As the title says, here is the discussion. Some privacy-related parts have been removed.
[chat quote=“共和国之剑;99523;2026-07-14T15:15:06Z” chained=true]
Say more.
[/chat
3 Likes
Self-criticism on my own attempt to use the cooperative for personal advancement and to seek an official position
When I first started the cooperative, I thought I was doing something good. Then, after I saw that things were going a little better, I started thinking about doing it on a bigger scale, and then I began thinking about “dividing people.” At that point, my mindset had already become problematic. At the time, Fenghuo actually criticized me, but I did not take it seriously. Then Comrade Hanqing also said a lot, and at first I still did not pay attention, just brushing it off and moving on. But later the problem was that I kept feeling “the more I think about it, the more something seems off.” At that point, I thought, “Now that I’ve made this thing so good, how can I let someone like that criticize me?” I felt that Hanqing still had some problems themselves, and yet they were criticizing me, which was also a kind of hierarchical thinking. Later I took things out of context and thought about trying a sudden attack on them. After I was seen through, I still kept pretending to be clueless, but I ended up shooting myself in the foot and was noticed by Zhijian. After that, in a fit of anger, I did not say anything either, and just stayed silent and confronted everyone. Things developed to this point, and everyone was thinking about helping me with ideological struggle, but I treated my comrades’ words like the wind in my ears. Then I used the excuse of writing activity records as a cover to avoid things, which in fact also went against the original intention of writing activity rewards. At that time I was thinking, “I’ve done so many things, and people still want to criticize me.” My desire to become an official became more and more obvious in my heart. This laid the groundwork for many problems later on.
I was also basically someone with a three-minute passion for things. In the end, when I saw that not many people were going to write, I thought, “Well, it’s basically over anyway,” and then I started blaming this person and that person. I never thought about how my own bureaucratic behavior had caused the whole thing to fail, and then I thought, “Since I’m not going to do it,” and just dumped the responsibility on the association. Starting from an extremely selfish desire, I also treated Hanqing in a completely unreasonable way. In the end, the cooperative did not continue, and as some comrades said, it was because criticism and self-criticism were not handled well. But I was stuck there in idealist thinking, believing that as long as I found someone to take the blame, that would be enough. That was also irresponsible to everyone.
Then, regarding criticism and self-criticism, I fantasized about the female shop assistant, and I still did not face this problem directly. I kept avoiding it, and my obsessive fantasizing and masturbation did not make me think about the harm that this attitude could cause to everyone. I kept wanting to act like a bureaucrat, and even less did I think about doing any criticism and self-criticism. My attitude was very bad
7 Likes
If Qian Renling really wants to contribute to the collective, he should also listen more to others’ opinions and criticisms. And he shouldn’t spring surprise attacks on people; what good does that do besides piling up private grudges?
Indeed, I have a lot of problems myself, yet I keep criticizing others all the time.
[chat quote=“烽火Flame;101270;2026-07-18T17:46:35Z” " channelId=“99” multiQuote=“true” chained=“true”]
Today, in order to figure out what has been happening here recently,
I kept scrolling back through the chat log and read a lot of content. Starting from the argument between Han Qing and Qian Renling, I found that this issue is far from simple.
This so-called primary association was, from the very beginning when Qian Renlin proposed it, just a stepping stone for him to realize his own plot to become an official.
Qian Renling’s kind of ambition is way too outrageous.
He proposed setting up a primary association, saying that everyone working together on activities and ideological struggle would be beneficial to the revolution, but in reality his only purpose was to build up his own personal authority. He wanted to use the achievements of running this organization to turn himself into a boss.
As a result, in a chat channel like Renmin Square, he even specially set up an organization under a different name, just to establish a separate center of power.
Then he tried to put together his own different set of activities and get others to take part, but in the end he only criticized other people and never criticized his own problems. He completely ignored the matter of him fantasizing about a female shop assistant, and his arrogant claim that I and the members exposed his bureaucratic ambition. He gave no response to any of it.
