Rectify Our Study Style, Party Style, and
Writing Style1
(Speech delivered at the Opening Ceremony of
the Party School on February 1, 1942)
The Party School opens today, and I congratulate the school on its achievements.
I would like to say something about the problem of our Party’s work style.
shortcomings or not? I say there are still problems, there are still shortcomings,
and, in a certain sense, these problems are rather serious.
What are these problems? They result from the fact that there are certain
things in the brains of some of our comrades that are not quite correct, not quite

proper.
What are these various things? There is the question of thought, the question of
the relationship between people within the Party and people outside the Party,
and the question of speech and writing. On these three questions, some of our
comrades have yet to discard their somewhat improper style. In other words, there
is still something wrong with our study style, Party style, and writing style. By
something wrong with our study style, we mean subjectivism.8 By something
our writing style—such is the task before us.
Let me speak now about subjectivism.
Subjectivism is an improper style of study; it is anti–Marxist-Leninist, and it
cannot coexist with the Communist Party. What we want is the Marxist-Leninist
study style. What we call study style means a study style not just in the schools
but in the whole Party. It is a question of the method of thinking by comrades in
our leading bodies and by all cadres and Party members. It is a question of our
attitude toward Marxism-Leninism, of the attitude of all Party comrades toward
their work. Since it is a question of this kind, the question of study style is an
extremely important question and indeed a question of primary importance.
At present, certain muddled ideas find currency among many people. This is
the case, for example, for ideas about what is a theorist, what is an intellectual,
and what is meant by linking theory and practice, and so on.
Let us first of all ask: Is the theoretical level of our Party actually high or low?
Recently more Marxist-Leninist works have been translated, and more people
have been reading them. That is a very good thing. But can we therefore say that
the theoretical level of our Party has been greatly raised? True, the level is now
somewhat higher than before. But in comparison with the rich content of the
Chinese revolutionary movement, the theoretical front lags behind. A comparison
of the two shows that the theoretical side is at a very low level and lags far
behind. Generally speaking, our theory cannot as yet keep pace with our
revolutionary practice, let alone lead the way as it should. We have not yet raised
our rich practice to the necessary theoretical level. We have not yet investigated
all the problems of revolutionary practice—or even the important ones—and
raised them to a theoretical level. Just think, how many of us have created
theories worthy of the name regarding China’s economy, politics, military affairs,
or culture, theories which can be regarded as scientific and comprehensive, and
not crude and sketchy? Especially in the field of economic theory, Chinese
capitalism has had a century of development since the Opium War, and yet not a
single theoretical work has been produced that accords with the realities of
China’s economic development and is genuinely scientific. Can we say that in the
study of China’s economic problems, for instance, the theoretical level is already
high? Can we say that our Party already has economic theorists worthy of the
name? Certainly not. We have read a great many Marxist-Leninist books, but can
we claim, then, that we have theorists? In reality, we cannot say this. For

Marxism-Leninism is the theory created by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on
the basis of practice; it consists of general conclusions drawn from historical and
and could recite every sentence, he still could not be counted as a theorist. What
kind of theorists do we need? We need theorists who, basing themselves on the
standpoint, viewpoint, and method of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, are able to
explain correctly the actual problems arising in the course of history and
revolution and give scientific explanations and theoretical elucidations of China’s
economic, political, military, cultural, and other problems. This is the type of
theorists we need. To be a theorist of this kind, a person must have a true grasp of
the essence of Marxism-Leninism, of the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, viewpoint,
and method, and of the theories of Lenin and Stalin on the colonial revolution
and the Chinese Revolution, and he must be able to apply them in a penetrating
and scientific analysis of China’s practical problems and discover the laws of
development of these problems. Such are the theorists we really need.
responsibility that we must shoulder.
Our Party School18 should not read the Marxist-Leninist tenets in a lifeless
two kinds of knowledge in the world: knowledge of the struggle for production
and knowledge of the class struggle. (Knowledge of the national struggle is also

included in the latter category.) What knowledge is there aside from this? There is
none. Natural science and social science are the crystallization of these two kinds
of knowledge, and philosophy is the generalization and summation of natural
but consists of theories set down by their predecessors in summarizing the
experience of the struggle for production and of the class struggle. It is entirely
necessary that students should acquire this kind of knowledge, but it must be
understood that, as far as they are concerned, such knowledge is the wrong way
around, reversed, and one-sided knowledge, something that has been verified by
others but not yet by themselves.29 They should know that it is not at all difficult
to learn this kind of knowledge, it may even be said that it is extremely easy. In
contrast, the cook’s task in preparing a meal is difficult. Combining firewood,
rice, oil, salt, sauce, vinegar, and so on to create something edible is no easy
matter, and it is even harder to make something tasty. If we compare the tasks of
the cooks at the Northwest Restaurant to those of the cooks in our homes, we find
a great difference. If the fire is too big, the food will burn; if there is too much salt,
it will taste bitter (laughter). Cooking and preparing food is truly an art. What
about book knowledge? If you only read lifeless books, then you need only to know
3,000 to 5,000 characters, learn how to thumb through a dictionary, and hold some

