Or "formalist innovation"?, "Form innovation"
The second batch of themed education is being launched throughout the city. To do this job well, the key is to consistently adhere to the requirement of highlighting a 'solid' character. To carry out education at the grassroots level, we must start from reality, be practical, and put our efforts into serious learning, solving difficult problems for the masses, and doing practical things. It should be more effective than actual results and the sense of gain of the masses, rather than lively or flashy. We should not put too much effort into form.
In the past, it was said that "the aroma of wine is not afraid of the depth of alleys", but later it was said that "the aroma of wine should also be able to shout". Nowadays, in some places where work is being done, some people "don't ask about the aroma of wine, but ask for shouting": whether the concept is novel, whether the "packaging" is exquisite, and whether the "sound" is grand - the importance of form is increasing day by day, and it is also called "emphasizing innovation" and "increasing display".
The "formal innovation" that has gone through the motions is formalism. Some people say that "grassroots innovation" has become a "formalist disaster zone". Some people brush off their sense of existence, while others suffer greatly. We should be highly vigilant in carrying out theme education at the grassroots level.This is not just a question of whether to reduce the burden on the grassroots level. Essentially, it is related to the concept of political performance and the most fundamental evaluation criterion - if "good words and good looks" always "twice the result with half the effort" or even "ten thousand benefits", and only doing things without saying is useless, what direction is that?