February 8, 1942

[This speech was delivered by Comrade Mao Tse-tung at a cadres' meeting in
Yenan.]


Comrade Kai-feng has just stated the purpose of today's meeting. I now want
to discuss the ways subjectivism and sectarianism use stereotyped Party writing
(or the Party "eight-legged essay") [1] as their
instrument of propaganda or form of expression. We are fighting against
subjectivism and sectarianism, but they will still have a hiding-place to
lurk in if at the same time we do not get rid of stereotyped Party writing.
If we destroy that too, we shall "checkmate" subjectivism and sectarianism
and make both these monsters show themselves in their true colours, and then
we shall easily be able to annihilate them, like "rats running across the
street with everyone yelling: Kill them! Kill them!"

It does not matter much if a person produces stereotyped Party writings only
for himself to read. If he passes them on to someone else, the number of
readers is doubled, and already no small harm is done. If he has them posted
up, mimeographed, printed in newspapers or published in book form, then the
problem becomes indeed a big one, for they can influence many people. And
those who produce stereotyped Party writing always seek large audiences.
Thus it has become imperative to expose and destroy it.

Stereotyped Party writing is, moreover, one brand of the "foreign stereotype",
which was attacked by Lu Hsun a long time
ago.[2] Why then do we call it the Party "eight-legged
essay"? Because, besides its foreign flavour, it has some smell of native
soil. Perhaps it too can be counted as creative work of a sort! Who says
our people have not produced any creative works? Here is one! (Loud
laughter.)

Stereotyped Party writing has a long history in our Party; particularly during
the Agrarian Revolution, it sometimes became quite rampant.

Viewed historically, stereotyped Party writing is a reaction to the May 4th
Movement.

During the May 4th Movement, modern-minded people opposed the use of the
classical Chinese language and advocated vernacular Chinese, opposed the
traditional dogmas and advocated science and democracy, all of which was
quite right. The movement then was vigorous and lively, progressive and
revolutionary. In those days the ruling classes indoctrinated students with
Confucian teachings and compelled the people to venerate all the trappings
of Confucianism as religious dogma, and all writers used the classical language.
In short, what was written and taught by the ruling classes and their hangers-on
was in the nature of stereotyped writing and dogma, both in content and in
form. That was the old stereotype and the old dogma. A tremendous achievement
of the May 4th Movement was its public exposure of the ugliness of the old
stereotype and the old dogma and its call to the people to rise against them.
Another great and related achievement was its fight against imperialism,
but the struggle against the old stereotype and the old dogma remains one
of the great achievements of the May 4th Movement. Later on, however, foreign
stereotyped writing and foreign dogma came into being. Running counter to
Marxism, certain people in our Party developed the foreign stereotype and
dogma into subjectivism, sectarianism and stereotyped Party writing. These
are the new stereotype and the new dogma. They have become so deeply ingrained
in the minds of many comrades that today we still have a very strenuous job
of remoulding to do. Thus we see that the lively, vigorous, progressive and
revolutionary movement of the May 4th period which fought the old feudal
