Thoughts of chapter nine:

As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.

Similar idea as in intersectionality; proper analysis is only possible through viewing the whole as a unique combination of factors instead of picking out a singular factor and only focusing on that.

Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”

The use of struggle by Chinese leftists is interesting, as we typically think of struggle as a thing leftists do against the dominant ideology, not each other. I think the idea is that leftists aren’t struggling with each other but rather the remnants of bourgeois ideology within ourselves.

People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena.

Hopium huffers versus doomers.

Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party

Inaction and fear of upsetting balance is not as bad as outright malevolence but still undermines the movement.

This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.

I think bureaucracy here means a mindset wherein, instead of a proper analysis of a conflict or contradiction in the Party as to come to a truthful, proletariat solution, one just defers to a route, codified process of dealing with it. Default to a system rather than ideological analysis.

People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances - the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences.

Giving false airs of high-minded principle to what are actually just petty personal preferences as self-flattery. Every leftist organization has at least one of these types about.

Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.

Amplify good behaviors and ideas instead of constantly chasing bad ones to belittle.

even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.

Given the timeframe this was written during, I bet this was a particularly thorny problem for the Chinese Communist Party.

more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged.

Hmmm, even in that era there was issues with Yes men and not wanting to criticize upwards.

Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.

Appeal to the middle is a fallacy liberals are prone to and only allows bad ideas to work through and creates a pusillanimous mindset.

If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent.

Ultra leftism is an autoimmune disorder to socialism.

In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all mankind into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle.

Once again, mass movements require building a mass, not just a sliver of the “pure, true believers.”

Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology.

I’ve known people like that, they just bounce from one radical movement to another, getting discouraged the moment it’s not easy, constantly puffing about the moral superiority of their contrarianism.

It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature.

Who’s bringing what dish to the potluck is not an ideological struggle.

I’ll type up some final thoughts tomorrow, see if there’s any points you brought up that I should address.