Comrades from literary and art circles have recently held several meetings to discuss how comrades in these circles can integrate with comrades present here and with comrades leading work in various fields.

I think the comrades here should also understand this issue.

Of course, resolving this issue is not a matter of a day or two but a long-term process. However, we must understand the Party's policy on this matter.

We can look back for a moment.

During the ten-year civil war period, that is, during the time of the Red Army, we also had a bit of literature and art—for instance, writing some novels or running theater troupes, which were relatively common. In addition, there were singing, propaganda posters, and cartoons.

Compared to now, those things were far inferior. The talent our Eighth Route Army has now absorbed is much more diverse, and literary and artistic work is far more widespread.

At that time, our base areas were cut off from the broad mass of intellectuals and from people in the central cities. We also made mistakes regarding the issue of intellectuals, looking down on them and thinking they seemed not very useful. Had we not made those mistakes, the situation might have been better.

At that time, the Kuomintang carried out two kinds of "encirclement and suppression": military encirclement and suppression and cultural encirclement and suppression.

Military encirclement and suppression meant opposing the Red Army; cultural encirclement and suppression meant opposing the new culture, opposing literature and art containing revolutionary ideas—in other words, opposing the revolutionary culture and art in the White Areas headed by Lu Xun.

After the Xi’an Incident, we established a united front, this encirclement and suppression was broken, and cultural figures and intellectuals came to the base areas in large numbers.

Thus, now in the various base areas of North China and Central China, in the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region, and especially in Yan’an, there are large numbers of literary and art workers—some have already become specialists, and many have not yet established themselves and are engaged in ordinary cultural and artistic work; these people are even more numerous.

What kind of phenomenon is this for the Communist Party, the Eighth Route Army, the New Fourth Army, and our base areas?

It is a very good phenomenon, absolutely not a bad phenomenon.

After the Central Committee issues its decision on intellectuals, this situation will get even better.

The Central Committee’s decision on intellectuals formally indicates that our Party welcomes and absorbs large numbers of intellectuals. No matter what kind of intellectuals they are, as long as they are anti-Japanese, they should be absorbed.

But in fact, the intellectuals cooperating with us are not only anti-Japanese but also have democratic ideas and lean toward democracy.

Without democratic ideas, they would never have come at all.

And among those cooperating with us, most people's thinking has transformed into Marxist-Leninist thinking, communist thinking—that is to say, most have become Party members. Their thinking is not only anti-Japanese and democratic but has also become proletarian.

The Party Central Committee’s decision on intellectuals is already in place, but regarding literary and artistic work, we do not yet have a unified, good decision.

Now we are preparing to make such a decision, so we convened three forums [2], with over a hundred comrades attending, both inside and outside the Party.

This forum has gone fairly well. Its purpose is to resolve the issue just mentioned of integration—that is, the integration of literary figures, artists, and literary and art workers with our Party cadres, with workers and peasants, and with army officers and soldiers.

How to integrate?

It involves two aspects: work must be done with people on both sides.

For literary figures, artists, and literary and art workers, they must engage with comrades in army work, Party affairs work, political work, and economic work, and integrate with these comrades. For people on the other side, tell them to engage and integrate with literary figures and artists.

In short, work must be done with both sides, telling each side what attitude they should adopt.

Regarding issues concerning literary and art workers, we must also understand them.

What are some of these issues?

It is the question of whether they want to integrate and how to integrate.

First is whether to integrate or not. The answer is that they must integrate. Then the next issue is how to integrate, that is, the method of integration.

This involves resolving ideological issues. One basic issue among them is to eliminate the influence of bourgeois thinking and petty-bourgeois thinking, so as to transform into proletarian thinking and possess Marxist-Leninist Party spirit.

Only by resolving this ideological issue can they integrate ideologically with the proletariat and the worker-peasant masses. With such a foundation, they can then integrate in action with the workers, peasants, soldiers, and our Party.

If this issue is not resolved, they will always remain at odds.

When a person engages in a certain undertaking for a very long time, many habits and many deviations are bound to develop.

