Thought Report (1)
Why join the Party? What does joining the Party mean? In my previous thought reports, I have already discussed these questions many times. This time I thought of a metaphor that may not be the most apt one, but is very interesting, and perhaps can help me further express my views.
I compare joining the Party to getting married.
Why get married? Without marriage, everything can still go on as usual; one can still keep love, still live together, and even raise children. Likewise, without joining the Party, one can still do everything that ought to be done, can still keep one’s faith, and can still contribute to society. So why join the Party?
In one respect, marriage can bring certain practical benefits: getting married obtains a series of legal statuses, welfare guarantees, and so on. Correspondingly, joining the Party also brings certain benefits; this is quite natural. But clearly, that is not the main thing we seek.
Marriage, first of all, is a sacred ceremony, a matter for one’s whole life, something that happens only once in a lifetime (of course, ideally speaking), and such a ceremony is unforgettable for life. Many people, no matter how poor or how bitter their daily lives may be, still insist on holding a grand wedding. This is easy to understand, because it really is something of extraordinary significance. The solemnity, sacredness, joy, and emotion of that moment are worth savoring over an entire lifetime. Correspondingly, joining the Party, first of all, is also precisely a sacred ceremony. Reading the application under the Party flag and solemnly taking the oath—at that moment, the solemnity, sacredness, joy, and emotion are likewise worth savoring over an entire lifetime.
Marriage means a turning point, a change of role. Before marriage, you are the pursuer, subjected to her observation and tests; you may need to write love letters often, to declare your resolve often; even if at times it may perhaps seem cheesy, of course, you can also examine yourself, and giving up the pursuit is your freedom. Correspondingly, before joining the Party, you are also the pursuer, subjected to the organization’s observation and tests; you need to write thought reports often, to declare your resolve often; even if at times you may have to write many stock phrases, of course, no one forces you to join the Party, and you can give up at any time. But after marriage, everything is completely different: no more pursuit or testing is needed; what takes its place is mutual loyalty and unconditional trust. You may very likely no longer need to write love letters, and sweet talk will also become much less frequent, but that does not mean love has weakened; it is because the roles are different now. Correspondingly, after joining the Party, your relationship with the Party organization also changes from mutual probing to mutual trust. Thought reports may not be handed in quite so often, and words of loyalty and resolve no longer need to be constantly on your lips. This likewise does not mean that your enthusiasm has diminished in the slightest; the roles have changed, and what matters more is taking on one’s own responsibility.
Marriage symbolizes a lifelong contract; it is a kind of agreement, or rather a kind of constraint, a binding—using my own earlier words, a “shackle.” This shackle is self-imposed. It binds the paths of two lives together; even without shackles, they might still head in the same direction, but the feeling of shoulder to shoulder, hand in hand, is not the same. Especially on that thorny, tortuous road, I would rather put on fetters and lock the two of us together. Joining the Party means finding for oneself a pair of fetters, finding for oneself a heavy burden, but at the same time, it also means finding a kind of support and home.
Thought Report (2)
Dear Party Organization:
About faith: some Party members say that in this age we should no longer talk about faith; faith itself is an ethereal, elusive, and incomprehensible concept. Moreover, most people do not really know much about Marxism—how many have seriously read Capital, how many have read the selected works of Marx and Engels? Even if they have read them, there are still different opinions from different people, and no definite concept of what Marxism is. If even the object of faith is unclear, what is there to talk about in faith? As long as one is willing to serve the people, willing to do good deeds, and willing to contribute, that should count as meeting the requirements for joining the Party.
I do not agree with this view. Believing in Marxism and believing in communism are basic requirements for a Party member. This has long been made crystal clear in black and white to you; no one forces you to join the Party. Joining the Party is originally a two-way choice, like a contract. Since you do not accept the terms, then simply do not accept them. Why set the agreement first and then come back to bargain?
Disagreement over the object of faith does not mean that faith itself cannot be discussed. Take the question “What is philosophy?”—it is even more a matter of different people having different views. Various philosophers and various philosophical schools will all offer their own different, even completely opposite, opinions. So does that mean that because we cannot figure out this question, we should take down the sign of our philosophy department and stop doing philosophical research? An uncertain concept of the word “philosophy” does not prevent the formation of a philosophical circle, nor does it prevent philosophers from recognizing one another. The “philosophy” in our minds may mean different things, but we can still share a common discourse and gain recognition from each other and from others. The same is true of identification with Marxism and communism. Marxism is not a dead dogma, but living thought; understanding Marxism can be altered as times and circumstances change. I have my own Marxism in mind, and my understanding is certainly very different from that of most people, but I can still confidently declare that I believe in Marxism and believe in communism. Only in this way can I be truly clear of conscience, and only then, when I compare myself item by item with the Party member standards written in black and white, can I face them without shame.
