May 28, 1941.
Spreading rumors to mislead the public is a common trick of street ruffians; yet political hooligans have brought this despicable tactic into the arena of political struggle, even going so far as to call it “disseminating reasonable rumors.”
In social and political struggles, advanced classes and advanced political parties hold high the banners of justice and truth.
They are unafraid to openly and honestly proclaim their platforms and objectives to the broad masses, clearly stating their political tasks and the direction of their actions, engaging in open and serious combat against the principal enemy of the day.
They have no need for underhanded schemes, deceptive maneuvers, or baseless fabrications, because they are confident that truth is on their side and that their future is bright.
Therefore, their conduct is upright, forthright, and solemn.
On the other hand, these political rogues, in order to safeguard their private interests which run counter to truth and justice, well know that their doctrines, programs, political tasks, and goals will never win the support of the people.
Hence, they dare not act with integrity and openness; instead, they resort to sneaking about like thieves, operating in secret, and thus make plotting, scheming, and spreading rumors their specialties.
Fabricating rumors—or “spreading reasonable rumors”—is particularly favored by them, for when they cannot prevail in an open and candid political contest, they have no choice but to rely on slander.
Moreover, as ancient texts teach, “When Zeng Shen was falsely accused of murder, even his own mother distrusted him,” and poets have sung, “Three men can create a tiger in the market; persistent gossip can bind like glue.”
Is not the power of such tactics considerable?
Beyond that, rumors also serve another purpose: they act as blindfolds and smoke screens.
There is a story about a thief who, upon being discovered stealing, cried out loudly, “Catch the thief!”
Seizing on the moment, he cleverly shouted back, “The thief is over there—over there!” and managed to slip away.
Similarly, declining political figures often use rumors to divert attention and conceal their misdeeds.
A recent example of this “art of rumor-mongering” is the widely and systematically circulated falsehood that “the Eighth Route Army has concentrated in northern Shanxi and is refusing to cooperate with friendly forces.”
The original disseminator of this lie was none other than the Dōmei News Agency, a seasoned master of the craft.
Earlier this month, the Japanese invaders launched a small-scale military offensive while simultaneously unleashing a massive campaign of disinformation.
Dōmei’s radio broadcasts incessantly spread all manner of fabrications, especially claims that the Eighth Route Army would never collaborate with the Nationalist Central Army, that it had massed in northern Shaanxi preparing to seize Xi’an at the first opportunity, and that it was taking advantage of the situation to expand its influence and confiscate weapons from Nationalist troops.
The purpose of this dual offensive—military thrust and propaganda barrage—is perfectly clear: to intimidate—to frighten into submission!
The military campaign flaunts its strength, as if to say, “If you do not surrender, I shall occupy your homeland, seize every port city, annihilate your tens of thousands of troops stationed along the Zhongtiao Mountains, and march into Luoyang, Xi’an, Kunming, and Chongqing.
What then?”
Meanwhile, the rumor campaign seeks to sow discord between the Communists and the Nationalists, painting a bleak picture designed to terrify you: “Look how deteriorated relations between the two sides have become.
How can self-reliance possibly succeed?
Surrender without delay!”
Lies such as “The Eighth Route Army does not fight the Japanese” are merely smokescreens; the true aim is intimidation and inducement to capitulate.
The method is crude, the rationale transparent.
Strangely enough, certain Chinese individuals—not double-dealing traitors like Wang Jingwei—but prominent figures within the leadership circles of the War of Resistance camp, have actually been copying Dōmei’s broadcasts verbatim, effectively serving as unpaid relays for the enemy.
News organizations like Ta Kung Pao and the Central News Agency, on the one hand, declare, “Most of what the enemy reports is pure fabrication and cannot be trusted,” while on the other, they reiterate the very same “enemy claims,” asserting that “it is indeed true that the Eighteenth Group Army has concentrated in northern Shanxi and has thus far failed to coordinate operations with friendly forces.”