book in your hand, and the government will give you millet to eat. Then you nod
your head contentedly and start to read. Books cannot walk, and you can open
and close a book at will. This is the easiest thing in the world to do, a great deal
easier than for a cook to prepare a meal and far easier than it is for him to
slaughter a pig. He has to catch the pig, [but] the pig can run; (laughter) he
slaughters it, [so] the pig squeals (laughter). A book placed on a desk cannot run
nor can it squeal (laughter). You can dispose of it in any manner you wish. Is
there anything easier to do? Therefore, I advise those of you who have only book
learning and as yet no contact with reality, and those who have little practical
experience, to recognize your own shortcomings and become a bit more humble.
How can those half-baked intellectuals30 be turned into intellectuals worthy of
the name? There is only one way: to make all those people who have only book
knowledge turn to practical tasks, so that they become real workers and see that
those engaged in theoretical work turn to practical research.31 In this way we can
reach our goal.
What I have said can hardly fail to make some people angry. They will say,
“According to your interpretation, even Marx would be regarded as no more than
a half-baked intellectual.”32 I say, it is true33 that, in the first place, Marx did not
know how to slaughter a pig, and, second, he could not till the land. But he took
part in the revolutionary movement.34 He also studied commodities.35 Millions of
people see and use commodities every day, but are so used to them that they take
no notice. Marx alone studied commodities.36 He considered commodities, looking
at them this way and that way, unlike the casual way in which we read the
History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He carried out analytical
work into their actual development and derived a theory37 from what existed
universally. He studied nature, history, and proletarian revolution and created
dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and the theory of proletarian
revolution. Thus Marx should be regarded as a complete intellectual.38 He
differed from those half-baked intellectuals39 in that he participated in the actual
revolutionary movement, he returned to reality and undertook investigations and
research.40 He formed generalizations regarding various things.41 Such
generalized knowledge is called theory.42 Our Party needs a large number of
comrades to do43 such work. In our Party at present there are many comrades

who can engage in44 this kind of theoretical research. Most of them are intelligent
and promising; we should treasure these comrades, we should value them. But
their orientation must be correct, and they must not repeat the mistakes of the
past. They must discard dogmatism and not confine themselves to ready-made
books.45
There is only one kind of true theory in this world: theory that is drawn from
objective reality and then verified by objective reality. Nothing else can measure
up to the theory of which we speak. Stalin has said that theory divorced from
reality is empty theory. Empty theory is useless, incorrect, and must be rejected.
We should point the finger of scorn at those who are fond of such aimless
theorizing. Marxism-Leninism is the most correct, scientific, and revolutionary
truth, derived from objective reality and verified by objective reality, but many
who study Marxism-Leninism regard it as lifeless dogma, thus impeding the
development of theory, and harming themselves as well as other comrades.
On the other hand, our comrades who are engaged in practical work will also
fall into error if they misuse their experience. True, these people are rich in46
experience, which is very valuable, but it is very dangerous if they rest content
with their own experience. They must realize that their knowledge is mostly
perceptual and partial and that they lack rational and comprehensive knowledge;
in other words, they lack theory and their knowledge, too, is relatively
incomplete. Yet without comparatively complete knowledge it is impossible to do
revolutionary work well.
Thus, there are two kinds of incomplete knowledge. One is ready-made
knowledge found in books. I fear that this can turn even Marxism-Leninism into
something hollow. The other is knowledge that is mostly perceptual and partial
and has not yet evolved into something rational and universal. Both are onesided. Only linking the two together can produce something47 which is relatively
good and complete.
In order to study theory, however, our cadres of working-class and peasant
origin must first learn to read and write. Without this, they cannot learn Marxist-Leninist theory. Having learned this, they can study Marxism-Leninism at any
time. In my childhood I never attended something called a “Marxist-Leninist
school” and was taught only such things as, “The Master said: ‘Is it not pleasant
to learn with constant perseverance and application?’”48 (laughter) From this, I

learned to read.49 For example, the word “study” is there. I could use this word to
study Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, nowadays we no longer study Confucius;
we study such new topics as modern Chinese, history, geography, and
elementary natural science. Once these basic subjects are mastered, they are
useful everywhere. The Central Committee of our Party now emphasizes50 that
our cadres of working-class and peasant origin should obtain an elementary
education because they can then take up any branch of study—politics, military
science, or economics. Otherwise, although these worker and peasant cadres have
rich experience, they will never be able to raise themselves to the level of
theory.51
It follows that to combat subjectivism we must succeed in developing people of
each of these two types in whichever direction they are deficient and linking the
two together. Only when those with book learning develop in the direction of
practice can they avoid being stuck in books. Only then can they avoid
committing dogmatist errors. Those with work experience must take up the study
of theory and must read seriously. Only then will they be able to systematize and
synthesize their experience and raise it to the level of theory, and only then will
they not mistake their partial experience for universal truth and not commit
empiricist errors. Dogmatism and empiricism alike are subjectivism, each
originating from an opposite pole.
Hence there are two kinds of subjectivism in our Party: dogmatism and
empiricism. Each sees only a part and not the whole. If people are not on guard,
do not realize that such one-sidedness is a shortcoming and do not strive to
improve,52 they are liable to go astray.
Of these two kinds of subjectivism, however, the principal danger to our Party
at the present time is dogmatism. For dogmatism can easily assume the guise of
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.53 This intimidates cadres of working-class and
peasant origin and forces country bumpkins to be its servant, and cadres of
working-class and peasant origin cannot easily see through this disguise. This can
also intimidate naive young people and capture them. If we overcome
dogmatism, cadres with book learning will readily join with those who have
experience and will take to the study of practical things. Thus we can create
many54 good workers who combine theory with experience, as well as some real
theorists. If we overcome dogmatism, the comrades with practical experience will

