20201005 How many things are never urgent

I have been on Matters a few times recently, and I often see discussion board rules, community conventions, and the like. The first reaction was that I thought it was ridiculous, a small community with not a lot of daily visits took itself seriously; then I thought it was cute, a small community with not a lot of daily visits took itself seriously.

Combining with the "Biography of Mao Zedong", which I have just started to browse, I can see from the struggle between left and right within the Communist Party in the 1920s, the struggle between left and right within the Kuomintang when the Kuomintang and the Communist Party cooperated, and the various policies and policies on the road to revolution. , I feel a bit similar, the turbulence at the time of the creation. When Chairman Mao and the commander-in-chief of the Autumn Harvest Uprising went to Jinggangshan, few people in the country would imagine that this party and this person would rule the country in the future.

Where there are people there will be disputes, and where there are intellectuals there will be disputes over lines.

Whoever wins is doing something right, or is it mostly just luck?

Rarely does a fight turn out to change either side of the war, but arguments need to happen somewhere and at some point. Under what conditions is an argument valid? How do you know when it is reasonable to suspend the discussion and start doing it, rather than rushing it too far?

There is no surefire way to win. How to do it, the probability of winning is greater? Action goals also change with actions. What are the consistent guiding principles and criteria for judging winning?