Later, Han Qing brought up this issue many times and asked him to discuss it openly with everyone, saying that criticism and self-criticism should be carried out, but Qian Renling directly used sarcastic, insinuating remarks to attack Han Qing.
After that, Qian Renlin also took advantage of the fact that our association is currently going through a difficult period to spread defeatism while attacking our association as reformist and blaming us for not handling this so-called primary association well.
[/chat]
前进Advance
烽火Flame
前进Advance
烽火Flame
luanma
烽火Flame
前进Advance
luanma
前进Advance
烽火Flame
前进Advance
烽火Flame
前进Advance
14 Likes
@Qian Renling, what do you think?
2 Likes
I don’t think this self-criticism is very profound. It doesn’t clearly explain the mindset behind your becoming an official, and it also doesn’t explain clearly the thing about fantasizing about the female shop assistant. There’s a lot of abstract general talk.
7 Likes
In the Name of Building a “Primary Society,” He Was in Fact Seizing Power Under the Guise of an Official — A Critique of Qian Renling’s Bourgeois Rightist Offensive
After reading the full discussion from these past few days, we can make a clear judgment:
Qian Renling’s problem was not ordinary work impatience, not simply a short-lived burst of enthusiasm, and not merely the later growth of a bit of bureaucratic thinking. From the moment he proposed establishing a “primary society,” he had already begun treating this mass activity as a springboard for building personal authority and seizing a leadership position.
On the surface, he said he wanted to organize everyone to write activity records, hold life meetings, and carry out ideological struggle, as if everything were for the collective. But in actual practice, he gradually described the common activities in People’s Square as an enterprise he founded, led, and owned himself, even saying such arrogant things as “me and the members.”
This was not a mere slip of the tongue. It was a direct expression of his real thinking: he had already placed himself above the masses, treated others as “members” he organized and led, counted the achievements collectively made by the masses as his own, and tried to use those achievements to gain political capital and personal authority.
I. Setting up a separate “primary society” was meant to build himself a stage for becoming an official
People’s Square was originally a mass activity venue under the leadership of the association, and everyone could fully write activity records there, hold life meetings, and carry out ideological struggle.
Yet Qian Renling insisted on introducing a separate name, “primary society,” and even wanted to “divide people” to distinguish who would participate and who would not. Why was it necessary to set up a separate name? Why was it necessary to create a new membership relationship?
Because only by setting up a separate “organization” could he place himself in the position of initiator, leader, and organizer.
If it were merely a matter of improving the activities in People’s Square, then the achievements would belong to People’s Square, to the association’s leadership, and to all the masses who took part. Only by setting up a separate “primary society” could Qian Renling claim: this was my idea, I made this happen, these people are my “members.”
So this so-called “primary society” was from the very beginning not a simple form of activity, but a tool for Qian Renling to realize his ambition of becoming an official and building his own clique.
This is the thinking of setting up a separate central authority. Although it occurred in a chat channel and in a mass activity, on a very small scale, its political nature did not change: he was not satisfied with participating in mass work under the association’s leadership, but wanted to start from scratch and establish an organizational center dominated by himself.
II. He allows only himself to criticize the masses, but not the masses to criticize him
Those who truly work for the collective, the more important work they shoulder, the more they should take the initiative to accept supervision from the masses.
But Qian Renling was exactly the opposite.
He could criticize others for not writing activity records; he could expose others’ corrupt lifestyles; he could question others for not taking part actively. But once Han Qing pointed out that his “me and the members” exposed his official-seeking mentality, and pointed out that the primary society’s organizational form was hollow, that personal dominance was too strong, and that the relationship between safety and organization was unclear, he immediately “felt more and more that something was off.”
What he was thinking was not: “Does Han Qing make a valid point? Have I really treated the cause of the masses as my own private enterprise?”
He was thinking: “How can someone like that criticize me when I’ve done so well?”
That sentence has already made his hierarchical thinking very clear.