have good teachers to help them raise their experience to the level of theory, and
so to avoid empiricist errors.
Apart from the confusion prevailing about the concepts of “theorist” and
“intellectual,” there is a phrase about “linking theory and practice” which we read
every day, about which many of our comrades also have confused ideas. Every
day they speak of “linking,” but in reality they are talking about “separating,”
because they make no effort at linking. How can Marxist-Leninist theory and the
practice of the Chinese Revolution be linked? To use a common expression, it is
by “shooting the arrow at the target.” When shooting an arrow, one should aim
at the target. The relation between Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese
Revolution is the same as that between the arrow and the target. Some comrades,
however, “shoot without a target,” shoot at random, and such people are liable to
harm the revolution. Others merely stroke the arrow fondly, exclaiming, “What a
fine arrow! What a fine arrow!” but are never willing to shoot it. Such people are
merely connoisseurs of curios and have virtually nothing to do with the
revolution. The arrow of Marxism-Leninism must be used to hit the target of the
Chinese Revolution. Otherwise why would we bother studying Marxism-Leninism? Is it because we are suffering from indigestion eating millet and need
to chant the digestion sutra? Why is it absolutely necessary for our Party School to
study Marxism-Leninism? Unless this question is clarified, the theoretical level of
our Party can never be raised and the Chinese Revolution can never be
victorious.
Our comrades must understand that we do not study Marxism-Leninism
because it is pleasing to the eye or because there is anything mysterious about
it,55 like the Daoist priests who ascend Maoshan to learn how to subdue demons
and evil spirits. Marxism-Leninism has no beauty, nor is there anything
mysterious about it. It is only extremely useful. Even now, it seems that there are
still a fair number of people who regard Marxism-Leninism56 as a ready-made
panacea that, once acquired, can easily cure all maladies. This is a type of childish
blindness, and we must still carry out a movement to enlighten them. It is
precisely those who regard Marxism-Leninism as a religious dogma who show
this type of blind ignorance. To them we should say frankly, “Your dogma is
useless,” or to put it more impolitely, “In fact, your dogma is even more useless
than shit.” We see that dogshit can fertilize the fields, and human shit can feed

the dog. What about dogmas? They cannot fertilize the fields, nor can they feed
the dog. Of what use are they? (laughter) Comrades! You know that my object in
putting it this way is deliberately to be sarcastic toward those who treat Marxism-Leninism as dogma, to give them a big shock so as to wake them up and make
them take a correct attitude toward Marxism-Leninism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and
Stalin have repeatedly stated that our doctrine is not a dogma, but a guide to
action. Of all things, such people forget this most important sentence. Only if the
Chinese Communists take57 the standpoint, viewpoint, and methods of Marxism-Leninism, apply them to China,58 and59 create a theory60 from the conscientious
study of the realities of Chinese history and of the Chinese Revolution, can it be
said that theory and practice have been combined. Merely talking about linking
theory and practice without actually doing anything about it is of no use, even if
one goes on talking for a hundred years. To oppose the subjectivist, one-sided
approach to problems, we must demolish dogmatist subjectivity and onesidedness.
So much for today about combating subjectivism in order to rectify the style of
study throughout the Party.
Let us now talk about the problem of sectarianism.
Because it has been steeled for twenty years, our Party is no longer dominated
by sectarianism, but remnants of sectarianism still exist. They are to be found
both in the Party’s internal relations and in its external relations. Sectarian
tendencies in internal relations lead to exclusiveness toward comrades inside the
Party and hinder Party61 unity and solidarity. Sectarian tendencies in external
relations lead to exclusionism toward people outside the Party and hinder the
Party in its task of uniting the people of the whole country. Only by uprooting
this source of misfortune in both its aspects can the Party advance unimpeded in
its great task of achieving unity among all Party comrades and among all the
people of our country.
What are the remnants of inner-Party sectarianism? They are mainly of the
following types:
First, the assertion of “independence.” Some comrades see only the interests of
the part and not the whole; they always put undue stress on that part of the work
for which they themselves are responsible and always wish to subordinate the
interests of the whole to the interests of their own part. They do not understand

the Party’s system of democratic centralism; they do not know that the
Communist Party not only needs democracy but needs centralization even more.
They forget the system of democratic centralism, in which the minority is
subordinate to the majority, the lower level to the higher level, and the part to the
whole and the entire membership to the Central Committee. Zhang Guotao
asserted his independence from the Central Committee and as a result asserted
himself into betraying the Party and became a Guomindang agent. Li Lisan also
asserted independence from the Communist International, and as a result
committed the mistakes of the Lisan line. Although the sectarianism we are now
discussing is not of the extremely serious kind of Zhang Guotao and Li Lisan, it
must still be guarded against, and we must do away completely with all
manifestations of disunity. We should encourage comrades to take into account
the interests of the whole. Every Party member, every branch of work, every
statement, and every action must proceed from the interests of the whole Party; it
is absolutely impermissible to violate this principle.
Those who assert this kind of independence are usually wedded to the doctrine
of “me first” and are generally wrong on the question of the relationship between
the individual and the Party. Although in words they profess respect for the
Party, in practice they put themselves first and the Party second. Comrade Liu
Shaoqi once said that there was one kind of people who had very long hands and
were very good at looking after their own interests, but paid little heed to the
interests of others and of the Party as a whole. “What’s mine is mine, and what’s
yours is mine too.” (loud laughter)62 What are these people after? They are after
fame and position and want to be in the limelight. Whenever they are put in
charge of a branch of work, they assert their independence. With this aim, they
draw some people in, push others out, and resort to boasting, flattery, and touting
among the comrades, thus importing the vulgar style of the bourgeois political
parties into the Communist Party. It is their dishonesty that causes them to come
to grief. I believe that we should do things honestly, for without an honest
attitude it is absolutely impossible to accomplish anything in this world. Which
are the honest people? Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin are honest, and men of
science are honest. Which are the dishonest people? Trotsky, Bukharin, Chen
Duxiu, and Zhang Guotao are extremely dishonest. Li Lisan is also dishonest.
And those who assert independence out of personal or sectional interest are