stereotyped writing and dogma was later turned by some people into its very
opposite, giving rise to the new stereotyped writing and dogma. The latter
are not lively and vigorous but dead and stiff, not progressive but
retrogressive, not revolutionary but obstacles to revolution. That is to
say, the foreign stereotyped writing, or stereotyped Party writing, is a
reaction to the original nature of the May 4th Movement. The May 4th Movement,
however, had its own weaknesses. Many of the leaders lacked the critical
spirit of Marxism, and the method they used was generally that of the
bourgeoisie, that is, the formalist method. They were quite right in opposing
the old stereotype and the old dogma and in advocating science and democracy.
But in dealing with current conditions, with history, and with things foreign,
they lacked the critical spirit of historical materialism and regarded what
was bad as absolutely and wholly bad and what was good as absolutely and
wholly good. This formalist approach to problems affected the subsequent
course of the movement. In its development, the May 4th Movement divided
into two currents. One section inherited its scientific and democratic spirit
and transformed it on the basis of Marxism; this is what the Communists and
some non-Party Marxists did. Another section took the road of the bourgeoisie;
this was the development of formalism towards the Right. But within the Communist
Party too the situation was not uniform; there, too, some members deviated
and, lacking a firm grasp of Marxism, committed errors of formalism, namely,
the errors of subjectivism, sectarianism and stereotyped Party writing. This
was the development of formalism towards the "Left". So it can be seen that
stereotyped Party writing is no accident, but is, on the one hand, a reaction
to the positive elements of the May 4th Movement and, on the other, a legacy,
a continuation or development of its negative elements. It is useful for
us to understand this point. Just as it was revolutionary and necessary to
fight the old stereotyped writing and the old dogmatism during the period
of the May 4th Movement, so it is revolutionary and necessary today for us
to use Marxism to criticize the new stereotyped writing and the new dogmatism.
If there had been no fight against the old stereotype and the old dogmatism
during the May 4th period, the minds of the Chinese people would not have
been freed from bondage to them, and China would have no hope of freedom
and independence. This task was merely begun in the period of the May 4th
Movement, and a very great effort--a huge job of work on the road of
revolutionary remoulding--is still necessary to enable the whole people to
free themselves completely from the domination of the old stereotype and
dogmatism. If today we do not oppose the new stereotyped writing and the
new dogmatism, the minds of the Chinese people will be fettered by formalism
of another kind. If we do not get rid of the poison of stereotyped Party
writing and the error of dogmatism found among a section (only a section,
of course) of Party comrades, then it will be impossible to arouse a vigorous
and lively revolutionary spirit, to eradicate the bad habit of taking a wrong
attitude towards Marxism and to disseminate and develop true Marxism;
furthermore, it will be impossible to conduct an energetic struggle against
the influence of the old stereotyped writing and dogma among the whole people,
and against that of foreign stereotyped among many of the people, and impossible
to attain the purpose of demolishing and sweeping away these influences.

