This page will share people’s voices speaking out against revisionism and reaction, in a way that is perhaps too short or rough to befit its own post . If you would like to contribute something to the Dazibao Wall, please contact me. I will be somewhat selective in choosing and editing these, and will remove older posts, but my main priority is to “let a hundred flowers bloom” in a way that Struggle Sessions never could. -Rita
What if one dare not write? Some people say they dare not write even when they have something to say, lest they should offend people and be criticized. I think such worries can be cast aside. Ours is a people’s democratic state, and it provides an environment conducive to writing in the service of the people. The policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend offers additional guarantees for the flowering of science and the arts. If what you say is right, you need not fear criticism, and through debate you can further explain your correct views. If what you say is wrong, then criticism can help you correct your mistakes, and there is nothing bad in that. In our society, militant revolutionary criticism and counter-criticism is the healthy method used to expose and resolve contradictions, develop science and the arts and ensure success in all our work.
“Let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” is a long-term as well as a fundamental policy; it is not just a temporary policy.
Two alternative methods of leading our country, or in other words two alternative policies, can be adopted — to “open wide” or to “restrict”. To “open wide” means to let all people express their opinions freely, so that they dare to speak, dare to criticize and dare to debate; it means not being afraid of wrong views or anything poisonous; it means to encourage argument and criticism among people holding different views, allowing freedom both for criticism and for counter-criticism; it means not coercing people with wrong views into submission but convincing them by reasoning. To “restrict” means to forbid people to air differing opinions and express wrong ideas, and to “finish them off with a single blow” if they do so. That is the way to aggravate rather than to resolve contradictions. To “open wide”, or to “restrict”? We must choose one or the other of these two policies. We choose the former, because it is the policy which will help to consolidate our country and develop our culture.Mao on Propaganda Work
February 6th, 2023
Note: a reader sent in this criticism of my decision to remove the old SS articles. This was part of what led me to re-upload them.
I would like to preface this letter by saying that I am in support of the mass public release of criticism against Struggle Sessions, the production of criticism against the Struggle Sessions leadership, and transforming Struggle Sessions from a platform led by opportunists’ writings to a platform for hosting works against the opportunists.
However, I take issue with the mass deletion of all previous works on Struggle Sessions. Why try to hide what was said? I think that it would be far more productive to keep the works up, but add a cautionary disclaimer in the preface of every work, or even take the time to write criticism of issues with the specific works. Mass deleting all of them does nothing but set your cause back, because it prevents much of your readership from seeing what was said in those works, from seeing much of the context in your new criticisms of Struggle Sessions. Websites like RedLibrary.xyz have set up organized archives of every Struggle Sessions work, so it is very much possible to see the deleted works, but the issue here is that they’re trying to be hidden, suppressed, and obscured rather than being used for demonstration of the opportunism of the old leadership, and as a result, a significant amount of people that would see the old works through a new lens, can’t see the old works, because it is more difficult to find them and they seem to be inaccessible.
February 4th, 2023
Note: Someone emailed me the following message
I left the cult called “communist party of Canada” and openely became and-communist. I have followed this blog but more out of intellectual curiosity, as I am well read on gonzalo and his “sendero”. He created his own cult and most likely killed his wife but it is so interesting to see people worshipping him like a God. This is much more piquant than bland trotskyism or revisionism. This is close to real to death cult.
In all honesty all the communist organizations I observed or followed practiced the same kind of attitude: small cult or clique and covering up sexual violence, misappropriated funds. Your case is not unique.
[…] In Canada almost all organizations I knew had similar experience. Tim Buck’s words, the past leader of Cpc “I am Tim Buck and I love to fuck” were quoted to me by the same person who later was expelled over the sexual abuse/harassment. That time when we drank together I thought it was funny, but now I can see it as an attitude, certain trend which means that leader does whatever he wants.
The leader can always corner its victim by pressing, ideology or whatever means and if victim fights back, gets expulsed, ends up cutting all the ties with former “comrades”, depressed etc. It is the same game everywhere.