{
  "format": "arthurs-review-publication-proof/v1",
  "createdAt": "2026-07-13T15:47:33.284Z",
  "publicUrl": "https://blog.leesaitool.com/society/banned-by-the-internationale",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-07T09:26:22.549Z",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-11T10:33:47.237Z",
  "article": {
    "titleZh": "关于国际歌（以及它在现代社会的悲剧）",
    "titleEn": "On The Internationale (and Its Tragedy in Today’s World)",
    "slug": "banned-by-the-internationale",
    "category": "society",
    "excerptZh": "当你因为推荐国际歌被踢出班级群",
    "excerptEn": "When you get kicked out of the class group chat for recommending The Internationale",
    "seoDescription": "",
    "bodyZh": "昨天我们班群里讨论运动会唱什么歌，我推荐了《**国际歌**》——这首歌有力量，节奏感强，非常适合集体演唱。但很多人对此感到恐惧，让我别说，害怕封号。在我坚持之后，他们直接把我踢出了班级群。\n\n今天我找了几个人，问他们究竟在怕什么。其中一个人说，这是反共产主义的歌曲。这个错误相当明显——《国际歌》本就是共产主义运动的歌，是所有共产党员都要会唱的，中共代表大会每次闭幕都要唱这首歌。这大概体现了一种**思维的懒惰**，也就是不愿意去了解，不愿意去倾听。那些人说话时非常着急，根本不给我留任何解释的空间。\n\n另外一个人说，怕聊这些内容被封号。我问他为什么，他说也不知道，反正他妈妈被封过。我再问他，什么样的内容会被封？他说不知道，\"反正政治内容就会被封\"。这反映了一种很糟糕的心态。古人说过，**天下兴亡，匹夫有责**——并不是说天下大乱，你还能独善其身。\n\n《骆驼祥子》的真正含义也在这里：在大环境压迫、不平等的情况下，个人再努力也没有用。如果骆驼祥子和千千万万像他一样的车夫加入了共产党、加入了进步运动，革命可能早几年实现，骆驼祥子也不需要堕落，完全可以通过努力换来美好的未来。这在每个时代都适用，所以对这些问题千万不能有退缩的态度。\n\n由此我也想到，无论思考还是交谈，很重要的一点是要**具体**。有些人一提到共产主义，就想起苏联暴政或中国的某些问题。但几乎所有真正的共产主义学者，都不认为这两个国家和共产主义真正搭边。这里有一个重要的问题，也就是 *take words for things*——一个词语本来的意思，很可能与你现在理解的意思相差甚远。要透彻地分析一个问题，就必须仔细追溯这个词的来源和本义。\"共产党不好\"这种刻板印象，让千千万万的青年远离了马克思主义。但马克思的历史唯物主义不仅不必然导致压迫，反而指向每个人的自由发展。\n\n这也和我们语法 packet 里讨论的 stereotypes 如出一辙。我认为有两个根源。第一是思维的懒惰：共产主义这个议题非常复杂，有中国的特色社会主义，有苏联的威权主义，有西欧的社会民主主义，还有巴黎公社的真正共产主义等等，要把这些区分开来确实费力，但不能因为费力就停止。第二是思维的**二元对立**倾向——原始人时代，分我们与他们，分好的动物与坏的动物，分能吃的植物与不能吃的植物。但当代社会的问题实在太复杂，每一个议题下面都有无数子议题，如果还停留在二元对立的框架里，就会陷入别人设好的陷阱，让自己的思维停滞。\n\n最后要讲的一点，是要警惕某些个人主义的毒害。比如五班的墙上挂了一块牌子，写着\"越努力越幸运\"。这显然是胡说八道——云南山区的孩子与我付出同等的努力，能得到一样的结果吗？《骆驼祥子》早已说明了这一点：很多问题不是个人的问题，是社会的问题。这确实令人沮丧，因为社会的问题比较难以改变；但至少比认为是个人的问题好，因为后者只会让你陷入无意义的挣扎。\n\n《The Outsiders》同样揭示了这一点。书中的 Greasers 由底层白人青年构成，长期受上层阶级欺压，父母、工作、生活都一塌糊涂。他们有时为自卫而打架，甚至因此杀人。同样是伤人，Greasers 受到的惩罚远比 Socs 重。新闻呈现的是\"一个 Greasers 少年杀了人\"，但读过这本书才知道，那个\"杀人犯\"是个善良可怜的人。这揭示了一个根本矛盾：**法律倾向于把责任归咎于个人，但很多时候，责任在于社会是怎么塑造这个人的**。",
    "bodyEn": "Yesterday in the class group chat we were talking about what song to sing for the sports meet, and I suggested **The Internationale**—it’s got power, a strong beat, perfect for a group sing‑along. A bunch of people freaked out, told me to shut up, scared I’d get the whole chat banned. When I pushed back, they just kicked me out of the group.\n\nToday I asked a few of them what exactly they were afraid of. One guy said it’s an anti‑communist song. That’s flat‑out wrong—The Internationale *is* the anthem of the communist movement, the song every Party member is supposed to know, the one they belt out at the closing of every CCP congress. What that shows is a kind of **intellectual laziness**: people don’t want to check, don’t want to listen. They were so frantic they wouldn’t even let me finish a sentence.\n\nAnother one said he’s scared the chat will get banned for talking about this kind of stuff. I asked why, and he said he didn’t know, his mom had been banned before. I asked what kind of content gets banned, and he said, “I don’t know, anything political gets banned.” That’s a terrible attitude. The old saying goes, **when the world rises or falls, every common person has a responsibility**—it doesn’t mean you can sit pretty while everything falls apart.