Subjectivism, sectarianism and stereotyped Party writing--all three are
anti-Marxist and meet the needs not of the proletariat but of the exploiting
classes. They are a reflection of petty-bourgeois ideology in our Party.
China is a country with a very large petty bourgeoisie and our Party is
surrounded by this enormous class; a great number of our Party members come
from this class, and when they join the Party they inevitably drag in with
them a petty-bourgeois tail, be it long or short. Unless checked and transformed,
the fanaticism and one-sidedness of petty-bourgeois revolutionaries can easily
engender subjectivism and sectarianism, of which foreign stereotyped writing,
or stereotyped Party writing, is one form of expression.

It is not easy to clean out these things and sweep them away. It must be
done properly, that is, by taking pains to reason with people. If we reason
earnestly and properly, it will be effective. The first thing to do in this
reasoning process is to give the patient a good shake-up by shouting at him,
"You are ill!" so as to administer a shock and make him break out in a sweat,
and then to give him sincere advice on getting treatment.

Let us now analyse stereotyped Party writing and see where its evils lie.
Using poison as an antidote to poison, we shall imitate the form of the
stereotyped eight-section essay and set forth the following "eight legs",
which might be called the eight major indictments.

The first indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it fills endless
pages with empty verbiage. Some of our comrades love to write long articles
with no substance, very much like the "foot-bindings of a slattern, long
as well as smelly". Why must they write such long and empty articles? There
can be only one explanation; they are determined the masses shall not read
them. Because the articles are long and empty, the masses shake their heads
at the very sight of them. How can they be expected to read them? Such writings
are good for nothing except to bluff the naive, among whom they spread bad
influences and foster bad habits. On June 22 last year the Soviet Union began
waging a gigantic war against aggression, and yet Stalin's speech on July
3 was only the length of an editorial in our Liberation Daily. Had
any of our gentlemen written that speech, just imagine! It would have run
to tens of thousands of words at a minimum. We are in the midst of a war,
and we should learn how to write shorter and pithier articles. Although there
is as yet no fighting here in Yenan, our troops at the front are daily engaged
in battle, and the people in the rear are busy at work. If articles are too
long, who will read them? Some comrades at the front, too, like to write
long reports. They take pains over writing them and send them here for us
to read. But who has the hardihood to read them? If long and empty articles
are no good, are short and empty ones any better? They are no good either.
We should forbid all empty talk. But the first and foremost task is to throw
the long, smelly foot-bindings of the slattern into the dustbin. Some may
ask, "Isn't Capital very long? What are we to do about that?" The
answer is simple, just go on reading it. There is a proverb, "Sing different
songs on different mountains"; another runs, "Fit the appetite to the dishes
and the dress to the figure". Whatever we do must be done according to actual
circumstances, and it is the same with writing articles and making speeches.
What we oppose is long-winded and empty stereotyped writing, but we do not
mean that everything must necessarily be short in order to be good. True,
we need short articles in war time, but above all we need articles that have
substance. Articles devoid of substance are the least justifiable and the
most objectionable. The same applies to speechmaking; we must put an end
to all empty, long-winded speeches.

The second indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it strikes
a pose in order to intimidate people. Some stereotyped Party writing is not
only long and empty, but also pretentious with the deliberate intention of
intimidating people; it carries the worst kind of poison. Writing long-winded
and empty articles may be set down to immaturity, but striking a pose to
overawe people is not merely immature but downright knavish. Lu Hsun once
said in criticism of such people, "Hurling insults and threats is certainly
not fighting."[3] What is scientific never fears
criticism, for science is truth and fears no refutation. But those who write
subjectivist and sectarian articles and speeches in the form of Party stereotypes
fear refutation, are very cowardly, and therefore rely on pretentiousness
to overawe others, believing that they can thereby silence people and "win
the day". Such pretentiousness cannot reflect truth but is an obstacle to
truth. Truth does not strike a pose to overawe people but talks and acts
honestly and sincerely. Two terms used to appear in the articles and speeches
of many comrades, one being "ruthless struggle" and the other "merciless
blows". Measures of that kind are entirely necessary against the enemy or
against enemy ideology, but to use them against our own comrades is wrong.
It often happens that enemies and enemy ideology infiltrate into the Party,
as is discussed in Item 4 of the Conclusion of the History of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course. Against these
enemies, we must undoubtedly resort to ruthless struggle and merciless blows,
because the scoundrels use these very measures against the Party; if we were
tolerant of them, we should fall right into their trap. But the same measures
should not be used against comrades who occasionally make mistakes; to them
we should apply the method of criticism and self-criticism, the method indicated
in Item 5 of the Conclusion of the History of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course. The comrades who in the
past loudly advocated "ruthless struggle" and "merciless blows" against comrades
who occasionally made mistakes did so because, for one thing, they failed
to make any analysis of the persons they were dealing with and, for another,
they were striking a pose in an effort to intimidate. This method is no good,
no matter whom you are dealing with. Against the enemy this tactic of
intimidation is utterly useless, and with our own comrades it can only do
harm. It is a tactic which the exploiting classes and the lumpen-proletariat
habitually practice, but for which the proletariat has no use. For the
proletariat the sharpest and most effective weapon is a serious and militant
scientific attitude. The Communist Party lives by the truth of Marxism-Leninism,
by seeking truth from facts, by science, and not by intimidating people.
Needless to say, the idea of attaining fame and position for oneself by
pretentiousness is even more contemptible. In short, when organizations make
decisions and issue instructions and when comrades write articles and make
speeches, they must without exception depend on Marxist-Leninist truth and
seek to serve a useful purpose. This is the only basis on which victory in
the revolution can be achieved; all else is of no avail.