Many literary and art workers grew up in society under Kuomintang rule or in feudal society. Some were more influenced by the old society, some less; some have shallow roots, some deep—there are differences in degree.

If these things are not pointed out, and if they are not made to undergo a conscious destruction of these things and gradually transform into proletarian thinking, then these will become obstacles hindering these comrades in fully integrating with the workers, peasants, soldiers, and the Party in action, slowing down the process of this integration and hindering their own progress.

Therefore, during the rectification of the three styles, all comrades must undergo rectification, including those in literary and art circles. Its purpose is to eliminate bourgeois thinking and petty-bourgeois thinking and transform them into proletarian thinking.

In the recent period, some issues have arisen with certain articles and certain literary works—only a part, of course.

Some comrades are dissatisfied with certain matters and have raised some opinions. Raising these issues is all correct. What does raising these issues prove? It proves that our comrades are worthy of being political fighters.

Although our cultural level is low, our political sense of smell is quite sharp. When some unhealthy trend emerges, we sniff it out right away.

Now, about all these issues that have arisen and all the works where issues have arisen, we say none of them present major problems.

Why do we say this? Because fundamentally those comrades are all revolutionary, having come from outside cities or from the base areas. In the outside cities, they also did revolutionary work. Many have done it for quite a long time and are still doing revolutionary work.

As for certain times, or a particular instance of speaking or writing not handled well, these are partial in nature. Such issues are easy to resolve and are not serious problems.

One case that is somewhat more serious is that of Comrade Wang Shiwei. His thinking is relatively systematic, and it seems the negative elements are somewhat deeper.

All other works are different from this—only partial issues, not anything extraordinary. That's one type.

Then there are cases where the problems are serious.

They are still far from thoroughly applying Marxist-Leninist thinking and achieving the complete unification of revolutionary character, Party spirit, and artistic work. That is to say, they still retain bourgeois thinking and petty-bourgeois thinking in their minds.

If this thing is not eliminated and allowed to develop, it is quite dangerous.

This thing exists to some extent, more or less, among comrades in literary and art circles—among new Party members and also among veteran Party members.

Of course, only some comrades have serious shortcomings of this kind.

Their most fundamental issue—whether literature and art should serve the worker-peasant masses, be dedicated to the worker-peasant masses, popularize among the worker-peasant masses, and then raise standards through such popularization—has not yet been resolved.

These issues of theirs are all resolvable.

There are also other issues like this: in evaluating works, some comrades say artistic quality is being denied, while others say revolutionary character is being denied.

By so-called denial of revolutionary character, it means considering anything artistic, any literary or artistic work of high artistic level, as good.

They particularly emphasize this aspect, while issues like stance, viewpoint, basic Marxist-Leninist views, drawing material from workers, peasants, and soldiers, for whom it is written, close integration with workers, peasants, and soldiers, or complete dedication to them—these issues are not clearly understood.

Literary and art workers should draw material from workers, peasants, and soldiers, and make friends with them, like close brothers and sisters.

If they belittle or disregard this aspect, it is a deviation—that is, relatively neglecting revolutionary character (though the degree of neglect varies in severity, of course).

If there is deviation, this is a relatively serious one.

Of course, it is not that everyone has this deviation, but many people have the deviation of neglecting revolutionary character.

They neglect studying Marxism-Leninism and using Marxist-Leninist thinking to eliminate the influence of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois thinking in our minds.

Their thinking and practice, thinking and action, are not unified. They think one way but act another way; what they do does not match what they think.

This is the separation of theory and practice.

They think about serving the workers and peasants, but what they do does not serve them; they think about working for the workers and peasants, but have very few friends among them; they think about serving the workers and peasants, but do not understand worker-peasant cadres.

This kind of "thinking" is actually not thorough, meaning revolutionary character is not properly emphasized.

This deviation is very common among comrades in literary and art circles and should be well examined.

Are there any other deviations? Yes, there is: emphasizing revolutionary character too much while neglecting artistic quality, thinking that as long as something is revolutionary, even if it is in the style of slogans or does not look artistic, it is acceptable.

This reduces literature and art to something indistinguishable from ordinary things, because other things do not adopt the artistic form that literature and art do.