dishonest, too. All sly people, all those who do not have a scientific attitude in
their work, fancy themselves resourceful and clever, but in fact they are most
stupid and will come to no good end. Students in our Party School must pay
attention to this problem. We must definitely build a centralized, unified Party
and make a clean sweep of all unprincipled factional struggles. We must combat
individualism and sectarianism so as to enable our whole Party to march in step
and fight for one common goal.
The relationship between cadres from the outside and those from the locality
must be one of unity, and they must combat sectarian tendencies. Very careful
attention must be given to the relations between outside and local cadres because
many anti-Japanese base areas were established only after the arrival of the
Eighth Route Army or the New Fourth Army, and much of the local work
developed only after the arrival of outside cadres. In these conditions, our
comrades must understand that it is possible for our base areas to be consolidated
and for our Party to take root there only when the two kinds of cadres unite as
one and when a large number of local cadres develop and are promoted;
otherwise, it is impossible. Both the outside and the local cadres have their strong
and weak points, and to make any progress they must overcome their own weak
points by learning from each other’s strong points. The outside cadres are
generally not as familiar as the local cadres with local conditions and in links
with the masses. Take me, for instance. Although I have been in northern
Shaanxi five or six years, I am far behind Comrade Gao Gang and others63 in
understanding local conditions and in links with the people here. No matter how I
investigate and study, I still fall somewhat short in comparison with the cadres of
northern Shaanxi. Our comrades going to the anti-Japanese base areas in Shanxi,
Hebei, Shandong, and other provinces must pay attention to this. Moreover, even
within the same base area, owing to the fact that some districts develop earlier
and others later, there is a difference between the local cadres of a district and
those from outside it. Cadres who come from a more-developed to a lessdeveloped district are also outside cadres in relation to that locality, and they,
too, should pay great attention to fostering and helping local cadres. Generally
speaking, in places where outside cadres are in charge, it is they who should bear
the main responsibility if their relations with the local cadres are not good. And
the chief comrades in charge should bear greater responsibility. The attention

paid to this problem in some places is still very inadequate. Some people look
down on the local cadres and ridicule them, saying, “What do these locals know?
Clodhoppers!” Such people utterly fail to understand the importance of local
cadres; they know neither the latter’s strong points nor their own weaknesses, so
they adopt an incorrect, sectarian attitude. All outside cadres must cherish the
local cadres and give them constant help and must not be permitted to ridicule or
attack them. Of course, the local cadres for their part must learn from the strong
points of the outside cadres and rid themselves of inappropriate, narrow views so
that they and the outside cadres become as one, with no distinction between
“them” and “us,” thus avoiding sectarian tendencies.
The same applies to the relationship between cadres in army service and other
cadres working in the locality. They must be completely united and must oppose
sectarian tendencies. The army cadres must help the local cadres, and vice versa.
If there is friction between them, each should make allowances for the other and
carry out proper self-criticism. Generally speaking, in places where army cadres
are actually in positions of leadership, it is they who should bear the main
responsibility if their relations with the local cadres are not good. This question is
also very important. Only when the army cadres understand their own
responsibility and are modest in their attitude toward the local cadres can the
conditions be created for the smooth progress of our war effort and our work of
construction in the base areas.
The same applies to the relationship among different army units, different
localities, and different departments. We must oppose the tendency toward
selfish departmentalism by which the interests of one’s own unit are looked after
to the exclusion of those of others. Whoever is indifferent to the difficulties of
others, refuses to transfer cadres to other units,64 or sends only the inferior ones,
using the neighbor’s field as an outlet for his overflow, and does not give the
slightest consideration to other departments, localities, or people—such a person
is a selfish departmentalist who has entirely lost the spirit of communism. Lack of
consideration for the whole and complete indifference to other departments,
localities, and people are characteristics of a selfish departmentalist. We must
intensify our efforts to educate such persons and to make them understand that
selfish departmentalism is a sectarian tendency which will become very
dangerous if allowed to develop.

