China Mil Watch Mandarin-source monitoring · Chinese military & security reporting
Independent monitor
Official PRC military media, read in the original
← Daily Brief
Political Work

Firsthand Accounts of Consolidation and Rectification | Only by Daring to Clash Can There Be True Unity

亲历者话整训丨敢交锋才能真团结
PLA Daily (解放军报) 8 June 2026
View original source ↗
A company-level cadre from a brigade of the 82nd Group Army describes implementing the brigade's two-year political consolidation and rectification (政治整训) campaign, specifically the 'Five Rectifications' (五个整顿), through first-person accounts of resolving intra-Party branch conflicts over training ground access and commendation nominations. The article documents how the campaign is being operationalized at the grassroots level: the brigade political commissar used a discipline case involving a squad leader to pressure junior officers away from the 老好人 ('agreeable old hand') posture and toward direct ideological confrontation (思想交锋) within Party committees. This is standard political work content; its value is as a record of how the 82nd Group Army's brigade-level apparatus is framing intra-unit accountability to company cadres, not as evidence of a new policy line.

Only by Daring to Clash Can There Be True Unity

■ Li Jiayi, cadre of a company under a brigade of the 82nd Group Army

Over the past two years, the brigade has continued to deepen political consolidation and rectification (政治整训), requiring leading cadres to set the example from the top down and implement the "Five Rectifications" (五个整顿). As a grassroots cadre, I have been immersed in this and deeply moved by it. I have become more consciously willing to place myself under scrutiny and examination, and have taken the initiative to lead Party branch committee members in accepting criticism and tempering Party spirit (党性) through organizational life (组织生活).

In the second half of last year, I had just been transferred to the company when the outgoing political instructor specifically cautioned me: "When communicating with branch committee members, pay attention to your approach." He explained that the company's non-commissioned officer Party committee members (军士支委) made up a considerable proportion of the branch, and that all of them were platoon commanders in their respective sub-units—professionally strong, experienced, and with a keen sense of honor. But some of the Party member backbone cadres had somewhat "stubborn" personalities and were prone to losing their tempers, making it no easy task to bring the committee together as a cohesive team.

During that period, I was extremely cautious. I would always nod in agreement with the working methods of the Party member backbone cadres, and even when I spotted problems I was unwilling to raise them, for fear of causing unpleasantness. But as time went on, rather than growing closer, our relationships became somewhat distant—something I found very puzzling.

On one occasion, the brigade organized a special seminar on "The Political Responsibility of Grassroots Commanding Officers" in conjunction with the deepening of political consolidation and rectification. During the discussion, the political commissar cited a case from close at hand: a veteran squad leader in a certain company had a rough and impatient style of leading soldiers. Although the company's commanding officers privately felt this was inappropriate, they felt that this squad leader had served for a long time and had never had any problems with troop leadership before, so for the sake of "not souring the relationship," both chose to turn a blind eye. Unexpectedly, because no one offered a timely reminder, this squad leader was soon disciplined for uncivilized treatment of soldiers.

"Party spirit (党性) does not grow automatically with a Party member's age or length of service—it must be regularly subjected to tempering and refinement through organizational life. We must absolutely never play the 'agreeable old hand' (老好人) in the one-sided pursuit of unity, failing to hold the line where it must be held and failing to call a halt where a halt must be called. This is not only irresponsible to the organization, but even more irresponsible to the comrades around us…" The political commissar's earnest words instantly made my cheeks burn: wasn't this exactly the state I was in right now?

After reflecting on this in comparison with my own conduct, I quietly resolved: I could no longer play the "agreeable old hand." I absolutely had to dare to take responsibility and truly unite this committee that was "not easy to unite."

The test came quickly.

On one occasion, the company entered a critical period of combat-readiness assessments, and the sole hard-surface training ground became the focal point of contention. Two specialist sub-units had differing requirements for use of the training ground: one sub-unit had just been equipped with new equipment and was at a critical period of combat capability formation; the other sub-unit was about to participate in a higher-level assessment and wanted priority use. Both non-commissioned officer Party committee members serving as sub-unit commanders had their reasons and neither would yield.

"Both are competing for honor on behalf of the collective—that is understandable. But disregarding the overall situation and obstructing each other will inevitably harm the collective interest and organizational authority." This time, my stance was firm. I immediately pulled the two sub-unit commanders to the edge of the training ground, pointed out the deviations in their thinking, and guided them to calm down and work out a plan for organizing and scheduling use of the training ground.

In the end, the issue of ground usage was properly resolved, and the two sub-units even took the opportunity to join hands: when one sub-unit was training, the other proactively helped record scores, move equipment, and provide support—transforming from mutual intransigence into close mutual assistance.

At a subsequent Party committee meeting, I laid out this experience and had everyone engage in a debate centered on "How to build a united Party branch committee."

During the discussion, several comrades raised critical opinions of me: "a bit hot-tempered," "doesn't give face to veteran comrades," "puts people in an awkward position"… I accepted these humbly and indicated that I would pay more attention to my methods going forward. At the same time, I told everyone that problems must be viewed dialectically: if critical opinions all come from the public interest, and one dares to confront contradictions head-on and dares to engage in ideological clashes (思想交锋), then such genuine criticism will not only fail to harm unity—it will actually temper Party spirit and promote true unity.

