September 16-18, 1953

[Essential parts of Comrade Mao Tsetung's criticism of Liang Shu-ming at
the Twenty-seventh Session of the Central People's Government Council held
in Peking September 16-18, 1953. Members of the National Committee of the
Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference who were in Peking at
the time sat in on the session.]


1. Is Mr. Liang Shu-ming a "man of integrity"? What part did he play during
the peace negotiations?

Mr. Liang styles himself a "man of integrity", the reactionary press in Hongkong
describes Mr. Liang as "one man of the highest integrity" on the mainland,
and Taiwan's broadcasts go all out to puff you up, too. Do you really have
"integrity"? If you do, then make a clean breast of your past history--how
you opposed the Communist Party and the people, how you assassinated people
with your pen, and what sort of relations you had with Han Fu-chu, Chang
Tung-sun, Chen Li-fu and Chang Chun. You have had them all as close friends.
I just don't leave that many friends. They were so pleased with you, addressing
you as Mister while maligning me as a "bandit". I wonder which party, which
faction, you are with! I am not alone, many others have the same suspicions.

From the speech Premier Chou has just made, everybody can see that during
our two peace negotiations with the Kuomintang Mr. Liang's position was one
of backing Chiang Kai-shek to the hilt at critical junctures. Chiang Kai-shek
was only shamming when he agreed to hold peace negotiations. With us here
today there are representatives who came to Peking for the peace negotiations
and they all know whether Chiang Kai-shek was really for peace or not.

To tell the truth, Chiang Kai-shek is an assassin with a gun and Liang Shu-ming
an assassin with a pen. There are two ways of killing people: one is to kill
with the gun and the other with the pen. The way which is most artfully disguised
and draws no blood is to kill with the pen. That is the kind of murderer
you are.

Liang Shu-ming is utterly reactionary, yet he flatly denies it, he says he
is a paragon. He is not like Mr. Fu Tso-yi. Mr. Fu openly admits that he
was utterly reactionary, yet he did a service to the people in the peaceful
liberation of Peking. What service did you do, Liang Shu-ming? In all your
life what service have you ever done to the people? Not the slightest, not
the least bit. Nevertheless, you describe yourself as an incomparable beauty,
outshining Hsi Shih and Wang Chao Chun and rivalling Yang Kuei Fei.

2. Liang Shu-ming has used the expression "the ninth heaven and the ninth
hell", alleging that "the workers are up in the ninth heaven whereas the
peasants are down in the ninth hell" and that "the workers have the trade
unions to fall back on whereas the peasant associations cannot be counted
on, nor can the Party, the Youth League, the Women's Federation, and so on;
they are all below standard qualitatively and quantitatively and even inferior
to the Federation of Industry and Commerce -- hence no confidence". Can this
be called "support for the general line"? No! It is an out-and-out
reactionary conception, every bit of it, it is a reactionary proposition,
not a rational one. Can the People's Government accept this kind of proposition?
I don't think it can.

3. Mr. Liang asks "to be given more information about the plans". I am against
this too. On the contrary, we shouldn't let a man like Mr. Liang know much
about our confidential matters, the less he knows the better.

Liang Shu-ming is not a man to be trusted. We can let others have more
confidential information, but not you. When somewhat restricted meetings
of the democratic parties are held, Liang Shu-ming, there is no need for
you to attend either.

4. Mr. Liang also asks us not to put him in the non-progressive category
and says he belongs to the progressive category. What should we do about
it? I think we should be cautious and not make any promise offhand. Otherwise
we shall be duped.

5. Mr. Liang paints a very beautiful picture of himself, claiming that several
decades ago he already cherished a grand dream for building up our country
with a plan which, according to him, came very close to New Democracy
or socialism.

Is he really so beautiful? Hardly. I know him rather well, and we never met
without my having to criticize his erroneous ideas. I once told him to his
face, "I never believe in your stuff." To all his talk, such as that "China
is without classes", "China's problem is one of cultural maladjustment",
it needs "a colourless, transparent government"
[1] and "the Chinese revolution has no internal
but only external causes", one must now add his brilliant talk about "the
ninth heaven and the ninth hell" and about "the Communist Party having abandoned
the peasants", "the Communist Party not being as reliable as the Federation
of Industry and Commerce", and so on and so forth. Can I believe all this?
No! I told him, China's characteristic is that it is a semi-colonial and
semi-feudal country. Since you don't admit this, you are helping imperialism
and feudalism. Therefore, nobody believes in your stuff. The people believe
in the Communist Party. Nobody reads your books or listens to you except
reactionaries and some muddleheads. Besides, it seems Mr. Liang is not opposed
to Chiang Kai-shek either. Now I can leave it to you to go into the question
of whether he has ever publicly opposed Chiang Kai-shek and his reactionary
Kuomintang, since I haven't read all he has written or heard all he has said.

Is such a man entitled to request a people's state to allow him access to
more of its plans and confidential matters? I think he is not. Ought we to
grant him the request? I think not.

6. Mr. Liang has another request, that we place him in the category of
progressives or revolutionaries and not in the category of non-progressives
or reactionaries. This is a question of "defining status", what should we
do about it? In view of the above circumstances, can we put him in the
progressive or the revolutionary category? What progressiveness is there
in him? When, if ever, did he take part in the revolution? So we should not
readily grant this request either. We'll have to wait and see.

7. In the last few years I have received a number of letters from the people
asking why the Communist Party co-operates with reactionaries and have also
heard some talk to the same effect. The reactionaries referred to are those
who have never been willing to commit themselves, whether in the press or
on public occasions, to opposing imperialism, feudalism, Chiang Kai-shek
and his reactionary Kuomintang, and whose stand falls short of the minimum
requirements of a government worker. Since these persons are particularly
unwilling to oppose Chiang Kai-shek, Taiwan broadcasts and Hongkong newspapers
have gone out of their way to express their appreciation, never abusing them
but describing them as "men of the highest integrity" on the mainland. Liang
Shu-ming is one of this bunch. On the other hand, these broadcasts and newspapers
pull out all the stops in slandering and vilifying some of our friends. The
individuals extolled or never abused by Taiwan are of course few in number
but deserve close attention.

There are certain persons who to this day would rather die than say a word
against Chiang Kai-shek, though they don't mind saying a few words against
imperialism. Whether in the press or in public statements, they dare not
bring up the past, for they are still tender-hearted about it. I guess there
are quite a few of them.

There are three kinds of patriotism, genuine patriotism, sham patriotism,
and half-genuine and half-sham, vacillating, patriotism. Everybody knows
which kind he comes under and so does Liang Shu-ming. We welcome all those
who have truly broken their ties with imperialism and the Taiwan gang, no
matter how backward they may be. They are genuine patriots. Sham patriots
put on a fine mask, but underneath they are quite different. Vacillating
elements are the third kind, they are half-genuine and half-sham in their
patriotism, and shift and switch as the trend changes. If a third world war
doesn't break out and Chiang Kai-shek doesn't come back, then they will go
along with the Communist Party. If a third world war does break out, they
will reconsider their course of action. Which of the three kinds makes up
the majority? The genuine patriots. The genuine patriots have been on the
increase in the last few years, the half-genuine and half-sham ones are small
in number, and the sham patriots are only a handful but they do exist. It's
up to you to look into the accuracy of this estimate.

8. There is a job I think Liang Shu-ming should do. It's a job not of
"representing the peasants" and "appealing for their liberation" to the People's
Government but of giving a clear account of the development over the years
of his reactionary ideas against the people. He should make clear how he
opposed the Communist Party and the people on behalf of the landlords in
the past, and how he has now changed his stand from one of representing the
landlords to one of "representing the peasants" -- only when he is able to
explain how this change has occurred, and make it convincing into the bargain,
can we determine which category to put him in. He gives me the impression
that he has never contemplated changing his reactionary stand. Nevertheless,
to cure the sickness and save the patient, I suggest that he be given time
for self-examination and that we refer the matter to the National Committee
of the Political Consultative Conference instead of passing judgment on him
now.

9. "All men have a sense of shame," [2] and if
a man has no sense of shame, it's hopeless. Mr. Liang says that he is wiser
than the Communist Party on the peasant question -- will anybody believe
that? This is like showing off one's proficiency with the axe before Lu Pan
the master carpenter. If, for instance, it should be said that "Mao Tsetung
excels Mr. Mei Lan-fang in acting, or the Volunteers in digging tunnels,
or the air force hero Chao Pao-tung in flying", wouldn't that be the acme
of shamelessness? So the question posed by Mr. Liang is both serious and
not serious and smacks of the ridiculous. He asserts that he is better qualified
than the Communist Party to represent the peasants, isn't that ridiculous?

Now there are so many "representatives of the peasants", and who in the world
do they represent? Do they represent the peasants? I don't think they look
the part, nor do the peasants think so. They represent the landlord class
and render it service. And the most prominent of them all is Liang Shu-ming,
who with sweet words on his lips is actually helping the enemy. Some others
among them are muddle-headed and have said stupid things, yet they are patriots
and have China in their hearts. This is one type. Liang Shu-ming is another
type. And there are others like him who pose as "representatives of the
peasants". Fakes do exist, and now we are coming across them. Each of these
persons has a tail like a fox, that's plain to all. The Monkey Sun Wu-kung
is able to make seventy-two metamorphoses, but there is always one difficulty,
changing his tail. He changes himself into a temple and turns his tail into
a flagstaff, but the warrior god Yang Erh-lang spots the trick. And how?
By spotting his tail. There is in fact a type of person who cannot hide his
tail no matter how he disguises himself.

Liang Shu-ming is an ambitious schemer, a hypocrite. He lies when he says
he takes no interest in politics and seeks no office. He used to engage in
what he called "rural construction", and what sort of "rural construction"
was it? Construction for the landlords, rural destruction and national ruin!

10. If you have dealings with that man you can't take him seriously. You
can never thrash out any problem with him, for he follows no logic and only
talks drivel. So I suggest that his problem be referred to the National Committee
of the Political Consultative Conference for discussion at its bi-weekly
forum. At the same time I should like to warn you not to entertain any hope
of finding a real solution. That is absolutely impossible. The outcome can
only be, "No decision after deliberation, no action even with a decision,
and no fruitful result on adjournment." Even so, I advise you to try it out
at the bi-weekly forum, for that is better than "sending a couple of people"
to listen to his rigmarole.

11. Are we going to take this opportunity to break with him and have nothing
more to do with him? No, we are not. So long as he wishes to have relations
with us, we are ready to reciprocate. I still hope that he will be re-elected
to the National Committee of the Political Consultative Conference at its
Second Plenary Session. That's because there are still people who are prone
to be deceived by him and do not know him well, and he still has a role to
play as live teaching material; he is therefore qualified for re-election,
unless he himself has lost the desire to use the platform of the Political
Consultative Conference to spread his reactionary ideas.

As I have said earlier, Liang Shu-ming has performed no service whatsoever
and is good for nothing. Is he any good for providing us with products and
paying income tax like the industrialists and businessmen? No, he is not.
Is he any good for developing production and making the economy prosperous?
No, he is not. Did he ever rebel? No, he did not. When, if ever, did he oppose
Chiang Kai-shek or imperialism? Never. When, if ever, did he do anything
to co-operate with the Chinese Communist Party in overthrowing imperialism
and feudalism? Never. Therefore, he has performed no service. The man refused
to nod his head in favour but shook it in disapproval of such a great struggle
as the movement to resist U.S. aggression and aid Korea. Then, why is it
that he is on the National Committee of the Political Consultative Conference?
Why is it that the Chinese Communist Party has nominated him for membership
of this committee? Precisely because he can still deceive a number of people
and has a certain deceptiveness. His credentials are deception, that's exactly
what he has.

For Liang Shu-ming, whoever nods in recognition of his being correct is
"magnanimous" and whoever fails to do so isn't. I am afraid we don't have
such "magnanimity". But we have at least this much, that is, Liang Shu-ming,
you can continue as a member of the National Committee of the Political
Consultative Conference.

12. Confucius, I hold, had the faults of not being democratic and of lacking
a self-critical spirit, in a way rather like Mr. Liang. Confucius said, "Since
I took Tzu Lu as a disciple, I have never heard ill of
myself";[3] his school "thrice filled up and thrice
emptied",[4] and he "executed Shaocheng Mao within
three months of taking office"[5] -- he came close
to being a despot and reeked of fascism. I hope my friends, and you Mr. Liang
in particular, won't follow Confucius' example, and if you don't it will
be most gratifying.

13. If Mr. Liang's lofty programme were followed, not only would socialism
be impossible in China, but our parties (the other parties as well as the
Communist Party) and our country would all be ruined. His line is the bourgeois
line. Po I-po's mistake is a reflection of bourgeois ideas inside our Party.
But Po I-po is better than Liang Shu-ming.

Liang Shu-ming says that the workers are "up in the ninth heaven" and the
peasants are "down in the ninth hell". What are the facts? There is indeed
a gap, with the workers earning more than the peasants, but after the agrarian
reform the peasants now have land and houses and their life is improving
every day. Some peasants fare even better than workers. Some workers are
still in difficulty. What can be done to help the peasants earn more? Have
you any suggestion, Liang Shu-ming? In your view, "the trouble lies not in
scarcity but in uneven distribution".[6] Your idea
is not to have the peasants increase their income through their own efforts
in production but to equalize the earnings of the workers and peasants by
taking away part of the former's earnings to distribute among the latter.
If your idea were adopted, wouldn't that spell the destruction of China's
industry? Such a diversion of the workers' earnings would mean the ruin of
our country and our parties. Don't think that ruin would befall the Communist
Party alone, the democratic parties would be in it too.

You say the workers are "up in the ninth heaven", then in which heaven are
you, Liang Shu-ming? You are up in the tenth heaven, the eleventh, the twelfth,
nay, the thirteenth heaven, because you get a salary far bigger than a worker's
wage! Yet what you propose to cut first is not your own salary but the workers'
wages. I take this to be unfair. If you want to be fair, cut your own salary
first because you are far above "the ninth heaven"!

Our Party has stood for the worker-peasant alliance for more than three decades.
Marxism-Leninism stands precisely for alliance and co-operation between workers
and peasants. There are two alliances in China: one is the alliance
of the working class with the peasantry, and the other is the alliance of
the working class with the capitalists, professors, senior technical personnel,
Kuomintang generals who have come over to our side, religious leaders, democratic
parties and democrats without party affiliation. Both alliances are necessary
and must continue. Which of the two is the base, which of the two is of primary
importance? The alliance of the working class with the peasantry. Liang Shu-ming
asserts that the worker-peasant alliance is in ruins and there is no hope
for national construction. In other words, unless his ideas are adopted,
the worker-peasant alliance has no hope of success, national construction
cannot make headway, and there will be no hope for socialism! Indeed, there
is no hope for the sort of "worker-peasant alliance" Liang Shu-ming has in
mind. Yours is the bourgeois line. If your line were followed, the result
would be the ruin of our country, China would be back on the old road of
semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism, and there would be a rally in Peking
to welcome Chiang Kai-shek and Eisenhower. Let me repeat, we'll never adopt
your line!

Since we moved into the cities, Liang Shu-ming asserts, we have "forgotten"
the countryside and it has become a "void". That's an attempt to foment discord.
In the last three years we have devoted our main effort to rural work. It
was only this year that we started diverting large numbers of leading cadres
to urban work, but the bulk of our cadres are still working in the counties,
districts and townships. How can it be asserted that we have forgotten the
countryside!

Liang Shu-ming also accuses our rural work of being "backward" and our
grass-roots cadres of "violating the law and discipline". What are known
as backward townships do exist in the rural areas. But how many are there?
Only 10 per cent. Why are they backward? Chiefly because reactionary elements,
enemy gendarmes and agents, heads of reactionary secret societies, hooligans
and ruffians, landlords and rich peasants have wormed their way in, become
cadres and usurped the power of village governments, and some have even sneaked
into the Communist Party. These types account for 80 to 90 per cent of the
cadres guilty of serious violations of the law and of discipline, and degenerate
cadres make up the rest. Therefore, the main problem in the backward townships
is to strike at the counter-revolutionaries, but the degenerate cadres
must be weeded out too. What is the proportion of the good and fairly good
townships in the country as a whole? Ninety per cent. We must have a clear
idea about this situation and not be fooled by Liang Shu-ming.

14. Do we reject representations and gloss over errors? If the sort of idea
advanced by Mr. Liang can be called a "representation", I declare that we
do "reject representations". But we do not gloss over errors. We firmly stand
for the leadership of the proletariat over all and sundry (workers, peasants,
industrialists and businessmen, the nationalities, democratic parties and
people's organizations, industry, agriculture, political and military affairs,
in short, everything) and for both unity and struggle. If you want to sound
us out, then this is one thing you will learn, a thing which is fundamental
in nature. This is no trifling matter, is it?

15. Liang Shu-ming's problem has significance for the whole country and,
like the case of Po I-po, should be taken up and discussed by the whole Party
and the whole nation. Look for typical examples and unfold criticism and
self-criticism. Let the whole nation discuss the general line.

There are two ways of making criticism: one is by self-criticism and
the other by criticism. How shall we have it in your case, Liang Shu-ming?
Will it be self-criticism? No, it will be criticism.

Our criticism of Liang Shu-ming is not directed against him alone, it is
through him that we expose the reactionary ideas he represents. Reactionary
as Liang Shu-ming is, we nevertheless treat his case as falling within the
scope of ideological remoulding. Whether or not he can be remoulded is another
question. Most likely he cannot be remoulded. It doesn't matter if he is
beyond remoulding, for he is just one individual. However, a debate with
him is useful. Don't think that we are making a mountain out of a molehill
and that it is not worth the effort. Our debate with him will help clarify
the question. If he is at all useful, this is where his usefulness lies.
What's the question now under debate? Isn't it that of the general line?
To clarify this question will be good for all of us.

NOTES


1. By advocating "a colourless, transparent government"
Liang Shu-ming was preaching that the government should be free of any party
or faction coloration and should be a "colourless, transparent entity"
transcending classes.

2. Mencius, "Kao Tzu", Part I.


3. This quotation is from the Historical Records, an
ancient Chinese historical work. Tzu Lu was Confucius' disciple and attendant.
After Tzu Lu became his attendant, no adverse opinions ever reached Confucius.


4. "Confucius' school thrice filled up and thrice emptied"
is a quotation from "On Happy Omens" in the Critical Essays by Wang
Chung of the Han Dynasty, Confucius ran a school in the state of Lu to glorify
the reactionary slave system. Shaocheng Mao also ran a school, and Confucius'
disciples frequently flocked to bat him. As a result, Shaocheng Mao's school
was packed while Confucius' school was often empty.

5. According to the Historical Records, Confucius
served as Minister of Justice and then as acting Prime Minister of the state
of Lu. He put his rival Shaocheng Mao to death within three months of assuming
the latter post.

6. Confucian Analects, Book XVI, "Chi Shih".

Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.