Another problem is that of the relationship between old and new cadres. Since
the beginning of the War of Resistance, our Party has grown enormously, and
large numbers of new cadres have emerged. That is a very good thing. In his
report to the Eighteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
(Bolsheviks), Comrade Stalin said, “there are never enough old cadres, there are
far less than required, and they are already partly going out of commission owing
to the operation of the laws of nature.”65 Here he was discussing the cadre
situation as well as the laws of nature. If our Party does not have a great many
new cadres working in unity and cooperation with the old cadres, our cause will
come to a stop. All old cadres, therefore, should welcome the new ones with the
utmost enthusiasm and show them the warmest solicitude. True, new cadres have
their shortcomings. They have not yet been long in the revolution and lack
experience, and unavoidably some have brought with them vestiges of the
unwholesome ideology of the old society, remnants of the ideology of pettybourgeois liberalism.66 But such shortcomings can be gradually eliminated
through education and tempering in the revolution. The strong point of the new
cadres, as Stalin has said, is that they are acutely sensitive to what is new and are
therefore enthusiastic and active to a high degree—the very qualities that some of
the old cadres lack. Cadres, new and old, should respect one another, learn from
one another, and overcome their own shortcomings by learning from one
another’s strong points, so as to unite as one in the common cause and guard
against sectarian tendencies. Generally speaking, in places where the old cadres
are mainly in charge, it is they who should bear the chief responsibility if
relations with the new cadres are not good.
All those things discussed above—relations between the part and the whole,
relations between the individual and the Party, relations between outside and
local cadres, relations between army cadres and other cadres working in the
locality, relations between this and that army unit, between this and that locality,
between this and that department, and relations between old and new cadres—are
relations within the Party. In all these relations, it is necessary to enhance the
spirit of communism and guard against sectarian tendencies, so that the ranks of
our Party will be in good order, march in step, and therefore fight well. This is a
very important problem which we must solve thoroughly in rectifying the Party’s
work style. If we want to get rid of subjectivism67 and promote the Marxist-Leninist spirit of seeking truth from facts, we must sweep the remnants of
sectarianism out of the Party and proceed from the principle that the Party’s
interests are above personal or sectional interests, so that the Party can attain
complete solidarity and unity.
The remnants of sectarianism must be eliminated from the Party’s external as
well as its internal relations. This is also something that must be resolved in
rectifying the Party’s work style. We cannot defeat the enemy68 by merely uniting
the comrades throughout the Party. We can defeat the enemy only by uniting the
people throughout the country. For twenty years we have69 done great and
arduous work in the cause of uniting the people of the whole country, and the
achievements in this work since the outbreak of the War of Resistance are even
greater than in the past. This does not mean, however, that all our comrades
already have a correct style70 and are free from sectarian tendencies. No. In fact,
sectarian tendencies still exist among a number of comrades and, in some cases,
to a very serious degree. Many of our comrades tend to be overbearing in their
relations with non-Party people, look down upon them, despise or refuse to
respect them or appreciate their strong points. This is indeed a sectarian
tendency. After learning a few Marxist-Leninist sentences,71 such comrades
become more arrogant instead of more modest and invariably dismiss others as
no good without realizing that in fact their own knowledge is only half-baked.
Our comrades must realize the truth that Communist Party members are at all
times a minority compared with non-Party people. Suppose that one out of every
hundred persons was a Communist, then there would be 4,500,000 Communists
among China’s population of 450,000,000. Yet even if our membership reached
this huge figure, Communists would still form only 1 percent of the entire
population, while 99 percent would be non-Party people. What reason can we
then have for not cooperating with non-Party people? As regards all those who
wish to cooperate with us or might cooperate with us, we have only the duty of
cooperating and absolutely no right to shut them out. But some Party members
do not understand this and look down upon, or even reject, those who wish to
cooperate with us. There are no grounds whatsoever for doing so. Have Marx,
Engels, Lenin, and Stalin given us any grounds for this? No, they have not. On
the contrary, they have always earnestly enjoined us to form close ties with the
masses and not divorce ourselves from them. Or has the Central Committee of

the Communist Party72 given us any grounds? No. Among all its resolutions
there is not a single one that says we may divorce ourselves from the masses and
so isolate ourselves. On the contrary, the Central Committee has always told us
to form close ties with the masses and not to divorce ourselves from them. Thus
any action divorcing us from the masses has no justification at all and is simply
the mischievous result of the sectarian ideas some of our comrades have
themselves concocted. As such sectarianism remains very serious among some of
our comrades and still obstructs the application of the Party line, we should carry
out extensive education within the Party to meet this problem. Above all, we
should begin with our cadres and make them really understand how serious the
problem is and how utterly impossible it is to overthrow the enemy and attain
the goal of the revolution unless Party members unite with non-Party cadres and
non-Party people.
All sectarian ideas are subjectivist and are incompatible with the real needs of
the revolution; hence, while waging the struggle against sectarianism, we should
also wage a struggle against subjectivism.73
Concerning the question of Party formalism, it will be discussed at another
meeting.74 Party formalism is a vehicle for filth, a form of expression for
subjectivism and sectarianism. It does people harm and damages the revolution,
and we must get rid of it completely. I cannot finish talking about these things
today all at one sitting. I will do it next time.
To combat subjectivism, we must propagate materialism and dialectics. There
are, however, many comrades in our Party who lay no stress on the propaganda
either of materialism or of dialectics. Some tolerate subjectivist propaganda and
regard it with equanimity. They think they believe in Marxism, but they make no
effort to propagate materialism and do not give it a thought or express any
opinion when they hear or read subjectivist stuff. Such an attitude is not the
attitude of a Communist. For this reason, many of our comrades are poisoned by
subjectivist ideas, which numb their sensitivity. We should therefore launch a
campaign of enlightenment within the Party to free the minds of our comrades
from the fog of subjectivism and dogmatism and we should call upon them to
resist subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party formalism. Such things are like
Japanese goods, for only our enemy wishes us to preserve such evils and continue
to befuddle ourselves with them; so we should advocate a boycott against them,