The third indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it shoots
at random, without considering the audience. A few years ago a slogan appeared
on the Yenan city wall which read, "Working men and peasants, unite and strive
for victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan!" The idea of the slogan
was not at all bad, but the character
 [kung, meaning working]
in  [kung jen, meaning
working men], was written as ,
with its perpendicular stroke twisted into a zigzag. How about the character
 [jen, meaning men]?
It became , with three slanting
strokes added to its right leg. The comrade who wrote this was no doubt a
disciple of the ancient scholars, but it is rather baffling why he should
have written such characters in such a place, on the Yenan city wall, at
the time of the War of Resistance. Perhaps he had taken a vow that the common
people should not read them; it is difficult to explain otherwise. Communists
who really want to do propaganda must consider their audience and bear in
mind those who will read their articles and slogans or listen to their speeches
and their talk; otherwise they are in effect resolving not to be read or
listened to by anyone. Many people often take it for granted that what they
write and say can be easily understood by everybody, when it is not so at
all. How can people understand them when they write and speak in Party
stereotypes? The saying "to play the lute to a cow" implies a gibe at the
audience. If we substitute the idea of respect for the audience, the gibe
is turned against the player. Why should he strum away without considering
his audience? What is worse, he is producing a Party stereotype as raucous
as a crow, and yet he insists on cawing at the masses. When shooting an arrow,
one must aim at the target; when playing the lute, one must consider the
listener; how, then, can one write articles or make speeches without taking
the reader or the audience into account? Suppose we want to make friends
with a person, whoever he may be, can we become bosom friends if we do not
understand each other's hearts, do not know each other's thoughts? It simply
will not do for our propaganda workers to rattle on without investigating,
studying and analysing their audience.

The fourth indictment against stereotyped Party writing is its drab language
that reminds one of a piehsan. Like our stereotyped Party writing,
the creatures known in Shanghai as "little piehsan" are wizened
and ugly. If an article or a speech merely rings the changes on a few terms
in a classroom tone without a shred of vigour or spirit, is it not rather
like a piehsan, drab of speech and repulsive in appearance? If someone
enters primary school at seven, goes to middle school in his teens, graduates
from college in his twenties and never has contact with the masses of the
people, he is not to blame if his language is poor and monotonous. But we
are revolutionaries working for the masses, and if we do not learn the language
of the masses, we cannot work well. At present many of our comrades doing
propaganda work make no study of language. Their propaganda is very dull,
and few people care to read their articles or listen to their talk.

Why do we need to study language and, what is more, spend much effort on
it? Because the mastery of language is not easy and requires painstaking
effort. First, let us learn language from the masses. The people's vocabulary
is rich, vigorous, vivid and expressive of real life. It is because many
of us have not mastered language that our articles and speeches contain few
vigorous, vivid and effective expressions and resemble not a hale and healthy
person, but an emaciated piehsan, a mere bag of bones. Secondly,
let us absorb what we need from foreign languages. We should not import foreign
expressions mechanically or use them indiscriminately, but should absorb
what is good and suits our needs. Our current vocabulary has already incorporated
many foreign expressions, because the old Chinese vocabulary was inadequate.
For instance, today we are holding a meeting of kanpu [cadres],
and the term kanpu is derived from a foreign word. We should continue
to absorb many fresh things from abroad, not only progressive ideas but new
expressions as well. Thirdly, let us also learn whatever is alive in the
classical Chinese language. Since we have not studied classical Chinese hard
enough, we have not made full and proper use of much that is still alive
in it. Of course, we are resolutely opposed to the use of obsolete expressions
or allusions, and that is final; but what is good and still useful should
be taken over. Those who are badly infected by stereotyped Party writing
do not take pains to study what is useful in the language of the people,
in foreign languages, or in classical Chinese, so the masses do not welcome
their dry and dull propaganda, and we too have no need for such poor and
incompetent propagandists. Who are our propagandists? They include not only
teachers, journalists, writers and artists, but all our cadres. Take the
military commanders, for instance. Though they make no public statements,
they have to talk to the soldiers and have dealings with the people. What
is this if not propaganda? Whenever a man speaks to others, he is doing
propaganda work. Unless he is dumb, he always has a few words to say. It
is therefore imperative that our comrades should all study language.

