Rectifying the Styles of Study, the Party, and Writing
To Oppress the Enemy’s People? The Enemy’s People Oppress? Rectifying the Styles of Study, the Party, and Writing to Oppress, and Moreover, It Is Not the Communist Party, but a Revolutionary Party of This Universal Nature

On November 1, 1941, the revolution directly overthrows the people, the communists, and the enemy. We are the ones, the revolutionary party. To say we will overthrow the enemy thoroughly, the enemy of this doctrine, we must lead and overthrow the enemy. It is precisely to simplify and rectify the enemy. For the revolutionary party, the school of which I speak today — our revolution, the party of our revolution — must be a party that fights the enemy. Moreover, it must celebrate our revolution.

Thus, it is to thoroughly overthrow the enemy, a question of the weaponry that a party of this nature and success cannot lack. The enemy exists. If we, the revolutionary party, are to fight the enemy, and if our revolutionary party is to succeed, we must possess these conditions. Without them, our ranks as a communist party would not be what they are now. So, what problems does our party still have?

The party's general line is correct and without issue. The daily work of our party has achieved results. We have several hundred thousand party members who, together with the people, are waging arduous and relentless struggles against the enemy. Everyone can see this; it cannot be doubted.

Then, what problems does our party still have? In a certain sense, the problems are still quite serious. I would say, there is still the issue of subjectivism, sectarianism, and party jargon. These are what we refer to as certain incorrect styles. Within our party, there are still some such styles. Specifically, there are issues in three areas: the style of study has some incorrect aspects, the style of party conduct has some incorrect aspects, and the style of writing has some incorrect aspects. By incorrect style of study, I mean subjectivism. By incorrect style of party conduct, I mean sectarianism, which is manifested in some comrades within and outside the party who have an incorrect relationship with the masses. By incorrect style of writing, I mean party jargon. These incorrect styles do not blanket the sky like the winter north wind. Subjectivism, sectarianism, and party jargon are no longer the dominant styles; they are merely a contrary wind, an evil wind, emerging from an air-raid shelter. (Laughter) However, such a wind still exists within our party, and it is not good. We must plug this hole. The entire party must undertake this plugging work, and our party school must also do this work. Subjectivism, sectarianism, and party jargon — these three evil winds have their historical roots. Although they do not dominate the entire party at present, they continue to cause mischief and still assault us. Therefore, it is necessary to resist them, to analyze and explain them, and to study them.

To eliminate subjectivism, we must rectify the style of study, the style of party conduct, and the style of writing. If we rectify these three styles, the weapon to fight the enemy will be sound. Party members who fight the enemy should possess these styles. Rectifying these styles completes the task of rectifying the party. We must defeat the enemy, and to do that, the party’s ranks must be orderly and uniform in step. Only then can we be considered a fighting force. Now, let me discuss subjectivism.

Subjectivism is an incorrect style of study; it opposes Marxism-Leninism and cannot coexist with the Communist Party. What we seek is the Marxist-Leninist style of study. The so-called style of study refers not only to the style in schools but to the style of the entire party — it is a question of the methods of thought of leading bodies, all cadres, and all party members. It is a question of our attitude toward Marxism-Leninism and a question of the work attitude of all party comrades. Since this is the case, the issue of the style of study is one of paramount importance — the first and most important issue.

At present, certain muddled ideas are circulating among many people. For example, questions about what constitutes a theorist, what constitutes an intellectual, and what it means to link theory with practice. Some comrades reading Marxist-Leninist works have been called theorists for having read such books. This term is used very loosely. A theorist of ours reads many texts, and we think his theoretical level is quite high, but where is the theory’s foundation? In economic matters, his theoretical level is high, yet what is the reality? In comparing the two, the reality is far behind. If it does not align with China’s reality, can we say that the theoretical level is already high? Can we say our party already possesses competent economic theorists? Frankly, we cannot. We have read many Marxist-Leninist books — can that be considered enough to be a theorist? Still cannot. Because Marxism-Leninism is a theory created by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin based on reality, drawn from historical and revolutionary reality. If we merely read the texts but do not study China’s historical reality and revolutionary reality according to the theory, if we fail to create theories of our own that are tailored to China’s actual needs, we cannot presumptuously call ourselves Marxist theorists.