Now, by emphasizing revolutionary character, they even discard the artistic form required by the revolutionary character of literature and art. This is another deviation.

If we only emphasize the revolutionary character of literature and art but not its artistic quality, is that sufficient? That is also insufficient. Without artistic quality, it cannot be called literature or art.

This deviation once occurred in Russia. I've heard it also existed in our Party's history, as if just speaking a few words of Marxism-Leninism or a few words about the proletariat makes something good.

Not paying attention to issues of artistic form but only to the political content of a work eliminates the distinction between art and other things.

The view that art need not have any special characteristics and is not a special sector in revolutionary work—such a view is likewise a deviation.

Then, what kind of things do we advocate? We believe that revolutionary character progresses from the lower level to the higher level, and artistic quality also progresses from the lower level to the higher level.

How does revolutionary character progress from lower to higher? With big landlords, if you talk to them about Marxism-Leninism, they won’t come; talk about democracy, they won’t come either. Landlords want rent and the feudal system.

But now that Japanese imperialism has invaded, they also want to resist Japan. As long as their feudal system is not destroyed, or even if it is destroyed, as long as it is not too thoroughly destroyed, they will come to resist Japan.

It is good that they come. With big landlords and the big bourgeoisie, we take only their anti-Japanese aspect; we cannot take anything else. As long as they resist Japan, it is good.

The national bourgeoisie is different. They need democracy, but the democracy they need is bourgeois democracy.

As for the most important part, the masses of the people—that is, workers, peasants, and the petty bourgeoisie—their democracy differs from bourgeois democracy.

Now, when the Chinese national bourgeoisie has not fully taken political power or does not primarily hold it, they at least have this idea: they want democracy but will not accept Marxism-Leninism.

As for the petty bourgeoisie as a whole class, they do not practice Marxism-Leninism. Only the proletariat and those intellectuals from other strata who have become proletarianized truly believe in and practice Marxism-Leninism.

Revolutionary character goes from resisting Japan to Marxism-Leninism, that is, from lower to higher.

In art, the policy we adopt is the same as with revolutionary character—also from lower to higher, that is, from the embryonic stage all the way to the most exquisite, like Tolstoy, Gorky, Lu Xun, and others.

We must embrace art of high caliber, but we must also accept that which is less refined.

Things like wall newspapers and paintings by children about children—we want those too. They are sprouts, possessing the potential for development; the roots are there.

The songs sung by ordinary people, folk tales, the wall newspapers in government offices, the stories swaggeringly swapped by soldiers—all contain art.

A totally illiterate person can tell a beautiful tale; even the words they use are artistic. I have heard many such stories myself.

To overlook these, to see only what is high and not the low, to say the common folk are crude and count for little, to scorn such things, or even to look down upon ordinary art workers, to disdain wall newspapers and rural dispatches, to fail to understand that a soldier or peasant being able to write a wall newspaper of a few hundred characters holds great significance—this is wrong.

Many among the specialists hold such views.

Books by Hu Shizhi—we may find it necessary to look at them, but it's fine if we don't.

Wall newspapers, folk songs, folk tales—we need to look at these as well.

That people just recently freed, who suffered oppression for so many years, are actually able to write a few hundred characters for a wall newspaper is a tremendous and momentous event; to not see it this way clearly means their stand has not been firmly established, and therefore they dislike looking at things from the masses.

What is our main foundation?

It is the workers, peasants, and soldiers.

Do we want literary and art specialists of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois origin?

We need them, but the main foundation rests with the workers, peasants, and soldiers.

Only upon this foundation can their works blossom.

Literary artists of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois origin can help us. Those among them determined to transform into workers and peasants—they undergo a complete rebirth, taking the thoughts of the workers and peasants as their thoughts, the habits of the workers and peasants as their habits. Writing about workers and peasants in this way, they can then educate the workers and peasants, and elevate their work into art.

In class society, there are literati; in the future socialist society, there will also be specialized writers and artists.

In the future, large numbers of writers will emerge from the ranks of workers and peasants.

The present is a transitional period. I believe this period in China will last fifty years. These fifty years will be very troublesome, a process of literary artists of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois origin integrating with the workers and peasants.