Thus, without spending a single penny, the Japanese have enlisted Chinese hands to act as both megaphones and witnesses to their lies.
Is this not remarkable?
Yet, in fact, there is nothing truly strange about it.
One need only grasp the quick-wittedness of the thief in our earlier anecdote to understand the underlying logic behind this chorus of fabricated stories.
On May 13th, a spokesperson for the Chongqing Military Commission revealed part of this scheme, stating, “Last week, the enemy launched a full-scale attack involving more than 300,000 troops, yet the outcome was merely this paltry result.
To claim, on this basis, that the ‘China Incident’ has been resolved is not only absurd—it is something that neither the outside world nor even the enemy themselves would believe.”
In essence, this particular approach (military aggression) cannot resolve the issue; a different strategy must be adopted.
Sure enough, Dōmei News Agency soon reported that military authorities on various fronts were declaring the first phase of operations concluded.
This symphony of rumors has thus fulfilled a role akin to the famous “red-leaf poetry exchange”: a medium through which messages are passed back and forth.
Unfortunately, some members of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council have fallen prey to this petty ploy.
We see no further need to issue formal denials here, for the steadfast commitment of the Eighth Route Army and the Communist Party to the War of Resistance, their unwavering loyalty to the nation, are facts that no amount of slander can shake—true gold that cannot be melted by fire.
Despite the Fourth Front Army being branded a rebel force, and despite the Eighth Route Army having gone two years without receiving a single bullet and five months without a single copper coin of pay, its officers and soldiers never once ceased their bitter struggle against the enemy.
Indeed, in order to support operations in southern Shanxi, the Eighth Route Army is currently engaged in fierce, all-out combat across northern China.
This is well known even to those who concoct and circulate these lies.
Their motives are quite clear: for the originators, it is about luring others into surrender; for those who spread the rumors, it is about securing actual capitulation.
Both seek to exploit the Communist Party as their focal point—the red leaf upon which they inscribe their verses.
When the Japanese feel springtime fervor stirring within them, they compose a poem and send it floating down the Yangtze River.
Those on this side receive the verse, their hearts stirred, eager to respond.
They pick up a red leaf, write a reply, and send it drifting back downstream.
Such is the origin of the recent duet between Dōmei News Agency and the Central News Agency, each echoing the other’s themes concerning the Communist Party.
Likewise, Germany’s Huitong News Agency, America’s Associated Press, and Britain’s Reuters, each pursuing its own distinct objectives, have been circulating these mutual love letters far and wide.
The overarching goal, however, remains the same: to “accelerate the wedding.”
The Anglo-American agencies aim to rally opposition against communism, Soviet Russia, and Nazi Germany, whereas Germany seeks to counter the influence of Britain and the United States.
“Hurry up and get married, so we can launch the Pacific War”—this is Germany’s objective.
“Hurry up and get married, so we can establish an anti-communist, anti-Soviet, anti-German Eastern Munich”—this is the Anglo-American aim.
We must caution the leaders of the Kuomintang: such a marriage is a “forced union,” destined to end in disaster.
It is futile to attempt to exploit the Communist Party; should you doubt this, simply observe the looming crisis of surrender!
The grave danger of a new “Eastern Munich” grows with each passing day.
The current “military offensive” aimed at intimidating Chiang Kai-shek into submission has now temporarily subsided, and what follows is inevitably an effort to induce capitulation.
Though this is an old trick of the Japanese—one of alternating pressure and enticement—it carries new significance, occurring as it does during the critical period from May to October 1941.
It is a monumental task for our entire nation to rise up, expose this deception, and crush it utterly, for the very survival of our people depends on it.
May 1941 (This is a speech I delivered in May 1941 at a cadre meeting in Yan’an, now published according to the original outline, for discussion among comrades.)

I propose that we reform our Party’s methods of study and its annual learning system.