\n\nThat’s exactly the point of *Rickshaw Boy*: when the whole system is crushing and unequal, no amount of personal hustle can save you. If Xiangzi and the thousands of rickshaw pullers like him had joined the Party, joined the progressive movement, the revolution might have come a few years earlier, and Xiangzi wouldn’t have ended up a wreck—he could have fought for a decent future through real collective effort. That lesson holds for every era, so we can’t afford to flinch at these questions.\n\nWhich brings me to something I keep coming back to: **be concrete**. Some people hear “communism” and instantly picture Soviet tyranny or China’s problems. But almost no serious Marxist scholar thinks those regimes have anything to do with genuine communism. There’s a crucial trap here—*take words for things*—the original meaning of a term can be miles away from what you’ve been taught to think it means. To really dissect a problem you have to trace the word back to its source and its original sense. The stereotype that “communism = bad” has pushed countless young people away from Marxism, even though Marx’s historical materialism points toward the free development of every individual, not toward oppression.\n\nThis ties right into the stereotypes we dissected in our grammar packet. I see two roots. First, intellectual laziness: communism is a massive, messy topic—there’s China’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” Soviet authoritarianism, Western European social democracy, the real communism of the Paris Commune… sorting those out takes work, but you can’t just quit because it’s hard. Second, a **binary‑thinking** habit: back in the cave‑man days it was “us vs. them,” “good animal vs. bad animal,” “edible plant vs. poisonous plant.” Modern problems are way too tangled for that; every issue branches into dozens of sub‑issues, and if you stay stuck in a black‑or‑white frame you’ll walk straight into the traps other people set for you, freezing your own mind.\n\nOne last thing: watch out for the poison of individualism. Class 5 has a poster on the wall that reads “The harder you work, the luckier you get.” That’s pure nonsense—does a kid in the mountains of Yunnan, putting in the same effort as me, get the same results? *Rickshaw Boy* already showed that: many problems aren’t personal failures, they’re social failures. It’s depressing because social problems are harder to change, but at least it’s better than blaming yourself, which only leads to pointless, exhausting struggle.\n\n*The Outsiders* makes the same point. The Greasers are working‑class white kids, constantly crushed by the upper‑class Socs—parents, jobs, life all falling apart. They sometimes fight back, even kill, in self‑defense. Yet when it comes to punishment, the Greasers get hit far harder than the Socs. The news reports “a Greaser kid killed someone,” but read the book and you see that “killer” is a decent, pitiable kid. It lays bare a fundamental contradiction: **the law loves to pin blame on the individual, but most of the time the real responsibility lies in how society shaped that person**.",
    "coverImagePath": "uploads/2026/05/f9e0ded2-73be-4b79-a2e7-a1acc192b5d3.webp",
    "tags": []
  }
}