In his view, Han Qing himself still had problems and was still living a parasitic life in college, so he was not qualified to criticize him. Only someone higher than him, with better achievements, could criticize him; the masses who were “behind” him could only listen to his instruction and had no right to supervise him.
This is not the mass line of the proletariat, but the attitude of bourgeois bureaucrats toward the masses.
Whether the masses have problems, and whether the criticism they raise is correct, are two different things. Han Qing may have problems and can be criticized separately; but because Han Qing has problems, that does not mean his exposure of Qian Renling’s official-seeking mentality can be dismissed.
Only those who want to defend hierarchical privilege would ask, “What right do you have to criticize me?”
III. Cutting things out of context and launching a surprise attack were meant to suppress dissenters and consolidate personal authority
Qian Renling did not fail to understand Han Qing’s criticism.
On the contrary, he understood it, which is precisely why he “felt more and more that something was off,” why he wanted to carry out a surprise attack, and why he clipped Han Qing’s original words so that Han Qing’s criticism of his organizational line and official-seeking mentality could be portrayed as malicious attacks on the mass organization and as having sinister motives.
This was not an ordinary misunderstanding, but a conscious selection of material to serve his own purposes.
His purpose was to cast Han Qing as a bad person who opposed the primary society, opposed the progress of the masses, and refused self-transformation, thereby proving that he himself was the correct person to defend the collective and lead the masses.
This was no longer normal comradely criticism; it was using exposures of faults, clipping material out of context, and insinuations to attack dissenters.
When this approach was seen through, he did not frankly admit it, but continued to play dumb and respond selectively. When everyone asked him for an explanation, he stayed silent; when everyone waited for his reply, he used the excuse of writing activity records to deliberately leave the collective hanging.
Activity records were originally meant to accept collective supervision, yet he used them as a way to evade collective supervision. This fully shows that in his mind, activity records and ideological struggle were merely tools for managing others and establishing his own authority. Once these things began to supervise him in return, he immediately opposed them.
IV. His self-criticism is not deep enough, because he still presents the problem as “his mentality later became bad”
Qian Renling’s current self-criticism says that at first he just wanted to do something good, and only later, after seeing the work go relatively well, did he gradually want to make it bigger, divide people, and become an official.
This explanation is still shifting responsibility away from himself.
The facts are not that he was completely right at the beginning and only later became bad by accident; rather, from the very start when he proposed the primary society, he linked it to his own personal political future. Comrade Fenghuo had already criticized his official-seeking mentality at that time, which shows that this issue had already been exposed when the primary society was first proposed.
Why did he not take this criticism seriously? Because the criticism struck at his real purpose. He was unwilling to give up the plan of using the primary society to build personal authority, so he first tried to gloss over it and kept pushing forward.
Therefore, what he must answer is not the abstract question of “whether I have an official-seeking mentality,” but rather:
Why was it necessary to set up a separate “primary society”?
Why did he need to “divide people”?
Why did he refer to the masses as his “members”?
What position did he actually want to obtain in this organization?
Did he want to use the achievements of the organization to prove that he had the ability to lead the masses, and thereby seek a higher position from the association?
Why did he refuse Fenghuo’s criticism of his official-seeking mentality from the outset?
Unless these questions are made clear, so-called self-criticism is still merely evading the main issue and dwelling on the minor one.
V. Short-lived enthusiasm and defeatism are both reactions after personal ambition is frustrated
When Qian Renling first began the primary society, he sang the tune very high, talking about a bright future and inevitable victory. Later, when fewer people wrote activity records, he immediately began saying it would fall apart and come to nothing, started complaining that this person was not active enough and that person was not responsible enough, and in the end pushed the blame onto the association.
Why did his attitude change so quickly?
Because what he cared about first and foremost was not whether the masses had made progress, but whether his own enterprise had succeeded.
When the masses responded, he felt his prestige was rising, so he became extraordinarily fanatical; when the masses did not respond, he felt his political plan had failed, so he immediately became disheartened, complained, and passed the buck.
This is petty-bourgeois fanaticism. When things go well, he imagines himself to be a great leader; when difficulties arise, he announces that everything is finished.