The fifth indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it arranges
items under a complicated set of headings, as if starting a Chinese pharmacy.
Go and take a look at any Chinese pharmacy, and you will see cabinets with
numerous drawers, each bearing the name of a drug--toncal, foxglove, rhubarb,
saltpetre ... indeed, everything that should be there. This method has been
picked up by our comrades. In their articles and speeches, their books and
reports, they use first the big Chinese numerals, second the small Chinese
numerals, third the characters for the ten celestial stems, fourth the characters
for the twelve earthly branches, and then capital A, B, C, D, then small
a, b, c, d, followed by the Arabic numerals, and what not! How fortunate
that the ancients and the foreigners created all these symbols for us so
that we can start a Chinese pharmacy without the slightest effort. For all
its verbiage, an article that bristles with such symbols, that does not pose,
analyse or solve problems and that does not take a stand for or against anything
is devoid of real content and nothing but a Chinese pharmacy. I am not saying
that such symbols as the ten celestial stems, etc., should not be used, but
that this kind of approach to problems is wrong. The method borrowed from
the Chinese pharmacy, which many of our comrades are very fond of, is really
the most crude, infantile and philistine of all. It is a formalist method,
classifying things according to their external features instead of their
internal relations. If one takes a conglomeration of concepts that are not
internally related and arranges them into an article, speech or report simply
according to the external features of things, then one is juggling with concepts
and may also lead others to indulge in the same sort of game, with the result
that they do not use their brains to think over problems and probe into the
essence of things, but are satisfied merely to list phenomena in ABCD order.
What is a problem? A problem is the contradiction in a thing. Where one has
an unresolved contradiction, there one has a problem. Since there is a problem,
you have to be for one side and against the other, and you have to pose the
problem. To pose the problem, you must first make a preliminary investigation
and study of the two basic aspects of the problem or contradiction before
you can understand the nature of the contradiction. This is the process of
discovering the problem. Preliminary investigation and study can discover
the problem, can pose the problem, but cannot as yet solve it. In order to
solve the problem it is necessary to make a systematic and thorough investigation
and study. This is the process of analysis. In posing the problem too, analysis
is needed; otherwise, faced with a chaotic and bewildering mass of phenomena,
you will not be able to discern where the problem or contradiction lies.
But here, by the process of analysis we mean a process of systematic and
thorough analysis. It often happens that although a problem has been posed
it cannot be solved because the internal relations of things have not yet
been revealed, because this process of systematic and thorough analysis has
not yet been carried out; consequently we still cannot see the contours of
the problem clearly, cannot make a synthesis and so cannot solve the problem
well. If an article or speech is important and meant to give guidance, it
ought to pose a particular problem, then analyse it and then make a synthesis
pointing to the nature of the problem and providing the method for solving
it; in all this, formalist methods are useless. Since infantile, crude,
philistine and lazy-minded formalist methods are prevalent in our Party,
we must expose them; only thus can everybody learn to use the Marxist method
to observe, pose, analyse and solve problems; only thus can we do our work
well and only thus can our revolutionary cause triumph.

The sixth indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it is
irresponsible and harms people wherever it appears. All the offenses mentioned
above are due partly to immaturity and partly to an insufficient sense of
responsibility. Let us take washing the face to illustrate the point. We
all wash our faces every day, many of us more than once, and inspect ourselves
in the mirror afterwards by way of "investigation and study" (loud laughter),
for fear that something may not be quite right. What a great sense of
responsibility! If we wrote articles and made speeches with the same sense
of responsibility, we would not be doing badly. Do not present what is not
presentable. Always bear in mind that it may influence the thoughts and actions
of others. If a man happens not to wash his face for a day or two, that of
course is not good, and if after washing he leaves a smudge or two, that
too is not so pleasing, but there is no serious danger. It is different with
writing articles or making speeches; they are intended solely to influence
others. Yet our comrades go about this task casually; this means putting
the trivial above the important. Many people write articles and make speeches
without prior study or preparation, and after writing an article, they do
not bother to go over it several times in the same way as they would examine
their faces in the mirror after washing, but instead offhandedly send it
to be published. Often the result is "A thousand words from the pen in a
stream, but ten thousand li away from the theme". Talented though these writers
may appear, they actually harm people. This bad habit, this weak sense of
responsibility, must be corrected.