The reasons are as follows: The past decade of the Chinese Communist Party has witnessed an ever-deepening integration of the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practices of the Chinese revolution.
If we reflect on our early years, when our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and of the Chinese revolution was so superficial and impoverished, we can now see how much more profound and rich our knowledge has become.
For a century, the outstanding sons and daughters of the Chinese nation have bravely struggled and sacrificed themselves, one generation following another, groping toward the truth of national salvation.
Only after World War I and the October Revolution in Russia did we finally discover that Marxism and Leninism represent the finest path to our liberation, and the Chinese Communist Party emerged as its foremost advocate, propagandist, and organizer.
Once the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism were combined with the specific realities of the Chinese revolution, the face of that revolution was fundamentally transformed.
Since the beginning of the War of Resistance, our Party has continued to explore the concrete applications of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao’s universal teachings, studying not only contemporary China and the wider world, but also delving into yesterday’s and the day before’s circumstances.
All of this is commendable.
However, we still harbor shortcomings—some quite significant.
In my view, unless we rectify these deficiencies, we will be unable to advance further in our work, unable to go any deeper in the great undertaking of harmonizing the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practices of the Chinese revolution.
Let us first examine our current state of research.
As a large party like ours, although we have made some progress in studying domestic conditions, our collection of materials and systematic investigation into all aspects of the country—political, military, economic, cultural—remain fragmented.
Over the past decade, generally speaking, we have lacked a comprehensive, organized effort to gather data and focus on in-depth analysis of these various domains, resulting in a pervasive atmosphere of superficiality and ignorance.
The harmful tendencies of “blindly catching sparrows,” “a blind man feeling for fish,” rough-and-ready approaches, empty boasting, and contentment with mere half-knowledge—practices that utterly violate the fundamental spirit of Marxism-Leninism—still persist among many of our comrades.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao have taught us to rigorously investigate reality, starting from objective facts rather than subjective desires; yet many of our colleagues directly contravene this principle.
Next, let us consider historical research.
Although a small number of Party members and sympathizers have undertaken such work, it has never been carried out in an organized manner.
Whether it concerns the recent hundred years (yesterday) or the distant past (the day before yesterday), the history of China remains shrouded in darkness for many Party members.
Many scholars of Marxism-Leninism likewise speak endlessly of Greece, while showing little regard for their own ancestral heritage, forgetting or neglecting it altogether.
The atmosphere surrounding both current and historical research remains weak.
Turning now to the study of revolutionary experience and the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism, we find that many comrades seem to be studying Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao primarily for their own sake, rather than with a genuine commitment to applying these teachings to the Chinese revolution.
Consequently, though they may have amassed a wealth of theoretical knowledge and skillfully quote passages from these classics, they often fail to internalize the principles or to apply them concretely to analyze present or past situations, or to resolve practical problems facing the revolution.
This attitude toward Marxism-Leninism is highly detrimental, particularly to middle- and senior-level cadres as well as young students.
We must reform our approach to learning.
= Marxism-Leninism, above I mentioned three aspects: lack of emphasis on studying the present situation, lack of emphasis on studying history, and lack of emphasis on applying Marxism-Leninism—these are all extremely harmful practices.
This kind of behavior spreads and harms many of our comrades.
The statistics are indeed accurate: today, there are indeed many comrades in our ranks who have been corrupted by this mindset.
They are unwilling to conduct systematic, thorough investigations into the specific conditions at home and abroad, within provinces and counties, districts and subdistricts, relying instead on incomplete information and guesswork to issue orders.
Isn’t this subjective, arbitrary style still prevalent among many comrades?
They show little respect for their own history, or perhaps possess only a faint understanding of it, failing to appreciate its value and instead viewing it with indifference. Most importantly,
our understanding of the history of the Chinese Communist Party and its relationship with the broader century-long history of China remains remarkably shallow.