Real revolutionary work is not like this. Mass work inevitably encounters twists and turns, and requires long-term patience, investigation of problems, summarizing experience, and improving methods. Only those who treat mass activity as personal political achievement would lose their temper simply because there are no short-term results.
VI. Shifting responsibility onto the association was an attack on the association’s leadership and a pretext for seizing power for himself
After problems emerged in the primary society, Qian Renling did not look for causes in his own official-seeking mentality, alienation from the masses, or lack of self-criticism. Instead, he shifted the responsibility onto the association, accusing it of not sending people down, of not paying attention to the forum masses, and even portraying the association comrades’ self-criticism as the “improvement” he himself had “won through struggle.”
The political nature of this sentence is extremely serious.
The association comrades admitted that they had not paid enough attention to the forum in the past and decided to strengthen mass work. This was the result of the association’s criticism and self-criticism, and also an expression of the correct line’s self-correction.
Qian Renling, however, portrayed this as an “improvement” won through his own struggle, as if the association were a ruling group oppressing the masses and he were a leader representing the masses in fighting for rights from the association.
In this way, he set the association’s leadership against the forum’s masses, cast himself as the representative of the masses’ interests, and described the association as a completely dark bureaucratic group that was forced to back down.
This is similar to the political logic of the 1957 rightist offensive: the Communist Party carried out internal rectification and admitted shortcomings in its work, while the bourgeois rightists exploited the Party’s self-criticism, endlessly magnified its shortcomings, attacked the Party’s leadership and line, and attempted to replace it themselves.
If the association’s work has problems, then of course it must be criticized. But the association’s shortcomings can by no means become a reason for Qian Renling to set up a separate organizational center, attack the association’s leadership, and seize political privilege.
He is not helping the association correct its mistakes; he is exploiting the association’s opportunity for self-criticism to expand his own authority and weaken the association’s leadership.
VII. His avoidance of criticism of male chauvinist pornography shows that so-called ideological struggle is merely a tool for controlling others
Qian Renling demands every day that others write activity records, openly express their thoughts, and oppose indulgence.
Yet he himself fantasized about the female shop assistants, describing their appearance, makeup, and “delicately lovely” demeanor in great detail, exposing serious male chauvinist pornographic thinking, and still never carried out any direct self-criticism.
He does not analyze why he treats women as objects of visual pleasure, why he first notices women’s appearance at the work site, or why he wraps his pornographic observations in pretty talk about “liberating them.”
While avoiding his own male chauvinist pornographic thinking, he still stands above others and criticizes their corrupt lifestyles. This shows that what he calls ideological struggle is not primarily about transforming himself, but rather a tool for judging others and expanding his own authority.
If a person does not dare expose even his most prominent decadent thoughts, yet wants to lead others in ideological remolding, that is not revolutionary leadership; that is bourgeois bureaucracy.
VIII. The essence of this struggle is the struggle between the association’s leadership and the mass line on one side, and the bourgeois line of official-seeking and power seizure on the other
Therefore, this matter can no longer be described as a private dispute between Qian Renling and Han Qing, nor can it be reduced to the claim that the primary society’s organizational methods were immature.
One side of the struggle insists on the association’s leadership, insists on People’s Square as a common mass undertaking, insists on criticism and self-criticism, and insists that everyone must accept supervision from the masses.
The other side consists of Qian Renling turning mass activity into private political capital, turning himself into a mass boss, setting up a separate organizational center, criticizing only others while refusing others’ criticism of himself, and attacking the association’s leadership and denouncing the collective cause after his ambition was frustrated.
This is a bourgeois line of seeking office and seizing power, and it is also a rightist offensive disguised as “helping the masses” and “building the organization.”
Its danger lies not only in Qian Renling’s personal desire to become an official, but also in the fact that if this line is not criticized, it will turn People’s Square into a place for power struggles, turn ideological struggle into a means of attacking dissenters, divide the masses into leaders and the led, and ultimately undermine the association’s centralized and unified leadership.