The seventh indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it poisons
the whole Party and jeopardizes the revolution. The eighth indictment is
that its spread would wreck the country and ruin the people. These two
indictments are self-evident and require no elaboration. In other words,
if stereotyped Party writing is not transformed but is allowed to develop
unchecked, the consequences will be very serious indeed. The poison of
subjectivism and sectarianism is hidden in stereotyped Party writing, and
if this poison spreads it will endanger both the Party and the country.

The aforesaid eight counts are our call to arms against stereotyped Party
writing.

As a form, the Party stereotype is not only unsuitable for expressing the
revolutionary spirit but is apt to stifle it. To develop the revolutionary
spirit it is necessary to discard stereotyped Party writing and instead to
adopt the Marxist-Leninist style of writing, which is vigorous, lively, fresh
and forceful. This style of writing has existed for a long time, but is yet
to be enriched and spread widely among us. When we have destroyed foreign
stereotyped writing and stereotyped Party writing, we can enrich our new
style of writing and spread it widely, thereby advancing the Party's
revolutionary cause.

The Party stereotype is not only confined to articles and speeches, but is
also found in the conduct of meetings. "1. Opening announcement; 2. report;
3. discussion; 4. conclusions; and 5. adjournment." If this rigid procedure
is followed at every meeting, large or small, everywhere and every time,
is not that another Party stereotype? When "reports" are made at meetings
they often go as follows: "1. the international situation; 2. the domestic
situation; 3. the Border Region; and 4. our own department"; and the meetings
often last from morning till night, with even those having nothing to say
taking the floor, as though they would let the others down unless they spoke.
In short, there is a disregard for actual conditions and deadly adherence
to rigid old forms and habits. Should we not correct all these things too?

Nowadays many people are calling for a transformation to a national, scientific
and mass style. That is very good. But "transformation" means thorough change,
from top to bottom and inside out. Yet some people who have not made even
a slight change are calling for a transformation. I would therefore advise
these comrades to begin by making just a little change before they go on
to "transform", or else they will remain entangled in dogmatism and stereotyped
Party writing. This can be described as having grandiose aims but puny abilities,
great ambition but little talent, and it will accomplish nothing. So whoever
talks glibly about "transformation to a mass style" while in fact he is stuck
fast in his own small circle had better watch out, or some day one of the
masses may bump into him along the road and say, "What about all this
'transformation', sir? Can I see a bit of it, please?" and he will be in
a fix. If he is not just prating but sincerely wants to transform to a mass
style, he must really go among the common people and learn from them, otherwise
his "transformation" will remain up in the air. There are some who keep
clamouring for transformation to a mass style but cannot speak three sentences
in the language of the common people. It shows they are not really determined
to learn from the masses. Their minds are still confined to their own small
circles.

At this meeting copies of A Guide to Propaganda, a pamphlet containing
four articles, have been distributed, and I advise our comrades to read and
re-read it.

The first piece, composed of excerpts from the History of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course, deals with the
way Lenin did propaganda work. It describes, among other things, how Lenin
wrote leaflets:

  Under Lenin's guidance, the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the
  Emancipation of the Working Class was the first body in Russia that began
  to unite Socialism with the working-class movement. When a strike
  broke out in some factory, the League of Struggle, which through the members
  of its circles was kept well posted on the state of affairs in the factories,
  immediately responded by issuing leaflets and Socialist proclamations. These
  leaflets exposed the oppression of the workers by the manufacturers, explained
  how the workers should fight for their interests, and set forth the workers'
  demands. The leaflets told the plain truth about the ulcers of capitalism,
  the poverty of the workers, their intolerably hard working day of 12 to 14
  hours, and their utter lack of rights. They also put forward appropriate
  political demands.