just as we boycott Japanese goods. We should boycott all the subjectivist,
sectarian, and Party formalist stuff,75 make their sale difficult, and not allow their
purveyors to ply their trade by exploiting the low theoretical level in the Party.
We should make it difficult to sell any subjectivist, sectarian, or Party formalist
stuff in the market. Our comrades must develop a good nose for this purpose;
they should take a sniff at everything and distinguish the good from the bad
before they decide whether to welcome it or boycott it. Communists must always
go into the whys and wherefores of anything, use their own heads, and carefully
think over whether it corresponds to reality and is really well founded. On no
account should they follow blindly and encourage slavishness.
Finally, in opposing subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party formalism, we must
have in mind two purposes: first, “learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones”
and, second, “cure the sickness to save the patient.” The mistakes of the past must
be exposed without sparing anyone’s sensibilities; it is necessary to analyze and
criticize what was bad in the past with a scientific attitude so that work in the
future will be done more carefully and better. This is what is meant by “learn
from past mistakes to avoid future ones.” But our aim in exposing errors and
criticizing shortcomings, like that of a doctor curing a sickness, is solely to save
the patient and not to doctor him to death. A person with appendicitis is saved
when the surgeon removes his appendix. No matter how big his mistake is, so
long as the person who has made mistakes does not hide his sickness for fear of
treatment or persist in his mistakes until he is beyond cure, so long as he honestly
and sincerely wishes to be cured and to mend his ways, we should welcome him
and cure his sickness so that he can become a good comrade. We can never
succeed if we just let ourselves go and lash out at him. In treating an ideological
or political malady, one must never be rough and rash but must adopt the
approach of “curing the sickness to save the patient,” which is the only correct
and effective method.
I have taken this occasion of the opening of the Party School to speak at length,
and I hope comrades will think over what I have said (enthusiastic applause).
Notes

This speech was first published in Jiefang ribao, April 27, 1942. Our source is Mao Zedong ji, Vol. 8, pp. 63–
85, which reproduces the text as it appeared in Vol. 5 of the 1944 edition of Mao Zedong xuanji (Selected
Works of Mao Zedong). Text in italics, below, reflects the original text, which was removed in the revised
version published in Xuanji in the 1950s; for more details, see “Variants” in “Note on Sources and
Conventions,” above, pp. lxi–lxvi.
people want to throw off the oppression of these enemies
Party → In the era of capitalism and imperialism, a revolutionary party just such as the Communist Party is
needed
oppression, it will be simply impossible for them to do so
6. We have → The Party has
Note: The expression here translated as “Party formalism” is dang bagu, literally “Party eight-legged essays.”
This was a rigid style that candidates were required to employ in their answers to questions modeled after the
imperial examinations used from the fifteenth to the end of the nineteenth century. The examination system
was abolished in 1902 as irrelevant to the modern world in which China found itself, and thereafter the term
was often used to signify the use of outmoded stereotypes. Compton translates it as “Party formalism”; in the
Selected Works it is rendered as “stereotyped Party writing.” We prefer “formalism” because, like Mao’s
reference to “eight-legged essays,” it evokes adherence to traditional forms rather than simply following
current fads.—Eds.]
11. Vanquishing → Overthrowing
12. This → Their works

13. This → Their theories
and of a specific nature → If we have not tried to reflect theoretically on China’s revolutionary experience
as lifeless dogma
made the decision over two years ago
December 1939, which appears in Vol. VII, pp. 262–64.
23. War of resistance → Resistance to Japan
applying this knowledge in life and in practice.
egarded as an intellectual
33. I say, it is true → I say this is not the case
movement
commodity, the simplest element of capitalism, he made a thorough study of the economic structure of
capitalist society
36. Studied commodities → Studied commodities scientifically
37. A theory → A thoroughly scientific theory
developed intellectual, representing the acme of human wisdom
have only book learning
40. Research → Research in the course of practical struggles
because from it I learned to read
50. Emphasizes → Emphatically requires
cause of the proletariat to victory.”
Revolution
59. And → And, taking a step forward
Revolution; they were restored in the 1991 second edition.
The reference to Gao Gang appeared only in the first Chinese edition of 1953; it was removed in 1954 and
was not restored in the 1991 second edition. Gao Gang (1905–1954) was an established Communist partisan in
Shaanxi when Mao and the Long Marchers arrived. Gao helped Mao take control and was rewarded with
leadership of the Chinese Communist Party’s Northwestern Bureau.—Eds.]
is indifferent to the difficulties of others, and refuses to transfer cadres when they request them
decrepit and dying out,” by the official English translation of Stalin’s words, which accurately renders the
original Russian. See Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1976), p. 92, and for the
original, Stalin, Voprosy Leninizma, 11th ed. (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1952), p. 636.