Few have seriously undertaken studies of China’s economic, political, military, or cultural history over the past century.
Some demonstrate a striking lack of familiarity with their own heritage, preferring instead to draw inspiration from foreign tales and myths—a pitiful reliance on abstract concepts borrowed from foreign sources.
Over the decades, many overseas students have fallen into this trap: returning from the West, they speak only of foreign matters, creating a bubble of exoticism while neglecting their responsibility to contribute fresh insights.
This malady has even infected the Communist Party itself.
We study Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao, yet many among us learn these ideas in a way that directly contradicts their core principles: the unity of theory and practice.
By rejecting this fundamental tenet—that theory must be grounded in reality and applied practically—we inadvertently create an opposing principle: the separation of theory and practice.
In educational settings, whether formal schooling or training for working cadres, philosophy instructors fail to guide students in exploring the logic of the Chinese revolution; economics professors do not help students understand the unique characteristics of the Chinese economy; political scientists ignore the strategic dimensions of the revolution; and military experts overlook the specific challenges faced by the Chinese armed forces.
As a result, erroneous notions take root and mislead countless individuals.
Students may absorb these ideas in Yan’an, only to find themselves unable to apply them meaningfully upon returning to their localities.
An economics professor might struggle to explain the currency reforms, leaving students equally baffled.
Teenagers aged seventeen or eighteen are expected to grapple with works like “Das Kapital” and “Anti-Dühring,” fostering a sense of alienation and disillusionment with Chinese issues, leading them to disregard Party directives in favor of abstract dogmas imported from the West.
Of course, the examples I’ve cited represent extreme cases, not the norm.
Nevertheless, such patterns undeniably exist, and their impact is substantial—far too significant to be dismissed lightly.
To underscore this point, I wish to contrast two opposing attitudes.
The first is subjectivism: a mindset characterized by a lack of systematic, thorough investigation into one’s surroundings, replaced by impulsive action driven solely by personal enthusiasm.
Under this framework, one remains oblivious to the true nature of contemporary China, oscillating between vague impressions.
It entails severing ties with history, clinging to a narrow, exclusively Greek perspective while remaining ignorant of China’s own rich traditions.
Furthermore, it manifests as an abstract, aimless engagement with the theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao, devoid of any connection to the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution.
Rather than seeking principled guidance from these thinkers to address pressing revolutionary questions, adherents pursue theoretical pursuits for their own sake, treating Marxism as an end in itself.
This approach is not targeted but rather indiscriminate.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao taught us to begin with the objective, real-world phenomena, extracting from them universal laws that serve as the foundation for our actions.
Achieving this requires meticulous data collection and rigorous scientific analysis.
Regrettably, many of our comrades adopt precisely the opposite stance: researchers show little interest in examining either present-day or recent historical China, fixating instead on ready-made texts.
Practitioners, too, often disregard empirical observation, basing their decisions entirely on intuition and turning fleeting impressions into policy.
Both approaches stem from subjectivity and disregard for objective reality.
Whether delivering speeches—stringing together endless lists of names and titles—or penning verbose articles, they lack a grounding in factual truth and prioritize sensationalism over substance.
Such rhetoric is hollow, brittle, self-serving, and arrogant, assuming an unwarranted superiority and claiming to possess exclusive insight.
These behaviors constitute major enemies of the Party, of the proletariat, of the people, and of the nation—they are manifestations of impure Party spirit.
Faced with this adversary, we have a moral obligation to vanquish it.
Only by overcoming subjectivism can genuine revolutionary zeal be rekindled, can the revolution succeed, and can our Party spirit be strengthened.
Without a scientific mindset, without a commitment to truth, without a willingness to engage critically with reality—only empty posturing and pretense remain.
The attitude that reconciles theory with practice is precisely what defines sound Party spirit; conversely, the absence of such harmony signifies impure or incomplete Party membership.
