lenin:
- Long-term revolutionary practice
- Already had high prestige before founding the party
- Repeated victories in theoretical struggles
- Able to directly establish the vanguard principle at the founding of the party
Russia:
- Early development of capitalism
- Long history of the workers’ movement
- Repeated struggles by populists and reformists

Therefore, the Bolsheviks’ success was not “accidental,” but the result of mature historical conditions.

IV. The fundamental characteristics and issues of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party

1. The “innate deficiencies” of China’s party-building

You clearly point out three practical features of China’s party-building:

Marxism was mainly imported from abroad
Intellectuals had not completed proletarianization
The integration with workers and peasants was extremely insufficient

The problem is not “importing Marxism,” but:

After import, it was used as “capital” by petty bourgeois intellectuals.

2. The fundamental reason for the losses in the first 14 years

You state the issue very straightforwardly:

A group of intellectuals and ambitious people:
- Detached from labor
- Detached from the masses
- Deceiving for power with “advanced,” “theoretical,” and “identity” claims
They treat:
- The Party → as a stepping stone
- The revolution → as personal capital
- Theory → as a tool for power

Therefore, opportunism is not accidental but an inevitable expression of class stance.

V. Mao’s line vs opportunism: where is the fundamental difference?

1. Proletarianization is the watershed of the line

You repeatedly emphasize:

Revolutionary intellectuals must proletarianize
Proletarianization is not just a slogan but involves:
- Combining with workers and peasants
- Giving up intellectual privileges
- Abandoning a sense of superiority

Using examples of dressing, labor, and lifestyle, you illustrate:

Class stance is not spoken, but reflected in life.

2. Mao’s uniqueness is not “innate,” but a choice of line

You clearly state:

Mao was not a “naturally great man”
Instead:
- Long-term deep involvement with workers and peasants
- Investigation and research
- Connecting theory with practice
- Forging worldview in revolutionary practice

Therefore:

Mao’s prestige was built in struggle, not “elected.”

VI. Why was choosing Chen Duxiu at the First Congress of CCP a historical inevitability?

You do not explain with “morality,” but with line and conditions:

At that time, most intellectuals:
- Worshiped fame
- Worshiped cultural capital
- Worshiped “new cultural leaders”
Mao:
- Had more practice than fame
- Theories were still developing
- Prestige had not yet been established

Thus, choosing Chen Duxiu was not “accidental error,” but an inevitable result of unshifted class stance.

VII. Correct theory vs. practical errors: the early contradictions of the CCP

You present a very important judgment:

The Chinese Communist Party was not “theoretically wrong,” but “deviated from theory in practice.”

This leads to:

Dogmatism becoming the greatest danger
Theories detaching from practice
The revolutionary line constantly drifting

You clearly state:

Theories that do not connect with reality
→ Will serve personal or small group interests
This is a stance issue, not an epistemological one

VIII. The May 1st Work Movement: a positive confrontation of two lines of labor movement

1. Mao’s labor movement line

Core features:

Insisting on strikes
Raising political consciousness
Elevating economic struggles to class struggle
Organizing the masses, not negotiating on their behalf

2. The essence of Liu Shaoqi’s line

You sharply define Liu Shaoqi’s line:

Opposes large-scale strikes
Advocates “civilized strikes”
Negotiates “peacefully” with capitalists
Turns the achievements of mass struggle into personal capital

You point out:

This is a typical strikebreaker, capitulationist, and bureaucratic route.

3. The political essence of “Liao Yuan”

You characterize “Liao Yuan” as:

Revisionist black film
Glorifies intellectual leadership
Demeans the consciousness of the working class
Advocates class reconciliation and peaceful reform

And you note that it precisely caters to contemporary left petty bourgeois fantasies.

IX. From the peak of the labor movement to the united front: historical lessons

You point out:

The labor movement peak was heroic
But the proletariat fighting alone is insufficient for victory
Must:
- Form worker-peasant alliances
- Build broad united fronts
- Engage in armed struggle

These insights are not a priori, but gained through bloody lessons.

X. Methodological summary: how to view history and the struggle of lines

1. Oppose apriorism and fatalism

You clearly oppose:

The historical idealism of “if only we had caught the traitors earlier”
The idea that line problems only expose themselves in practice and are solved in struggle

2. The only standard for theory and practice

You repeatedly emphasize one judgment criterion:

Whether willing to break completely with old ownership and old ideas.

This is the touchstone for:

True Marxism
Fake Marxism
Revolutionaries
Opportunists

XI. Practical orientation: today’s line struggle is not over

You finally connect history directly to reality:

Today, there are still:
- “Coffee revolutionaries”
- “Air-conditioner revolutionaries”
- “Knowledge monetization leftists”
They:
- Do not proletarianize
- Do not practice
- Do not give up personal interests
- But shout the most “revolutionary” slogans

Your conclusion is:

Line struggle is not a historical issue, but a current issue.

Final summary in one sentence

The core of this section is not “reviewing history,” but exposing an eternal law through the history of party-building:
As long as revolution exists, petty bourgeois opportunism will exist;
Only by insisting on proletarianization and linking theory with practice can the revolutionary party avoid degeneration.

里昂1121 · June 29, 2026, 1:26am

This seems to have been put on hold for quite a while.