--- Notes

# Rectify Our Study Style, Party Style, and Writing Style
# Date: 1942-02-01
# Source: en:MRP


Why must there be a revolutionary party? There must be a revolutionary party
because our enemies still exist in the world.2 Moreover, what is required is not
just an ordinary revolutionary party but a revolutionary party with the nature of
a Communist Party.3 For without a revolutionary party with the nature of a
Communist Party, it is impossible to overthrow the enemy completely.4 We want
to overthrow the enemy.5 So we must keep our ranks in good order, we must
march in step, our troops must be picked troops, and our weapons must be good
weapons. Without these conditions the enemy cannot be overthrown.
What is the problem now facing our Party? Our Party’s general line is correct,
there is no doubt about that, and our Party’s work has achieved success. We
have6 several hundred thousand members who are working side by side with the
people7 in waging extremely hard and bitter struggles against the national
enemy. Such a heroic spirit of sacrifice, such achievements in the service of the
people, can be seen by all and are not subject to doubt.
After all, then, does our Party still have problems or not? Does it still have
the enemy

wrong with our Party style, we mean sectarianism.9 By something wrong with
our writing style, we mean Party formalism.10 These styles are wrong, but they
are not like the wintry north winds that sweep across the whole sky.
Subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party formalism are no longer the dominant
styles, but merely gusts of contrary wind, ill winds from the air-raid tunnels
(laughter). It is not good, however, that such winds should still be blowing in our
Party. We must seal off the passages which produce them. Our whole Party
should undertake the job of sealing off these passages and so should the Party
School. These three ill winds, subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party formalism,
have their historical origins. Although at present they are no longer dominant in
the whole Party, they still constantly create trouble and assail us. Consequently,
it is necessary to engage in rectification, to resist them, and to analyze and
elucidate them and study them.
Oppose subjectivism in order to rectify our study style, oppose sectarianism in
order to rectify our Party style, and oppose Party formalism in order to rectify

If we want to accomplish the task of vanquishing11 the enemy, we must
accomplish this task of rectifying these styles within the Party. The study style is
also the Party’s study style. The writing style is also the Party’s writing style.
Therefore, they are both part and parcel of the Party’s work style. Once our
Party’s work style is put completely right, people throughout the country will
learn from our example. Those outside the Party who indulge in the same kind of
bad practices will, if they are good and honest people, learn from our example
and correct their mistakes, and thus the whole nation will be influenced. So long
as our Communist ranks are in good order and march in step, so long as our
troops are picked troops and our weapons are good weapons, any enemy,
however powerful, cannot but be overthrown.


revolutionary practice. If we merely read this,12 but do not proceed to study the
realities of China’s history and revolution in the light of this,13 or make any effort
to think through China’s revolutionary practice carefully in terms of theory, if we
have not created a theory in accordance with China’s real necessities, a theory
that is our own and of a specific nature,14 we should not be so presumptuous as
to call ourselves Marxist theorists. If we who are Communist Party members are
so accustomed to looking at Chinese problems that we cannot see them, if we
look every day and see nothing, put on glasses and still see nothing, if we see only
the complete works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the shelf, then our
achievements on the theoretical front will be very poor indeed. If a person can
only commit Marxist economics or philosophy to memory, reciting glibly from
Chapter I to Chapter X, (laughter) but is utterly unable to apply them, can such a
person be considered a Marxist theorist? Hardly. Indeed, the fewer such
“theorists” we have the better. If there was someone who had read ten thousand
works by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, had read every work a thousand times,

The Central Committee15 has now made a decision calling upon our comrades
to learn how to apply the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, viewpoint, and method of
thinking in the serious study of China’s history, and of China’s economics,
politics, military affairs, and culture and to investigate and study16 every problem
on the basis of detailed material and only then to create theories.17 This is the


manner.19 Instead, they must be able first of all to master them and then to apply
them, master them for the sole purpose of applying them. Now it is fashionable to
measure performance in terms of percentages. Then, what grade shall we give to
this person who has read 10,000 books, has read each one 1,000 times, and is
completely unable to apply them? I say zero (laughter). But if you can apply the
Marxist-Leninist viewpoint to elucidate one or two practical problems, you
should be commended and credited with some achievement. The more problems
you elucidate and the more comprehensively and profoundly you do so, the
greater will be your achievement. At present, our Party School should also lay
down the rule to grade students as superior or inferior, good or bad, according to
how they look at China’s problems after they have studied Marxism-Leninism,20
according to whether they see the problems clearly and whether they see them at
all.
What about the problem of the so-called intellectuals? Because this China of
ours is a semicolonial, semifeudal country and its culture is underdeveloped,

intellectuals are of particular value. The Central Committee has, moreover, made
the decision21 that we must strive to attract a broad stratum of intellectuals.22
Insofar as they are revolutionary and willing to take part in the War of
Resistance,23 welcome them one and all. This is very correct, but as a result,
intellectuals are glorified and country bumpkins have a difficult time. It is
entirely right for us to esteem intellectuals, for without revolutionary intellectuals
the revolution cannot triumph. But we all know that there are many intellectuals
who fancy themselves very learned and assume airs of erudition, not realizing
that such airs are bad and harmful and hinder their own progress. They ought to
be aware of the truth that actually many so-called intellectuals are, relatively
speaking, most ignorant, and the workers and peasants sometimes know more
than they do. Here some will say, “Ha! You are turning things upside down and
talking nonsense.” (laughter) But, comrades, don’t get excited; there is some sense
in what I am saying.
What is knowledge? From ancient times to the present,24 there have been only