IX. Qian Renling must once again carry out a thorough self-criticism
Qian Renling’s current self-criticism is still far from enough.
He must fully explain the following questions:
First, from when did he begin to want to obtain personal authority through the primary society?
Second, why did he need to set up the name “primary society” separately, and why did he need to “divide people”?
Third, when he said “me and the members,” how did he view the relationship between himself and the masses?
Fourth, when Fenghuo first criticized his official-seeking mentality, why did he not accept it?
Fifth, why did he think that because Han Qing had problems, Han Qing was not qualified to criticize him?
Sixth, why did he cut things out of context and launch a surprise attack on Han Qing?
Seventh, why did he use the association’s self-criticism to attack the association’s leadership, and portray the association’s work improvements as “improvements” won by himself?
Eighth, why has he long avoided self-criticizing his male chauvinist pornographic thinking toward the female shop assistants?
Ninth, does he truly intend to obey the association’s leadership and participate in mass work, or does he still want to retain a private clique under his own control?
He must also take practical action:
Abandon the idea of treating the primary society as an independent organization and a private undertaking;
Publicly correct the distortions and attacks on Han Qing;
Accept supervision from the association and the masses;
First expose his own lifestyle and ideological problems instead of continuing to stand above others and criticize the masses;
Contribute his knowledge, experience, and labor unconditionally to the collective, and no longer use them as capital in exchange for power.
Conclusion
Qian Renling’s problem can no longer be explained by “youth, impatience, and lack of experience.”
He developed personal ambition within mass activity and tried to build private authority; after being criticized, he then used distortion out of context, hierarchical suppression, silent resistance, and attacks on the association to defend that ambition.
This line must be thoroughly criticized.
A revolutionary organization is not a ladder for personal promotion, the masses are not anyone’s “members,” and criticism and self-criticism are not tools for a few people to manage the masses.
Anyone who wants to use the revolutionary cause to seek privilege, use the achievements of the masses to build personal authority, or use organizational self-criticism to attack organizational leadership must be exposed and criticized by the masses.
Only by completely abandoning his ambition to become an official and seize power, admitting and correcting his bourgeois rightist line, obeying the association’s leadership, and accepting supervision from the masses can Qian Renling return to the correct path.
20 Likes
@Qian Renling, where did you go? Why aren’t you responding to these questions?
15 Likes
Counterattack did not show up today. What do you think? Counterattack should take a look at the latest chapter of Guide to the Struggle in Thought: “When we intellectuals engage in ideological struggle, ultimately we must also submit to the class interests of the proletariat and serve the interests of the proletarian revolution, rather than make improving our personal circumstances or satisfying our personal desires our objective. Is ideological struggle ultimately for the revolution and the collective, or for getting rich and the individual? Around this fundamental question, two diametrically opposed attitudes will inevitably arise, and two mutually opposed paths will inevitably take shape.” Counterattack going abroad to work means being detached from the circumstances of the Chinese revolution; it is not something undertaken with the proletariat in mind. Moreover, everyone’s criticism of you absolutely was not intended to harm you in any way—it was certainly meant to lay the groundwork for your future path toward proletarianization. Although Counterattack has been removed, how can people not be worried when you are saying nothing now? Furthermore, Counterattack’s behavior is also wrong. If Counterattack later firmly takes part in the revolution and even ends up in prison, would that mean forgetting everyone and forgetting the revolution? Besides, today’s setback is only a minor one; it is nothing serious. Once you correct your course, you can still be a good comrade.
Counterattack used to actively organize organizational life meetings—could anyone really forget that? Counterattack also wrote conference reports and activity records; these are all good things. But now Counterattack is not saying a word—isn’t that exactly what you said in your personal profile about “forgetting the earnest hopes that our revolutionary forebears placed in us”? I think that no matter what kind of situation Counterattack encounters, whether it is a language problem or something else, everyone will give you the greatest possible help. Counterattack, you must trust everyone—don’t remain silent.
1 Like
Why are you replying here?
Because he has no other posts