Take note, "well posted" and "told the plain truth"! Again:

  With the collaboration of the worker Babushkin, Lenin at the end of 1894
  wrote the first agitational leaflet of this kind and an appeal to the workers
  of the Semyannikov Works in St. Petersburg who were on strike.


To write a leaflet, you must consult with comrades who are well posted on
the state of affairs. It was on the basis of such investigation and study
that Lenin wrote and worked.

  Every leaflet greatly helped to stiffen the spirit of the workers. They saw
  that the Socialists were helping and defending
  them.[4]


Do we agree with Lenin? If we do, we must work in the spirit of Lenin. That
is, we must do as Lenin did and not fill endless pages with verbiage, or
shoot at random without considering the audience, or become self-opinionated
and bombastic.

The second piece is composed of excerpts from Dimitrov's statements at the
Seventh World Congress of the Communist International. What did Dimitrov
say? He said:

  We must learn to talk to the masses, not in the language of book formulas,
  but in the language of fighters for the cause of the masses, whose every
  word, whose every idea reflects the innermost thoughts and sentiments of
  millions.[5]

  And again:

... the masses cannot assimilate our decisions unless we learn to speak
  the language which the masses understand.


   We do not always know how to speak simply, concretely, in images
  which are familiar and intelligible to the masses. We are still unable to
  refrain from abstract formulas which we have learned by rote. As a matter
  of fact, if you look through our leaflets, newspapers, resolutions and theses,
  you will find that they are often written in a language and style so heavy
  that they are difficult for even our Party functionaries to understand, let
  alone the rank-and-file workers.[6]


Well? Does not Dimitrov put his finger on our weak spot? Apparently, stereotyped
Party writing exists in foreign countries as well as in China, so you can
see it is a common disease. (Laughter.) In any case, we should cure
our own disease quickly in accordance with Comrade Dimitrov's injunction.

  Every one of us must make this a law, a Bolshevik law, an elementary rule:


 When writing or speaking always have in mind the rank-and-file worker
  who must understand you, must believe in your appeal and be ready to follow
  you! You must have in mind those for whom you rewrite, to whom you
  speak.[7]


This is the prescription made out for us by the Communist International,
a prescription that must be followed. Let it be a law for us!

The third article, selected from the Complete Works of Lu Hsun, is
the author's reply to the magazine The
Dipper,[8] discussing how to write.
What did Lu Hsun say? Altogether he set forth eight rules of writing, some
of which I shall pick out for comment here.

  Rule 1: "Pay close attention to all manner of things; observe more, and if
  you have observed only a little, then do not write."


What he says is, "pay close attention to all manner of things", not just
to one thing or half a thing. He says "observe more", not just take a look
or half a look. How about us? Don't we often do exactly the opposite and
write after having observed only a little?

  Rule 2: "Do not force yourself to write when you have nothing to say."


What about us? Don't we often force ourselves to write a great deal when
it is all too clear that there is nothing in our heads? It is sheer
irresponsibility to pick up the pen and "force ourselves to write" without
investigation or study.

  Rule 4: "After writing something, read it over twice at least, and do your
  utmost to strike out non-essential words, sentences and paragraphs, without
  the slightest compunction. Rather condense the material for a novel into
  a sketch, never spin out the material for a sketch into a novel."


Confucius advised, "Think twice",[9] and Han Yu
said, "A deed is accomplished through taking
thought."[10] That was in ancient times. Today
matters have become very complicated, and sometimes it is not even enough
to think them over three or four times. Lu Hsun said, "Read it over twice
at least." And at most? He did not say, but in my opinion it does no harm
to go over an important article more than ten times and to revise it
conscientiously before it is published. Articles are the reflection of objective
reality, which is intricate and complex and must be studied over and over
again before it can be properly reflected; to be slipshod in this respect
is to be ignorant of the rudiments of writing.