One non-commissioned officer Party committee member was greatly inspired and stated on the spot: "Now that all levels are continuing to deepen political consolidation and rectification, even though we are not leading cadres, we should also strengthen our Party spirit cultivation and play a vanguard role. We cannot disregard the collective interest for the sake of surface-level harmony; instead, we must set aside our reservations, say what needs to be said, and openly and sincerely engage in ideological clashes."

Later, the Party branch committee as a whole became divided when recommending candidates for commendation. Some felt that competition winners should be recommended; others believed that the "old workhorses" (老黄牛)—those who toiled quietly and without recognition—should be recommended. After in-depth discussion, taking comprehensive account of competition rankings, day-to-day performance, and the views of officers and soldiers, the committee ultimately recommended a squad leader backbone cadre who had cultivated multiple top performers and had long been quietly dedicated to his post.

After the results were announced, the entire company's officers and soldiers were satisfied.

"Only by not fearing a red-faced argument can there be true unity" has become the shared consensus of the Party branch committee. We all believe that as Communist Party members, one cannot engage in the practice of maintaining a superficial atmosphere of harmony. When everyone is truly united, there is no mission that cannot be accomplished and no difficulty that cannot be overcome.

(Compiled by Wang Kang and Liu Fan, special correspondent for the PLA Daily)

Original Chinese
敢交锋才能真团结 ■第82集团军某旅某连干部 李嘉熠 这两年,旅队持续深化政治整训,要求领导干部以上率下,落实“五个整顿”。我作为一名基层干部,对此耳濡目染、触动很大,更加自觉把自己摆进去对照检视,主动带领党支部班子成员在组织生活中接受批评、锻炼党性。 去年下半年,我刚调到连队,老指导员就专门嘱咐我:“和支部班子成员沟通,要注意方式。” 他解释,连队军士支委占比颇高,且均是所在分队的分队长,专业过硬、履历丰富、荣誉感强,但有的党员骨干个性有些“倔”,还容易急,将班子团结起来不容易。 那段时间,我十分谨慎,对党员骨干们的工作方法总是点头赞同,就算发现一些问题也不愿提醒,生怕闹出不愉快。可时间长了,关系没亲近,反倒有些疏离,这让我很不解。 一次,旅队结合深化政治整训,组织“基层主官的政治担当”专题研讨。讨论中,政委讲了一个身边案例——某连一名老班长带兵比较粗犷急躁,连队主官心中虽觉不妥,但感到这名班长任职时间长,此前带兵一直没发生问题,为了“不伤和气”,就双双选择了睁一只眼闭一只眼。没想到,由于没人及时提醒,这名班长很快就因不文明带兵受到处理。 “党性不会随党员年龄、任职时间增长而自动增长,必须经常在组织生活中经受历练提纯。咱们千万不能为了片面追求团结去当‘老好人’,该把的关不把,该叫停的不叫,这不仅是对组织不负责,更是对身边同志不负责……”政委语重心长的话,顿时让我感觉脸颊发烫:这不就是我当下的状态吗? 对照反思后,我暗下决心:不能再当“老好人”,一定要敢于担责,把这个“不容易团结的班子”真正团结起来。 很快,考验就来了。 有一次,连队进入备战考核关键期,唯一一块硬质训练场成了焦点。两个专业分队对训练场使用要求不尽相同:一个分队刚列装新装备,处于战斗力形成关键期;另一个分队要参加上级考核,想优先使用。 对此,两名担任分队长的军士支委都有理由,各不相让。 “都是为集体争光,无可厚非。但不顾大局彼此掣肘,必然影响集体利益和组织威信。”这次,我态度十分坚定,立即把两个分队长拉到训练场边,指出他们思想上存在的偏差,带他们静下心来研究训练场的组训使用方案。 最终,场地使用问题得到妥善解决,两个分队还顺势搭起了手:一个分队训练时,另一个分队主动帮着记成绩、搬器材、做保障,从互不相让变成亲密互助。 后来一次支委会,我把这段经历摆出来,让大家围绕“团结的支部班子怎么建”展开辨析。 讨论中,有几名同志对我提出批评意见:“脾气有点大”“不给老同志面子”“让人下不来台”……我虚心接受后表示,以后会多注意方式方法。同时告诉大家,问题要辩证看,如果批评意见都出于公心,敢于直面矛盾、敢于思想交锋,那这样的真批评不仅不会影响团结,反而会锤炼党性,促进真团结。 一名军士支委很受启发,当场表示:“如今各级都在持续深化政治整训,我们虽不是领导干部,也应当加强党性修养、发挥先锋作用,不能为了表面和气就不顾集体利益,而是要放下顾忌、有话直说,开诚布公开展思想交锋。” 后来有一次,党支部一班人在推荐立功人选时产生了分歧。有人觉得应推荐比武获奖者,有人则认为应当推荐默默无闻、辛勤付出的“老黄牛”。大家深入讨论后,综合考量比武名次、日常表现和官兵反映,最终推荐了一位培养出多位尖子、又一直在岗位上默默奉献的班长骨干。 结果公示后,全连官兵都很服气。 “不怕吵红脸,才能真团结”,已经成为支部一班人的共识。我们都认为,作为一名共产党员,就不能搞表面一团和气那一套,大家真的团结起来,就没有完成不了的任务、克服不了的困难。 (王康、解放军报特约记者刘凡整理)