Thought Report (3)
Dear Party Organization:
First impressions of Marxist philosophy: like many people, I first encountered Marxist philosophy in the political textbook in high school. Of course, my impression at that time was not very good. That kind of “Marxism” denigrated so-called idealist metaphysics and imperfect materialism, and all other non-Marxist philosophies, as worth absolutely nothing. That was precisely what first made me suspicious: I imagined that those idealist philosophers could hardly all be fools; as thinkers whose names have gone down in history, they must, in any case, be much smarter than I am. Why would they make such worthless, fragile theories that can be punctured at a touch? I vaguely felt that so-called idealism, metaphysics, and the like, even if problematic, would not be so simple. On the other hand, the textbook’s introduction to Marxist philosophy was also unacceptable: its theoretical logic was not rigorous, and its contradictions and loopholes were so obvious that even I could point out a whole pile of them at a glance… Fortunately, I never blamed these problems on Marx, because I also imagined that Marx and Engels were even greater figures whose names would endure for all time; whatever the case, they were much more insightful than I was, and of course their theory would not be so simple.
Non-Marxist thought would not be this simple, and Marxism even less so—carrying these two assumptions, I began looking for some extracurricular reading to verify my views. I remember the first related book I read at the time was New Marxism of the 20th Century, published by the Central Compilation and Translation Press. Later, during my first year of high school, I successively read more than ten books on Marxism or on philosophy. The result is easy to imagine: my assumptions were confirmed—Marxism is broad and profound, and philosophy is not simple either.
Below, I will briefly talk about my initial impression of Marxist philosophy:
According to the view handed down through the Soviet textbook system, philosophy is Marxist philosophy; this view is of course wrong. However, along with the breaking down of the old dogmas, another view that has appeared in China today—that Marxism is not philosophy—is also undesirable. Whether Marxism is philosophy, and what kind of philosophy it is, is a question that must first be made clear. As Teacher Zhang Libo said: “What Marxism is, what Marxist philosophy is, how to understand Marx—these things seem self-evident, yet as the social scene changes, again and again, they become the basic premises of Marxist philosophy research.”
In my understanding, Marxist philosophy has the following four characteristics: reality, richness, profundity, and development.
The first distinctive feature of Marxist philosophy is its reality. As Marx himself said, compared with philosophy before it, the difference of Marxist philosophy lies in the fact that it is not satisfied with merely “interpreting the world,” but is more committed to “changing the world.” Like Marx’s politics and economics, Marxist philosophy is likewise grounded in reality. Marx’s starting point is “human beings”; he takes human freedom and the all-round liberation of humankind as his ultimate goal. Marx also said “to abolish philosophy.” I believe that what he opposed was precisely the empty and illusory philosophy detached from reality and from human beings themselves; Marxist philosophy, by contrast, is always centered on human beings and on practice. Entering the modern era, the survival of Marxist philosophy remains the same: “Whether it is ‘returning to Marx’ or ‘developing Marx,’ it is a process of interpretation and understanding; what matters is to base oneself on the real social life of the present, fostering a positive interaction among theory, history, and reality.”
Richness is self-evident. Marx and Engels not only delved into and researched many disciplines such as philosophy, economics, politics, history, sociology, and the natural sciences, but in philosophy alone Marx’s thought broadly encompassed and explored philosophical ideas from ancient to modern times, and he also made achievements in various fields and categories of philosophy. However, although Marxist philosophy is so rich and all-encompassing, it should not be regarded as a self-contained and complete “theoretical system.” Marxist philosophy is certainly tightly interconnected, but it never attempted to build a complete system. The Soviet textbook model systematized Marxist philosophy, but in fact it sealed Marxism off from itself and distorted it. Marxism should be regarded as a rich treasury of thought; various currents and schools, when facing all kinds of theoretical and practical problems, can all come to this treasury to seek roots, absorb nourishment, and receive inspiration. This is where the significance of the richness of Marxist philosophy lies.
As for profundity, it is necessary to emphasize this: Marxist philosophy has absolutely not become vulgar simply because of its reality and practical orientation. Marxist philosophy is indeed approachable, because it is always unfolded closely around human beings. But this in no way affects the profundity of its theory. Marx and Engels, with their keen insight and profound vision, constructed a profound theory. One must not forget the profundity of its content merely because it has been popularized and made accessible to the masses; popularization does not mean simplification, and still less vulgarization! Popularization is “explaining profound ideas in simple terms,” and can only be achieved on the basis of a deep understanding and use of the theory’s content; its degree of difficulty is often even higher than doing academic research. Yet in reality, China’s level of philosophical popularization is not something to commend. This is precisely because the balance between popularization and profundity has not been properly grasped and coordinated.
Finally, a very important point is “development”: “As everyone knows, Marxism founded by Marx and Engels is not a purely academic theory in the style of the academy, but a theory of social criticism with very strong practicality. Because this practical theory has an ultimate concern for actual existence and consciously intervenes in the process of social history, it cannot seal itself off within a purely ideal academic kingdom; it cannot develop self-sufficiently, far away from the cultural and spiritual conflicts of its era. It must, with an open theoretical horizon, intersect or contend with the various cultural currents and theoretical doctrines of its time, and while influencing other theories and cultural currents of the same era, it also undergoes its own change, differentiation, or progress.” It is precisely this characteristic of Marxist philosophy that has made Marxism this era’s “only philosophy that cannot be surpassed.” It is unsurpassable because it never reaches final perfection, but is always developing along with social change.
