Essay:On Principled Discussion
 |
To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.-Chairman Mao Zedong[1]
Discussing beliefs and separate viewpoints through principled debate and discussion is vital towards solving these contradictions within Communists and the people. Failure to adhere to principled debate leads to wrong methods, wrong methods lead to wrong ideas, and wrong ideas lead to revisionism. It is vital to engage in principled discussion and to avoid unprincipled discussion. These are the principles of principled discussion:
1. To be able to admit when you're wrong
2. Acting civil
3. Not acting antagonistic for no reason
4. Citing evidence
5. Never being afraid to leave from a discussion if your opponent is being unprincipled
Of course, not everyone will act this way. Which is why it's also crucial to spot unprincipled methods and critique them for what they are:
1. To go out of a discussion abruptly
2. Having an Ego
3. Treating debates as a game for scores
4. Never admitting you're wrong
5. Making fun of people or what they said instead of critique
6. Punishing your opponent for opposing ideas instead of critique
7. Calling someone insults or being unproductive in general
8. Dogpiling alienates and is a most bourgeois-dogmatist formulation
9. To constantly claw and itch for debates
10. To sit beside and watch debates, and to "critique" afterwards without proper criticism or observation.
Of course the list goes further; however, this gives us a good image of what unprincipled discussion is. However, this begs the question, where do debatists come from? Debatists come from opportunists and dogmatists; often when they're forced to defend their beliefs, they will realize that they cannot defend them through principled means and must do it through unprincipled means. Debatists seek not to correct ideas but to self-mental-masturbate. They are not Marxists but a sham of liberalism and dogmatism. Debatists insult, dismiss, and oppose their allies and refuse to read and be productive. Marxists, in contrast, seek to correct ideas in order to preserve correct methods; correct methods lead to correct ideas and lead to scientific thinking. Marxists do not dismiss, insult, and oppose their allies and refuse to read. Marxists are productive.
Debatists often mask this liberalism by saying that it's "constructive criticism" yet fail to do self-criticism themselves! This is a most hypocritical statement. Debatism is, of course, a corrosive poison; it undermines constructive discussion/criticism. When debatists do self-criticize, it is often temporary, and they do not learn. They do not view it as a method to sharpen the sword of scientific thinking but as an annoyance, an anti-Marxist view, as Marx himself advocated for self-criticism[2]; debatist egos often lead them to self-criticize at a level lower than what is needed. They see it as small mistakes but don't see it for what it is: big mistakes. Debatists are dogmatists; however, not all dogmatists are debatists. Debatists often reveal their counter-revolutionary nature during their "critiques"; they often attack the opponents' race, national identity, or ideology.
In contrast to debatists, Marxists engage in principled productive discussion; Marxists defend their beliefs strongly but not only through emotions but also with evidence. Marxists should not go into debates solely for self-gratification but to correct wrong ideas present in a person or group of people. Marxists are always open to learning from other Marxists and are always open to self-criticism; they admit that they have made small or even big mistakes, and they are not antagonistic for the sake of it. Marxists argue not to alienate or "win," but to correct.
And so for the previously mentioned reasons, this is why Marxists must critique unprincipled discussion and uphold principled discussion. Of course, not all unprincipled debaters are debatists. Unprincipled debate sometimes appears in Marxists, and it's important to correct this and to critique strongly and surely. This must be made clear, or revisionism will occur.