"No Debates" - The Shield of the Privileged

By Zhao Zimo, written May 6, 2025

In recent years, "no debates" has become an all-purpose shield in the public opinion arena. When you question American hegemony, they say "no debates"; when you question private ownership, they say "no debates"; when you ask where Chairman Mao went wrong, they immediately say: "That's all in the past, no debates." This isn't tolerance or rationality—it's a fig leaf covering contradictions and protecting privilege.

Behind this stand "elites" who eat from capitalism's table and drink foreigners' blood—in plain terms, they are the old society's advisors and the new imperialism's lackeys . Who Invented "No Debates"?

The masses didn't invent this. Ordinary people have never feared debate. They debate which vendor has the freshest pork at the market and argue on their kang beds about whether children should go to school. Those who fear debate are the "opinion leaders" living in Western-style mansions, drinking red wine, and educated at Harvard.

The originators of "no debates" were those public intellectuals from the reform faction. When they were cutting down public ownership, they forbade debate, saying "practice is the sole criterion for testing truth"; later, when their privatization led to bank failures and skyrocketing land prices, they said "these are phase-specific issues, no debates." With one phrase—"no debates"—they transformed class struggle into academic disagreement and people's anger into an emotional problem.

They don't fear debate. They fear losing the debate. They know well that if Chairman Mao were brought back, their little "free market treasuries" would be smashed.

II. "No Debates" Is a Shield Protecting Privilege

Let's break down this phrase: "No debates" actually means "shut up."

When you say the wealth gap is widening, they say: "Don't be emotional, no debates"; When you mention the importance of state-owned enterprises, they say: "Don't promote extremist resurgence, no debates"; When you say Chairman Mao's era shouldn't be stigmatized, they immediately bring out: "That's all in the past, no debates."

Don't you find it strange? If contentious matters can't be debated, what's the point of public opinion? What's the point of thought? What's the point of the masses?

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism teaches us that class struggle is society's fundamental contradiction. Debate itself reflects political and class positions. And "no debates" precisely reflects certain people's class position: they fear the awakening consciousness of the lower classes, fear another era of "sweeping away all monsters and demons."

III. "No Debates" Is Fake Neutrality, Real Surrender

They often say: "We should look at issues objectively, not ideologically." Doesn't this sound familiar? Isn't it like Wang Jingwei's "curved road to save the country"? Like the traitor merchants' "economy has no borders"? The essence is the same: put down your knife and stretch out your neck; don't talk about class, let me talk about markets; don't mention struggle, let me talk about making money peacefully.

What is "no debates"? It's a fig leaf covering class surrender, a lubricant for cultural colonization. Today you don't debate about Chairman Mao, tomorrow you won't debate about Japanese army massacres. In a few more years, they can use the New York Times as a textbook, claiming "the atomic bomb saved China."

They say "truth becomes clearer through debate"? Try debating about Chairman Mao, and they'll immediately label you "ultra-left" or "Cultural Revolution poison." These people aren't afraid of debate; they're afraid that after you win, you'll come to collect debts with sickle and hammer in hand.

IV. Debate Is the Weapon of the Proletariat

What did Chairman Mao say? "Without correct political views, one has no soul."

And correct political views come from debate. What was the Yan'an Rectification about? Debate! How was the primary stage of socialism positioned? Through debate! Every major line, policy, and measure—none came through "no debates." They came through the masses, through struggle, through exposing shortcomings and ugliness, through table-pounding confrontations.

Only servants fear debate, only running dogs want to silence others. Behind debate lie questions of political line, questions of the future, questions of whether to continue the revolution.

So behind every voice saying "no debates," someone is building their own tower, creating a silent majority. They know that once you start debating, others might begin to wonder: can they also be overthrown?

V. Why Must We Debate?

We don't debate to win or lose, but for truth, political line, and the masses. If you don't debate today, you're accepting lies by default; if you want to debate tomorrow, you might not even have a microphone.

"No debates" is the elites' last fig leaf. They can no longer say Chairman Mao was bad because too many people have begun to miss him. They can no longer directly call the masses stupid because the masses have begun to awaken. They have only one last card: use "no debates" to drive you out of the public opinion arena, make you an "outlier," and then label you an "extremist."

This is a new form of class oppression, a new packaging of ideological colonization, a new rhetoric of cultural betrayal.

So we must debate. We must debate "who truly represents the people"; debate "who is exploiting whom"; debate "whether to continue private ownership or return to public ownership"; debate "whether it's American father's freedom or Chairman Mao's people's democracy."

This is the right of the proletariat, and even more, our responsibility.

Author's Conclusion

How many people's livelihoods are hidden behind the phrase "no debates"? How many traitors' disguises? How many truths haven't been spoken for years?

In today's era where "anti-communism isn't illegal, but anti-Americanism gets you banned," we must debate even more, we must loudly proclaim: debate isn't a bad thing—it's the prelude to revolution, the awakening of the people, the first step toward a new world.

Don't listen when they say "times have changed"; they fear people returning to settle accounts. They fear Chairman Mao's mass line rising again, fear that "long live the people" might truly be more than just a slogan.

So, debate! Not to debate is to help them kill us.