If we, as members of the Chinese Communist Party, turn a blind eye to China’s problems — seeing them daily yet not perceiving them, having glasses yet still unable to see — what then? Our achievements on the theoretical front would be truly dismal. If we only know how to recite Marxist economics or philosophy by heart, from the first chapter to the tenth, yet are entirely unable to apply it, can we be considered Marxist theorists? Probably not. Such “theorists” would still be fewer rather than more. Suppose someone reads ten thousand Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin texts, each read a thousand times until every line is memorized — this still does not make a theorist. What kind of theorist do we truly need? We need theorists who, grounded in the standpoints, viewpoints, and methods of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, can correctly explain practical issues arising in history and revolution, and can provide scientific explanations and theoretical clarifications on China’s economy, politics, military affairs, culture, and other issues — this is the kind of theorist we need. To become such a theorist, one must genuinely grasp the essence of Marxism-Leninism, its standpoints, viewpoints, and methods, and apply them to deeply and scientifically analyze China’s practical problems to discover their developmental laws — such a person is the theorist we truly need.

Now the Central Committee has made a decision, calling on our comrades to learn how to apply the standpoints, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism-Leninism to earnestly study China’s history, and to study China’s economy, politics, military affairs, and culture — to conduct detailed and rigorous analysis of each issue and then synthesize theoretical creation. To fulfill our party’s responsibilities in theoretical terms, each comrade must thoroughly study the materials, and only then count as having achieved results. Our party school does not require comrades to read countless texts and memorize every line; rather, it requires them to understand the essence and apply it. If you have read Marxism-Leninism and cannot apply it — if you have studied it without being able to integrate it — can you really claim to have a firm grasp? What is required is that you can clearly explain one or two practical problems; then you will be noted and praised. (Laughter) The more you study, the more general it becomes; the deeper you study, the more applied it becomes. I say, if one thoroughly understands a text and can then explain a practical problem in depth, their score should be high. Our exam score should be determined like this — based on whether you see clearly or not, whether you understand or not. Among comrades, there are those who know and those who do not; that is how we distinguish the good from the bad.

The issue of intellectuals: the Central Committee has recently also issued a decision on intellectuals, greatly elevating their status. They are regarded as treasured assets. Our party has made up its mind to win over intellectuals. China, as a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country, needs intellectuals as a revolutionary asset, and we welcome and respect them. We hope all intellectuals will join the resistance. But we also know that many intellectuals, thinking themselves highly knowledgeable, put on grand airs of erudition, not realizing that such posturing is detrimental and harmful, impeding their progress. They should understand one truth: many so-called intellectuals are actually the least knowledgeable among all, while workers and peasants sometimes possess a bit more real knowledge than they do. Then someone says: “Ha! You’ve got it upside down, talking nonsense.” (Laughter) But, comrade, do not be impatient; what I say has some truth to it.

What is knowledge? Throughout history, there have been only two branches of knowledge in the world: one is the knowledge of the struggle for production, and the other is the knowledge of the class struggle, which also includes the knowledge of the national struggle. Is there any other knowledge? There is none. Natural science and social science are the crystallizations of these two branches of knowledge, while philosophy is the summation and summary of natural science and social science. Beyond this, there is no other form of knowledge.

Let us now look at some students — those who come from schools entirely disconnected from actual social activities. What is their condition? A person studies from a young age all the way to adulthood, graduates, and is considered knowledgeable. Yet they cannot farm, cannot work in factories, cannot fight, and cannot handle practical affairs — having done none of these things, having no practical knowledge whatsoever. All they possess is bookish knowledge. Can such a person be considered a fully developed intellectual? I think it is difficult, because their knowledge is incomplete. What constitutes comparatively complete knowledge? All relatively complete knowledge is formed in two stages: the first stage is perceptual knowledge, and the second stage is rational knowledge. Rational knowledge represents a higher developmental stage of perceptual knowledge. What, then, is the book knowledge of these students?

Assuming their knowledge consists entirely of truths—theories distilled from the experiences of their predecessors in the struggles for production and class conflict, rather than knowledge they have personally acquired—it is absolutely necessary for them to accept such knowledge. But it must be understood that for them, this knowledge is, in a sense, still one-sided. Knowledge of this kind is something imparted by others; it has been summarized by their predecessors from their own experiences in productive and class struggles. Those who receive this book-based knowledge may still remain, in a way, detached from practical reality. The most critical point is that merely reading books about knowledge, without engaging with practice, makes such knowledge one-sided. To use an analogy: reading a cookbook does not, on its own, fill one’s stomach—one still needs to actually cook and eat. Turning written words and books into a real, edible meal requires going into the kitchen, lighting a fire, and cooking. Is not cooking much harder than reading a cookbook? The words are easy to grasp, but the actual cooking—well, that is an art. A great chef can write a cookbook; whether a person who only reads the cookbook can become a great chef, however, is another matter.

This is like a master chef cooking a meal: he does it with ease. But take a person who has only read the cookbook, bring him into the kitchen, and he will not know how to handle things—the food will burn or be undercooked, the seasoning all wrong. What is the use of that? All right, so he knows how to cook? Not really. Adding fuel, salt, soy sauce, or vinegar must follow a certain order and quantity, and be handled with the right timing and skills; if you just read a book and give him all the ingredients, he will make a mess of it. (Laughter) He will still end up with something inedible.

A book cannot walk or run away; you can casually open it or shut it—this is the easiest thing in the world. It’s far easier than a master chef cooking a meal, easier even than that master butchering a pig. When you try to catch a pig, it runs; (laughter) when you try to butcher it, it squeals. (laughter) But place a book on a table—it neither runs nor squeals; (laughter) you can handle it just as you please. Where else in the world can you find something so easy to deal with!

Thus, intellectuals or those with limited practical experience should realize their own shortcomings and adopt a modest attitude in their study and work. The only way to transform the kind of knowledge that is half-complete and one-sided into full, practical knowledge is by participating in real struggles. Those Marxists who have only book learning must take part in actual movements to understand and study concrete things and realities. Only in this way can we bridge the gap between theory and reality. What, then, is a true theoretical worker? As Marx himself said, he began his research from the commodity—starting from this actual, concrete thing present in society, he studied it for decades, from both historical and practical perspectives, uncovering the laws of capitalist development. This is what a true theoretical worker does, proceeding from specific phenomena to theoretical abstraction, and then applying that theory to practical revolutionary work. This is the only correct approach—the approach of linking theory with practice. Many of the theoretical workers among us lack exactly this; it is our duty to overcome this flaw. There are many intellectuals within our Party who study theory detached from practice; they should all realize this weakness and work diligently to correct it.

Within our Party, there are two types of incomplete knowledge. One type is the knowledge held by those who favor book learning but lack hands-on experience; theirs is a one-sided, merely abstract and generalized rational knowledge. The other type is the knowledge of those with extensive practical experience who nevertheless lack theoretical knowledge; theirs is also one-sided, limited to perceptual, localized understanding. Both types suffer from incompleteness. Only by integrating the two can we produce good, relatively complete knowledge. However, if our worker and peasant cadres wish to study theory, they must first become literate. Without literacy, they cannot absorb Marxist-Leninist theory. Once they have learned to read and write, they can at any time begin studying Marxism-Leninism. I myself never attended a formal Marxist school in my youth; what I studied were things like “The Master said, ‘To learn and at times to practice what one has learned, is that not a pleasure?’” That classic Confucian curriculum. I learned my characters from that kind of material. For instance, I already knew the two characters for “study” and “practice”; I could use those two words to begin learning Marxism-Leninism. Now the Party Central Committee is strongly emphasizing that our worker and peasant cadres study culture, because once they have acquired culture—subjects such as geography, history, and basic science—they can go on to study politics, military affairs, and various other fields of knowledge more effectively. That is why we demand that these cadres first learn to read.

With respect to both types of people—those with book knowledge who want to develop in the direction of practical work, so as not to remain stuck in book learning, and those with practical experience who want to advance toward theory, so as not to limit themselves to their own direct experience—only by integrating theory with practice can dogmatic or empiricist errors be avoided. Dogmatism and empiricism are both forms of subjectivism, arising from two opposite extremes. Thus, within our Party there are two kinds of subjectivism: dogmatism and empiricism. Each sees only one side and fails to see the whole. If one is not careful, if one fails to recognize the one-sidedness of these deficiencies and does not strive to correct them, one may easily go down an erroneous path.

Nevertheless, of these two kinds of subjectivism, dogmatism remains the greater danger in our Party. For dogmatism can readily assume the outward appearance of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin, intimidating worker and peasant cadres, capturing and even enslaving them, using them as its own servants, while those worker and peasant cadres find it hard to see through the disguise. It can also intimidate naive, unsophisticated youth, turning them into captives too. If we overcome dogmatism, cadres with book knowledge will be more willing to engage with those who have practical experience, to study practical matters, and many theorists will emerge who combine theory and experience well. And comrades with practical experience will, with good guidance, elevate their experience to the level of theory, thus avoiding empiricist errors. This is precisely what we mean by linking theory with practice. Many among our so-called “intellectuals” are muddle-headed on this very concept. They go on day after day talking about “linking,” about “shooting the arrow,” yet they never actually make the link. How should Marxist-Leninist theory be linked with the reality of the Chinese revolution? To use a common saying, it is a case of “shooting the arrow with a target in mind.” Here, “arrow” represents knowledge, and the target represents our aims—the arrow must be aimed at the target. The relationship between Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese revolution is precisely that between arrow and target. Yet some comrades simply “shoot without a target,” firing blindly—people like this can easily ruin the revolution. Some merely take the arrow in their hands, rubbing it over and over, exclaiming warmly: “What a fine arrow! What a fine arrow!”—but they never want to let it fly. Such people are mere connoisseurs of curios, having virtually no connection to the revolution. The arrow of Marxism-Leninism must be used to shoot at the target of the Chinese revolution; otherwise, why do we study Marxism-Leninism at all? Is it that the millet we eat gives us indigestion, so we need to recite sutras for better digestion? What is the purpose of our Party School’s determined study of Marxism-Leninism? If we do not make this question clear, the theoretical level of our Party will never rise, and the Chinese revolution will never achieve victory.

Our comrades must understand: we do not study Marxism-Leninism because it is pleasing to the eye, nor because it holds some mystical power, as though Taoist priests journeyed to Maoshan to learn spells for subduing demons and capturing monsters. It is neither particularly beautiful to look at, nor is it mystical; it is simply very useful. To this day, it seems many people still regard Marxism-Leninism as some ready-made magic pill—once you acquire it, you can cure all ailments with no effort at all. This is a form of childish ignorance, and we ought to launch an enlightenment campaign for such people. Those who treat Marxism-Leninism as religious dogma are precisely such ignorant persons. To them we must say bluntly: Your dogma is useless. Frankly speaking—no disrespect intended—it is even more useless than excrement. Look: dog dung can fertilize the fields; human excrement can feed the dogs. Dogma? It can neither fertilize fields nor feed dogs. What use is it, then? (Laughter) Comrades, you probably realize that my purpose in saying this is to deliberately mock those who treat Marxism-Leninism as rigid dogma, who, despite Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin repeatedly insisting that their doctrine is not dogma but a guide to action, conveniently forget this most crucial, most fundamental point. Only when Chinese Communists apply the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of Marxism-Leninism to a serious study of China’s historical and revolutionary realities, and create theory in the process, can it be said that they are linking theory with practice. If you merely talk about linking without ever actually doing it, even if you speak for a hundred years it will be futile. We oppose subjectivist, one-sided ways of examining problems; we must therefore break down the subjectivism and one-sidedness of dogmatism. What I have discussed today concerns the rectification of subjectivism in the learning atmosphere across the Party.

Now let us turn to the question of sectarianism.

Because of the remnants of sectarianism that persist both internally and in the Party’s external relations—remnants that remain in matters of intra-Party unity, relations with the masses, and Party unity with the people, and that hinder unity in the great cause of the people across the nation—there exist tendencies toward sectarianism within the Party and exclusivism toward those outside it. While these remnants have not yet been completely eradicated, nor their harms entirely rooted out, such phenomena do still exist in our Party life. Inward sectarianism creates discord within the Party, exclusivism causes rifts with the masses; both obstruct the Party’s unity. Yet what, exactly, are the remnants of intra-Party sectarianism? Chief among them are the following: Some comrades in leading positions place undue emphasis on their own particular department or unit; they see only the interests of their own local part, hoping to make the interests of the whole subordinate to those of their own unit. They fail to understand that within the Communist Party, not only is democracy necessary, but centralism is critical as well. They forget the principles of democratic centralism: the minority submits to the majority, the lower level submits to the higher level, the part submits to the whole, and the entire Party submits to the Central Committee.

Zhang Guotao made a bid for independence within the Party, which eventually led him to betray the Party and become a secret agent.

Li Lisan also made a bid for independence against the Communist International, resulting in the error of the Li Lisan line.

Although what is being discussed now is not that kind of extreme, serious sectarianism, this phenomenon must be guarded against, and all manifestations of disunity must be completely eliminated. We must advocate that every Party member, every local unit, every speech, action, or decision must take the interests of the whole Party as the starting point, and absolutely no violation of this principle is permitted.

People who make such bids for independence are often inseparable from their "me-first" individualism. In their personal relations with the Party, they always put themselves first and the Party second. Though they verbally respect the Party, in practice, they place their own interests above all else. They seek personal fame and prestige, and when they crave these things, they make a bid for independence. To achieve these ends, they draw in some people and push others aside, engaging in flattery, boasting, and backslapping among comrades, thus importing the vulgar style of bourgeois political parties into the Communist Party. The flaw in such people lies in their dishonesty.

I believe we should handle affairs honestly. Without an honest attitude, it is fundamentally impossible to accomplish anything in the world. Who are honest people? Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin are honest people, and scientists are honest people. Who are dishonest? Trotsky, Bukharin, Chen Duxiu, and Zhang Guotao are thoroughly dishonest, as are those who make bids for independence for the sake of personal or local interests. All cunning individuals who do not act according to a scientific attitude, who think they are clever and shrewd, are in fact the most foolish and will come to no good end. We students at the Party school must pay close attention to this issue. We must build a centralized and unified Party, thoroughly cleansing all unprincipled factional struggles, and ensure that the entire Party marches in step, fighting for a common goal. We must resolutely oppose individualism and sectarianism.

The unity of external cadres and local cadres is essential, and sectarian tendencies must be opposed. It must be understood that under these conditions, we must develop many anti-Japanese base areas, and it was only after the Eighth Route Army and the New Fourth Army arrived that these base areas were established. Therefore, great attention must be paid to the relationship between external and local cadres. Many local tasks were initiated only after external cadres arrived. Under such circumstances, only by fully uniting external and local cadres can we consolidate the base areas and enable our Party to take root there. These conditions also existed in northern Shaanxi. Comrades like Gao Gang achieved unity between local and external cadres in northern Shaanxi, learning from each other's strengths and complementing weaknesses. External cadres should bear greater responsibility in some respects; in areas where external cadres serve as principal leaders, their responsibility is even greater. Generally speaking, external cadres are more advanced and broader in perspective, while local cadres are more familiar with local conditions and better at connecting with the masses. Our comrades must pay close attention to this issue.

Moreover, even within a single base area, because different regions develop at different paces, there is also a distinction between "external" and "local" among cadres. Cadres from relatively advanced areas who go to relatively backward areas are, for the local context, external cadres and must pay close attention to supporting local cadres. Generally, in places where external cadres bear leadership responsibilities, if relations with local cadres are poor, the responsibility lies mainly with the external cadres. The principal leading comrades bear an even greater responsibility. Currently, insufficient attention is paid to this issue. Some people look down on local cadres, ridiculing them with remarks like, "What do locals know? Rustics!" Such individuals completely fail to understand the importance of local cadres, neither recognizing the strengths of local cadres nor their own weaknesses, and thus adopt an incorrect sectarian attitude. All external cadres must cherish local cadres, constantly assist them, and never ridicule or attack them. Naturally, local cadres must also learn from the strengths of external cadres and discard inappropriate parochial views, striving to integrate seamlessly with external cadres to avoid sectarian tendencies. The same applies to the relationship between military cadres and local cadres: both must unite fully and oppose sectarian tendencies. Military cadres must assist local cadres, and vice versa. In case of disputes, both sides should forgive each other and engage in proper self-criticism. In areas where military cadres hold de facto leadership, if relations with local cadres deteriorate, the primary responsibility should rest with the military cadres. Military cadres must first understand their own responsibilities and treat local cadres with modesty, thereby ensuring smooth conditions for wartime work and construction in the base areas.

The same principle applies to relations between different military units, different localities, and different work departments: we must oppose the self-regarding tendency of caring only for one's own unit and ignoring others. Such behavior—sending unworthy cadres when transferring personnel, treating neighbors as foes, showing no concern for other units, regions, or individuals—is what we call self-regarding departmentalism, which completely forfeits the spirit of communism. Disregarding the overall situation and showing indifference to other units, regions, or individuals are the hallmarks of such self-regarding departmentalism. For such people, we must intensify education so they understand that this is a sectarian tendency, and if it develops further, it will become extremely dangerous.

Next, we come to the relationship between old cadres and new cadres. Since the start of the War of Resistance, our Party has grown immensely, with large numbers of new cadres joining, marking a very positive development. As Comrade Stalin noted in a report on the Eighteenth Party Congress: Old cadres are usually few in number and insufficient; moreover, due to natural laws, they will gradually age and decline. Thus, new cadres must be continuously cultivated. Comrade Stalin further observed: New cadres lack experience, while old cadres often lack fresh vitality and sensitivity, which are precisely the strengths of new cadres. New and old cadres should respect each other, learn from one another, and complement each other's strengths and weaknesses to unite and carry out their common cause, while guarding against sectarian tendencies. In areas where old cadres hold primary leadership, if relations between old and new cadres are poor under normal circumstances, the old cadres should bear the main responsibility.

What has been discussed above—the relationship between the part and the whole, between the individual and the Party, between external and local cadres, between military and local cadres, and between different military units, localities, and work departments, as well as between old and new cadres—all pertain to internal Party relations. In all these, we must enhance the spirit of communism, guard against sectarian tendencies, and ensure that our Party achieves uniformity in ranks and unity in steps, so as to be conducive to winning battles. This is a very important issue. In rectifying the Party's work style, we must thoroughly resolve it. If we do not want subjectivism and wish to practice the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, which is seeking truth from facts, we must eliminate the remnants of sectarianism within the Party, take the interests of the Party above personal and local interests as our starting point, and achieve complete unity and solidarity in the Party.

The remnants of sectarianism should be eliminated both in internal and external Party relations. Relying solely on uniting all Party comrades is not enough to defeat the enemy; we must also unite the entire nation to achieve victory. In the cause of uniting the nation, over the past two decades and more, particularly since the start of the War of Resistance, we have accomplished arduous and significant work, achieving even greater success. However, this does not mean that all our comrades have adopted a correct work style and are free from sectarian tendencies. Not so. Among some comrades, such tendencies indeed persist, and in some cases, they are quite severe. Many of our comrades tend to be arrogant toward non-Party personnel, looking down on them, belittling them, and unwilling to respect them or recognize their strengths. This is precisely a sectarian tendency. These comrades, having learned a few Marxist-Leninist phrases, become more arrogant rather than more humble, always claiming that others are incompetent while not realizing how superficial their own understanding truly is. Our comrades must grasp one fundamental truth: compared to the Party, the masses are always in the majority. Let us assume there is one Party member among a hundred people; in that case, ninety-nine are non-Party. Where is the justification for not collaborating with the masses? There is none whatsoever. The principle that Marxism-Leninism and the Party Central Committee always stress—maintaining close ties with the masses—provides no basis for any act of detachment. Such behavior stems entirely from the sectarian ideas concocted by a minority of our comrades.

Because this sectarianism remains quite serious among a minority of comrades and still obstructs the implementation of the Party's line, we must conduct extensive education within the Party. First and foremost, we must make our cadres truly understand the gravity of this issue, so they realize that unless Party members unite with non-Party cadres and non-Party individuals, the enemy cannot be defeated, and the goals of the revolution cannot be achieved. All sectarian ideas are subjective and inconsistent with the actual needs of the revolution. Therefore, in opposing sectarianism, we must also oppose subjectivism.

As for the issue of stereotyped Party writing, we will discuss it at another meeting. Stereotyped Party writing is a receptacle for hidden filth and a manifestation of subjectivism and sectarianism. It is harmful, detrimental to the revolution, and must be eradicated. There is no time to cover it all today; we will continue next time. To oppose subjectivism, we must propagate materialism and dialectics. However, many comrades in our Party neither emphasize propagating materialism nor advocate dialectics. Some comrades remain at ease even when others propagate subjectivism before them.

These comrades believe they believe in Marxism, but they do not strive to propagate materialism. When they hear or read something subjectivist, they do not take the time to think about it, nor do they express any opinions. Such an attitude is not the attitude of a Communist Party member.

*xxxsxxl.fe>5X<make# 2 Many of our comrades have been poisoned by subjectivist thinking, resulting in a state of numbness. (1) Therefore, we must launch an enlightenment movement within the Party to liberate the spirit of our comrades from the obscurantism of subjectivism and dogmatism, and call upon comrades to resist subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party stereotypes.

These things are like Japanese goods, because only our enemies wish us to preserve these bad things so that we continue to be deceived. Therefore, we should advocate resistance, just like resisting Japanese goods.

All things of subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party stereotypes, we must resist and not allow them to take advantage of the low theoretical level within the Party to peddle their wares.

For this purpose, we must sharpen the senses of our comrades, so that they can discern whether anything conforms to reality, distinguish its good from bad, and then decide to welcome it or resist it.

Communists must always subject everything, whether good or bad from the past, to careful deliberation in their own minds, to think over whether it is right or wrong. They must definitely not follow blindly or advocate slavishness. Subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party stereotypes must be opposed.

There are two guiding principles that must be observed: this work is definitely not about "punishing past mistakes to prevent future ones" alone; the first is "curing the sickness to save the patient."

Past errors must be exposed without regard for personal feelings, to analyze and criticize the past with a scientific attitude. This is the meaning of "punishing past mistakes to prevent future ones." But when we expose errors and criticize shortcomings, our purpose is to make later work more cautious, just as a doctor treats an illness solely for the purpose of saving the patient, not to finish the patient off. Any person who has made mistakes, as long as he does not conceal his illness and avoid treatment, does not stubbornly cling to his errors to the point of becoming incurable, but is honest and truly willing to be treated, willing to correct himself, we must welcome him and cure his malady so that he becomes a good comrade.

This can never be resolved by venting temporary anger or indiscriminately beating someone up. For ideological ailments and political ailments, a reckless attitude can never be adopted; only an attitude of "curing the sickness to save the patient" is the correct and effective method.

Taking the opportunity of today's opening of the Party School, I have spoken many words, and I hope comrades will give them consideration.

(Enthusiastic applause) O 1944 edition Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 5, p. 47 1947 edition Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 6, p. Liberation Daily, 1942.4.27,


Since the outbreak of the war, important documents collection, Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee, 1942. Women's Rectification Documents, Hong Kong New Democracy Press, 1949.5, Revised and Enlarged Edition Rectifying Academic Style, Party Style, and Writing Style, p. 5