I feel that Fang Fang's article was selected as a university textbook

These passages, almost every one of which reflects a dark, negative, negative, unhealthy psychology and distorted worldview, is spoken with the mouth of the "Seventh Brother", but this passage is specially excerpted, obviously for praise, not criticism. It is not difficult to deduce that this passage also exposes the worldview of the author and excerpter.

Screenshot of textbook article.

Recently, in a public account, I saw that a fang fang article was included in the content of a school's newly compiled "University Language" textbook, and I carefully checked it, as if this news was a year ago and had caused controversy.

Some paragraphs of the article are excerpted as follows:

Brother Seven said that when you see everything in this world and the world itself as worthless, you will feel that you will live to this point to live a little taste, and you can walk back and forth freely on the road of life.

Brother Seven said that life is like a leaf, coming and going in a hurry. The buds in spring are for the fall in autumn. Why should we care if we rob others of their nutrition and make ourselves fat and green?

Brother Seven said that most of the people who claim to be clean and honest live for their own reputation, and although they have not harmed others, they have not made any contribution to society and mankind. And those who are reviled for getting rich from ill-gotten gains may pay a large sum of money to build a hospital or a school, so that many people can enjoy their benefits. Of these two kinds of people, can you say who is better and who is worse?

As soon as the seventh brother entered the house, he barked and barked like a mad dog without restraint, as if it were a cruel revenge for the right he never had to speak when he was a child. The father and mother could not hear the seventh brother's set, and always shouted "tooth acid" and ran outside the door.

The Beijing-Guangzhou Railway almost brushed past the eaves. Trains run every average of seven minutes, rumbling with a roaring wind and deafening noise. Here, father and mother could hear every syllable of the seventh brother crushed by the huge wheels.

According to the author of the public account, this text is excerpted from Fang Fang's novella "Landscape" published in 1987, which is said to have won an award that year.

I have not read this novel, only the above excerpt text theory, did not see the author's statement that "the thinking is thick, with a strong literary nature", but I saw the author's "superficial thinking and the evil intention", and also saw the intention of the excerpt: the curve of the voice of the folk criticism criticism "xx diary" during the new crown epidemic.

Here, in particular, I would like to focus on this passage: most of the people who claim to be clean and honest live for their own reputation, and although they have not harmed others, they have not made any contribution to society and mankind. And those who are reviled for getting rich from ill-gotten gains may pay a large sum of money to build a hospital or a school, so that many people can enjoy their benefits. Of these two kinds of people, can you say who is better and who is worse?

Although this passage ends with a question mark, it is a kind of inducing question mark, exposing the author's and excerpter's view of right and wrong: the contribution to social and human development is measured only from a superficial financial perspective, judged by the amount of money. Thus: the rich who have the financial ability to do charity contribute more to society and humanity than the honest ordinary people. Even value judgments in the moral sphere are determined by monetary ability, and the authors issue "good guy cards" to the former rather than the latter.

A step further, this passage also reveals the appreciation and recognition of unscrupulous ways to get rich, as long as you donate money to build a hospital school afterwards, you can gain fame and fortune.

Isn't it obvious which side of the author and excerpter's ass are sitting on, and which class of emotions are biased towards?

After Chairman Mao led the CPC to establish a new China, it has been constantly preaching that the masses of the people are the decisive force in the development of social history, trying to reverse and correct the idealistic historical concept of "princes and generals" that has been running rampant for thousands of years and aimed at fooling the people, and at the same time being extremely vigilant against the erosion and corruption of leading cadres at all levels by bourgeois ideas such as "exploitation has merit."

The history of the development of New China over the past 70 -odd years shows that whenever policymakers loosen their position that "the masses of the people are the decisive force for the historical development of society," they will make mistakes and take detours. Whenever public opinion and the general public no longer mention this position, or even forget this position, the social order will be chaotic and social contradictions will intensify.

The above excerpt is undoubtedly a naked contempt for the power of the "masses of the people" and an attempt to whitewash the public opinion of those who have made their fortunes by "ill-gotten gains."

The author of the official account said that "Fang Fang has been misunderstood and attacked a lot. Fang Fang's article was selected as a university textbook, telling contemporary young people, especially college students, that they should learn to think independently and should have their own cognition", and I can only agree with the last sentence: "Contemporary young people, especially college students, should learn to think independently": What kind of world view is beneficial to social and human development.

To put it a little more, when advocating its idealistic world outlook or view of history, the public who stands on the side of the bourgeoisie often uses such tactics as stealing concepts, partial generalizations, attacking them a little less than the rest, and seeing only trees and not seeing the forest.

For example, they will make a problem, poor or rich people contribute a lot to society? Compare a specific poor person to a specific rich person and draw conclusions. This is the typical concept of stealing, to partial generalize.

A poor person's contribution to social history does not represent the entire poor class, and a rich person's contribution to social history certainly does not represent the entire rich class. Dialectical materialism and historical materialism are about looking at the general trend and the whole. You can't be led by this simple, superficial contrast.

For example, during the hong Kong unrest, some teachers and the media publicly known that they used the method of "attacking the little one and the rest" to smear the mainland's system, social order, and even the personal qualities of mainland tourists.

They infinitely amplify the negative behavior of individual mainland tourists, constantly rendering a mainland child defecating in the open, but deliberately ignoring the fact that the vast majority of mainlanders are law-abiding and self-disciplined tourists who follow local customs.

They specifically play up some negative news in the interior, create a social environment in which officials are corrupt and people's livelihood is difficult, and blame this on institutional problems, but deliberately ignore the earth-shaking changes and progress that have taken place in the country in the past seven decades and the huge improvement and improvement of people's living standards, which shows the advantages of the system.

Therefore, seeing through these well-known means of deception helps to eliminate the poison of public knowledge.