science and social science. Aside from these, there is no other knowledge.25 Now
let us take a look at certain students, those brought up in schools that are
completely cut off from the practical activities of society. What about them? A
person goes from a primary school26 all the way to a university,27 graduates, and
is considered learned. But first of all, such people don’t know how to till the land;
second, they don’t know how to work in factories; third, they don’t know how to
fight battles; and fourth, they don’t know how to handle a job. They have done
none of these things. They have absolutely no practical knowledge of this kind. All
they have is book learning.28 Can such persons be regarded as complete
intellectuals? Hardly, in my opinion. At most they can be considered halfintellectuals, because their knowledge is still incomplete. What, then, is relatively
complete knowledge? All relatively complete knowledge is formed in two stages:
the first stage is perceptual knowledge, the second is rational knowledge, the
latter being the development of the former to a higher stage. What sort of
knowledge is the students’ book learning? Even supposing all their knowledge is
truth, it is still not knowledge acquired through their own personal experience,
ractical activities or applied what they have learned to any field of life

66. Liberalism → Individualism
elations; if we want to get rid of subjectivism
ubjectivism → Hence the struggle against sectarianism and the struggle against subjectivism should go on
imultaneously
bout the question of stereotyped Party writing today; I shall discuss it at another meeting

75. Stuff → Wares


--- Notes

1. Rectify Our Study Style, Party Style, and Writing Style → Rectify the Party’s Work Style
2. Because our enemies still exist in the world → Because enemies who oppress the people exist, and the

3. Not just an ordinary revolutionary party, but a revolutionary party with the nature of a Communist

4. It is impossible to overthrow the enemy completely → If the people want to overthrow enemy

7. Who are working side by side with the people → Who are leading the people
8. We mean subjectivism → We mean the malady of subjectivism
9. We mean sectarianism → We mean the malady of sectarianism
10. We mean Party formalism → We mean the malady of Party formalism

14. If we have not created a theory in accordance with China’s real necessities, a theory that is our own

15. The Central Committee → The Central Committee of our Party
16. Investigate and study → Make a concrete analysis of
17. Create theories → Draw out conclusions of a theoretical character
18. Our Party School → Our comrades in the Party School
19. Should not read the Marxist-Leninist tenets in a lifeless manner → Should not regard Marxist theory

20. After they have studied Marxism-Leninism → When a student has studied Marxism-Leninism
21. The Central Committee has, moreover, made the decision → The Central Committee of the Party

22. The reference is to the decision on recruiting intellectuals adopted by the Central Committee in

24. From ancient times to the present → Since the emergence of class society
25. Aside from these, there is no other knowledge → What other knowledge is there?
26. A primary school → A primary school of this kind
27. A university → A university of the same kind
29. Here the revised text inserts the following sentence: Thus, what is most important is to be good at

30. How can those half-baked intellectuals → How can those who have only book learning
31. Turn to practical research → Study important practical problems
32. Even Marx would be regarded as no more than a half-baked intellectual → Even Marx would not be

34. He took part in the revolutionary movement → He took part in the practice of the revolutionary

35. He also studied commodities → Moreover, he created revolutionary theory. Beginning with the

38. Thus Marx should be regarded as a complete intellectual → Thus Marx became a most completely

39. He differed from those half-baked intellectuals → He was fundamentally different from those who

41. Here the revised version adds: “and then verified his conclusions by testing them in practical struggles.”
42. Such generalized knowledge is called theory → Such work is called theoretical work
43. Do → Learn how to do
44. Who can engage in → Who can learn to engage in
45. Ready-made books → Ready-made phrases in books
46. Are rich in → Are frequently rich in
47. Something → Knowledge
48. This is the opening sentence of the Confucian Analects.
49. From this, I learned to read → Though this teaching material was antiquated, it did me some good

51. To raise themselves to the level of theory → To study theory
52. Strive to improve → Strive to overcome it
53. The guise of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin → A Marxist guise
54. Many → Some
55. Here the Selected Works text adds: “but solely because it is the science that leads the revolutionary

56. Marxism-Leninism → A few odd quotations from Marxist-Leninist works
57. Take → Are good at using
58. Apply them to China → Are good at applying the doctrine of Lenin and Stalin regarding the Chinese

60. Create a theory → In every domain, produce theoretical creations adapted to China’s needs
61. Party → Inner-Party
62. These two sentences were removed from the Selected Works only in 1967 in the context of the Cultural

63. Comrade Gao Gang and others → Some comrades from North Shaanxi

64. Whoever is indifferent to the difficulties of others, refuses to transfer cadres to other units → Whoever

65. Here the translators of the Selected Works have replaced what Mao actually said, “they are becoming

5. We want to overthrow the enemy → We are Communists, we want to lead the people in overthrowing

28. All they have is book learning → All they have is book learning; they have not yet taken part in any

67. If we want to get rid of subjectivism → Sectarianism is an expression of subjectivism in organizational

68. We cannot defeat the enemy → The reason is this: we cannot defeat the enemy

69. We have → The Chinese Communist Party has

70. Have a correct style → Have a correct style in dealing with the masses

71. After learning a few Marxist-Leninist sentences → After reading a few Marxist books

72. Communist Party → Chinese Communist Party

73. Hence, while waging the struggle against sectarianism, we should also wage a struggle against

74. Concerning the question of Party formalism, it will be discussed at another meeting → I cannot talk