Thought Report (4)
Dear Party Organization:
A summary of my university study, life, and work over the past year: Looking back on my university life over the past year, I should say that this year has been very meaningful to me, and the influence I have played in the class has also been positive.
My conduct can be summed up as having three characteristics: practical, technical, and stable.
First, my personality is relatively pragmatic. In fact, what I lack more is creativity and initiative. Since entering university, I have served in the class as the publicity committee member of the Youth League branch, and I also concurrently worked in the publicity department of the department’s Youth League committee and the publicity department of the department student union. I never sought positions at the university level. On the one hand, this was due to laziness; on the other hand, it was also because I tend toward practical work, hoping that my work will land in concrete results. Helping out within the department for classmates and teachers I know is a better choice for me. One not-so-good aspect of my personality is that I do not like to be ostentatious, or rather, I am unwilling to stand out, so I have not done much in the way of proactive, creative, or leading work. As a Communist Party member, I must admit that I am deficient in this respect. However, I am confident that in passive tasks I am very down-to-earth and responsible; whatever work is handed to me, even if I complain a little in private, I will still take it on and complete it seriously, never shirking responsibility. In the class and in the department, although I seldom do leading work, I often am willing to help in the role of cooperation and participation. As long as a task entrusted to me is within my ability, I am even less likely to refuse it.
My most important feature would have to be “technical.” The so-called “technology” is mainly reflected in computer skills. In terms of computer use, I probably count among the best in the class, so my work has centered more on computers. First, about a week after the semester began, I set up an online alumni register and a QQ group for the class, making it convenient for classmates to communicate. This is, of course, a small task, but someone still has to think of it. Some classes may go two or three years without a dedicated online chat and communication platform. In this regard I was somewhat ahead, making a slight contribution to forming a sense of unity within the class. Soon after, classmates began setting up computers one after another, and of course with computers there are bound to be problems. So I began to function as a sort of computer clinic and repair shop, often helping classmates kill viruses, check errors, install systems, and set up software—count that as serving the people, I suppose. Later, since I had already passed office automation in sixth grade and had relatively much experience using computers, with a certain foundation and proficiency in word processing and graphic-text layout, I began to take on many computer-related tasks within the department: the first I handled was maintenance of the Department Student Garden website. Of course, because my creativity and initiative were lacking, I merely continued the previous person’s work in a routine manner in this area. Then, in the newly founded publication Xin Cai of the department Youth League committee publicity department, I was responsible for all the layout work. In this issue’s department journal Communist Youth Garden, I also took on the main layout and art design work. During this year’s department culture festival, I participated in making bookmarks. In addition, I often participated in making posters and flyers and other publicity materials for department activities, and I also frequently took part in producing written materials for activity applications and slide presentations, and so on. I will not list them one by one here.
The final characteristic is stability, which mainly refers to my character. Stability here is relative to confusion and restlessness. Of course, my moral character cannot be called noble, but my conduct can be considered proper; on this point I am confident. From middle school through high school, I always had a good reputation and was well liked in the class, while also playing a stabilizing role. I believe I can likewise play such a role in university.
Thought Report (5) / Principles
Dear Party Organization:
Recently, while chatting casually, a friend said that I was the person in the philosophy department “most rigid about principles.” Of course, this was said in a half-joking setting, and its intent was probably to praise me, but I still felt somewhat unconvinced.
In fact, I do not think I am a person who is big on principles. It would be more acceptable to say that I am “the least principled,” because what I value is the word “flexible.” I not only advocate “adapting to circumstances” and “responding as things change,” but when it comes to “playing along with the situation,” I am not opposed to it either, and in fact believe that in many cases it is necessary. I am one who values adaptability—how could I be the most principled?
Perhaps others take the word “principles” too lightly. For example, I always insist on arriving early at any meeting, and I always stand at attention when I hear the national anthem. Can these things count as principles? Just think: if a friend beside me suddenly collapsed during the national anthem, would I still be able to insist on standing at attention? Can something that can be broken so easily be called sticking to principles? That is only sticking to certain habits.
In addition, “being principled” and “sticking to principles” are not the same. I am absolutely a person who sticks to principles, but not a person who talks about principles, because for me there are not many principles to stick to. Without principles, how can one talk about principles? I also do not know whether I count as having principles. If I do, there is probably only one or so, and there would also be very few occasions when I would need to talk about that principle.
Why do I appear to be such a strongly principled person? Perhaps it is a misunderstanding: on the one hand, I insist on some of my own habits and avoid drifting with the tide or repeating what others say; on the other hand, what I am talking about is not “principles,” but “responsibility.” This is something I value extremely highly. In dealing with people and affairs, there is no need always to be rigid and rule-bound, but no matter how one adapts, one should be responsible for one’s own words and actions. If you cannot bear a sentence, then do not say it; if you cannot shoulder a role, then do not pretend to play it. Nor is it that one must be responsible for certain other people; in being a person, one should above all be responsible for oneself. If what you say and do can be brought up again years later without feeling ashamed or regretful, then that is enough.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply