Added Remarks in the Draft Reply [l]
(November 26, 1952)
The expression “technical one-sidedness,” though somewhat inappropriate, is merely an abbreviation of the slogan “learn from the Soviet Union’s advanced experience.” Therefore, it should not be treated as a problem to be criticized. The official slogan ought to be “learn from the Soviet Union’s advanced experience.”
[1]


In a report dated November 17, 1952, submitted by the Party Leadership Group of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions to Mao Zedong and the Central Committee, it was stated that the Research Report on Production Issues at the Shijingshan Steel Plant, prepared by the Preparatory Committee of the Metal-Melting Industry Trade Union on November 1, 1952, contained the phrase “technical one-sidedness,” which appeared to require correction.


The original draft of the Central Committee’s reply to the All-China Federation of Trade Unions’ Party Leadership Group’s report read: “The term ‘technical one-sidedness’ is indeed inappropriate, but for the time being it does no harm, and there is no need to launch a public criticism of it.” Mao Zedong revised this passage into the text presented here. Several months later, on April 26, 1953, the Central Committee issued an instruction to rectify the slogan “technical one-sidedness,” pointing out that the term was unsuitable and should be replaced with “learning the Soviet Union’s advanced science and technology.” The instruction further stated:
“Technical issues differ from political ones; they do not involve class or camp divisions. Technology itself can serve all classes and all social systems equally. In the realm of technology, it is not a matter of having to lean entirely toward one side or the other.” Learning the Soviet Union’s advanced science and technology “does not preclude our drawing upon certain beneficial technical elements from capitalist countries that may be useful to us. The one-sidedness and lack of persuasiveness inherent in the slogan ‘technical one-sidedness’ lie precisely in its seeming to imply that we completely reject such a necessity.”