There exists a fitting couplet that aptly captures this condition: “A reed planted against a wall—top-heavy, with shallow roots; a bamboo shoot in the mountains—pointed tip, thick skin, hollow interior.”
To those lacking a scientific outlook, to those who merely parrot doctrinal teachings, to those whose supposed expertise proves illusory, and to those who treat Marxism-Leninism as a joke: do they not resemble these images?
Should anyone genuinely seek to remedy their own shortcomings, I would advise them to commit this couplet to memory and, with greater courage, affix it prominently on their walls.
Marxism-Leninism is a science—a discipline built upon honesty and rigor; any deviation from this ethos undermines its very essence.
Let us strive for sincerity!
First, let us embrace the Marxist-Leninist attitude—attitude No. 5. This approach entails conducting systematic, thorough investigations into one’s environment, rather than acting impulsively based solely on passion.
It calls for integrating revolutionary fervor with a pragmatic, realistic mindset.
It encourages us not to sever ties with history, but to move beyond a narrow focus on Greece and instead embrace the entirety of human experience, including both foreign and Chinese revolutionary histories.
It urges us to look beyond the present moment and delve into the past, illuminating the connections between past events and our current circumstances.
Above all, it advocates for purposeful study of Marxism-Leninism, seeking to synthesize its principles with the concrete dynamics of the Chinese revolution in order to address both theoretical and strategic challenges.
This is an attitude of precision and intentionality.
The “arrow” represents the specific revolutionary goals we aim to achieve, while the “target” symbolizes the vast potential of Marxism-Leninism to guide us forward.
I urge our comrades to reject the notion of “shallow roots and top-heaviness” or “pointed tips and hollow interiors.”
Based on the foregoing, I hereby propose the following measures: (1) Task the entire Party with conducting systematic, comprehensive investigations into its immediate surroundings.
Guided by the principles of historical materialism, we must meticulously survey and analyze the economic, fiscal, political, military, cultural, and organizational developments unfolding among our allies, adversaries, and ourselves.
From this data, we should derive meaningful and necessary conclusions.
To facilitate this process, we must direct our comrades’ attention toward the tangible realities of our environment, helping them understand that the primary responsibilities of Party leadership lie in comprehensively grasping the situation and formulating appropriate policies—two interrelated tasks: knowing the world and transforming it.
We must also make clear that without thorough investigation, any pronouncements are meaningless; the proliferation of empty rhetoric and rote repetition serves no purpose.
Take publicity work, for instance: unless we fully comprehend the propaganda landscape among our friends, foes, and ourselves, we cannot formulate effective communication strategies.
Every endeavor, regardless of its nature, must begin with a clear understanding of the context, followed by decisive action.
Implementing a nationwide program of investigative research constitutes a foundational step in transforming the Party’s overall style. (2) Regarding the history of China over the past century, we should assemble a team of experts, divide the work collaboratively, and abandon the current fragmented approach.
Economic history should be prioritized first, followed by political, military, and cultural studies.
Only after completing these specialized analyses can we proceed to a comprehensive synthesis. (3) In cadre education—at both school and workplace levels—we should center our curriculum around the concrete problems confronting the Chinese revolution, using these as a springboard to explore the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, thereby abandoning the outdated practice of studying these doctrines in isolation.
When engaging with Marxist thought, we must always anchor our discussions in the lived experiences of the Chinese revolution, treating it as the central, unifying thread.
Other materials should serve merely as supplementary resources.
The Communist Party Congress represents a century-old culmination of the global communist movement, a quintessential example of the seamless integration of theory and practice.
Globally, few comparable instances exist.
By examining how Lenin and Stalin successfully fused the universal truths of Marxism with the specific realities of the Soviet revolution, we can discern the path we ought to follow in China.
Often, our mistakes pave the way for breakthroughs.
Given the vibrant, dynamic context of the Chinese revolution—and indeed, of the global revolutionary movement—this reform of our educational approach is certain to yield positive results.