During this period, some trouble, some disorder, is unavoidable.

Our policy is to carefully and properly guide them to consciously, not reluctantly, become one with the workers and peasants.

A minority will be unable to integrate; we must tolerate them. This is a matter of ideology, so it cannot be forced, and a rough attitude cannot be used.

Our general policy is to win over the majority of writers and artists to integrate with the workers and peasants, to make them value the lower-level creations and esteem the ordinary literary and art workers.

Specialists have a responsibility to guide ordinary literary and art workers.

Is their responsibility limited only to guidance?

No, they must also learn. They must absorb nourishment from ordinary literary and art workers, and from the people. Otherwise, they will be suspended in mid-air, which is very dangerous.

Gorky was very lofty, but he maintained extensive connections with those below.

He had correspondence links with the countryside.

He was overjoyed to see a letter from a thirteen-year-old child; he changed a few words and published it. There is an example in *Hai Shang Shu Lin*.

High-level literary and art workers only find a way forward by forming connections with ordinary literary and art workers, and with the people. Only then do they have the masses, only then do they have milk to drink—this is what the common people give them. Otherwise, it is empty.

Literature and art are an army; its cadres are the literary and art workers.

It must also have a commander-in-chief. Without a commander-in-chief, its direction will go wrong.

Lu Xun and Gorky were comparable to commanders-in-chief. Their works, and the words they spoke, served as guides for direction.

If ordinary literary and art workers lack high-level guidance, their direction may go wrong, and they will remain stuck for a long time at a low level, unable to improve.

We must ensure literary and art workers understand these issues and grasp the Party's policy.

It would be better if they understand it within a month or two; if they cannot understand it in a month or two, give them half a year; if half a year is not enough, give them a year.

We must pay special attention to ensuring those established, accomplished writers understand, so as to push the entire field of literature and art forward in this direction, for the benefit of the nation, and for the benefit of the workers, peasants, and soldiers.

This is also beneficial for the writers themselves.

"A man lives but one life, grass but one spring." For what purpose?

Devote one's life entirely to the workers, peasants, and soldiers. It would be good if the funeral oration written at death were composed along these lines too—though naturally, living is not solely for the sake of composing a funeral oration.

When Zhang Hao passed away, we composed a funeral oration for him. Nominally aimed at the dead, it was actually directed at the living, meant to tell people: don't be selfish!

Did Zhang Hao dedicate his life to the revolution merely for the sake of a funeral oration?

I believe he did not!

Therefore, literary artists must understand this policy, and other comrades must understand it too. This is a matter concerning the process of integration.

Additionally, there is another issue: the question of how to integrate.

We demand that our comrades, comrades working in various fields—the army, government, education, mass movements, Party affairs—adopt a welcoming attitude and an appropriate attitude towards literary and art workers, whether low-level or high-level. Towards their shortcomings, adopt a forgiving attitude. And for their part, literary artists should also adopt a forgiving attitude towards the shortcomings of the workers, peasants, and soldiers.

Where shortcomings exist, not being forgiving won't work; problems are bound to arise later.

The reason some intellectuals and literary artists are unwilling to befriend us is not solely due to shortcomings on the side of the intellectuals and artists themselves; some departments certainly have shortcomings and problems too.

Even after the Central Committee issued its decision on intellectuals, many problems remain unresolved. Therefore, we need to talk about this constantly, just like the Three Main Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention, so that comrades working in military, government, Party affairs, economic, and educational fields adopt a welcoming attitude towards cultural workers and intellectuals, understand their importance, and realize that without this group, we cannot accomplish things.

Stalin discussed this issue as a theoretical matter at the 18th Congress of the CPSU(b).

Any class needs such a contingent of cultural workers to get things done—the landlord class, the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, all are the same; they need intellectuals who serve them.

Before their own class becomes fully educated, they also need to utilize intellectuals from other class backgrounds.

So we must proceed gradually, carry out propaganda and explanations. Just writing a few articles or making a few speeches won't settle the matter. We must proceed concretely, step by step. Nothing is so easy as to succeed instantly.