  Rule 6: "Do not coin adjectives or other terms that are intelligible to nobody
  but yourself."


We have "coined" too many expressions that are "intelligible to nobody".
Sometimes a single clause runs to forty or fifty words and is packed with
"adjectives or other terms that are intelligible to nobody". Many who never
tire of professing to follow Lu Hsun are the very ones who turn their backs
on him!

The last piece is taken from the report on how to develop a national style
of propaganda, which was adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. At that session held in
1938, we said that "any talk about Marxism apart from China's specific
characteristics is only Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum". That
is to say, we must oppose all empty talk about Marxism, and Communists living
in China must study Marxism by linking it with the realities of the Chinese
revolution.

The report said:

  Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty,
  abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced
  by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of
  China love. To separate internationalist content from national form is the
  practice of those who do not understand the first thing about internationalism.
  We, on the contrary, must link the two closely. In this matter there are
  serious errors in our ranks which should be conscientiously overcome.


The abolition of foreign stereotypes was demanded in that report, yet some
comrades are still promoting them. Less singing of empty, abstract tunes
was demanded, yet some comrades are obstinately singing more. The demand
was made that dogmatism be laid to rest, yet some comrades are telling it
to get out of bed. In short, many people have let this report which was adopted
at the Sixth Plenary Session go in one ear and out of the other, as if wilfully
opposed to it.

The Central Committee has now made the decision that we must discard stereotyped
Party writing, dogmatism and the like once and for all, and that is why I
have come and talked at some length. I hope that comrades will think over
and analyse what I have said and that each comrade will also analyse his
own particular case. Everyone should carefully examine himself, talk over
with his close friends and the comrades around him whatever he has clarified
and really get rid of his own defects.

## NOTES

[1] For stereotyped Party writing, see "Rectify the Party's
Style of Work", Note 1, p. 50 of this volume.

[2] Opposition to stereotyped writing, whether old or new,
runs all through Lu Hsun's works. The foreign stereotype was developed after
the May 4th Movement by some shallow bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intellectuals
and, disseminated by them, existed for a long time among revolutionary cultural
workers. In a number of essays, Lu Hsun fought against the foreign stereotype
as found in their ranks and condemned it in these terms:

  A clean sweep should be made of all stereotyped writings, whether old or
  new.... For instance, it is also a kind of stereotype if all one can do is
  to "hurl insults", "threaten" or even "pass sentence" and merely copy old
  formulas and apply these indiscriminately to every fact, instead of specifically
  and concretely using formulas derived from science to interpret the new facts
  and phenomena which emerge every day. ("A Reply to Chu Hsiu-hsia's Letter",
  appended to "Giving the Show Away".)


[3] "Hurling Insults and Threats Is Certainly Not Fighting"
was the title of an essay written in 1932 and included in the collection
Mixed Dialects (Lu Hsun, Complete Works, Chin. ed., 1957,
Vol. V).

[4] See History of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, pp.
36-37.

[5] Georgi Dimitrov, "Unity of the Working Class Against
Fascism", Selected Articles and Speeches, Eng. ed., Lawrence &
Wishart, London, 1951, pp. 116-17.

[6] Ibid., pp. 132-33.

[7] Ibid., p. 135.

[8] The Dipper was a monthly published in 1931
and 1932 by the League of Chinese Left-Wing Writers. "In Reply to the Question
Put by The Dipper" is included in the collection Two
Hearts (Lu Hsun, Complete Works, Chin. ed., Vol. IV).

[9] From Confucian Analects, Book V, "Kungyeh Chang".

[10] Han Yu (768-824) was a famous Chinese writer of the
Tang Dynasty. In his essay "The Scholar's Apologia" he wrote, "A deed is
accomplished through taking thought and fails through lack of thought."


Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.