Editor’s Note Written for the Publication of “Some Materials Concerning Hu Feng’s Anti-Party Group [1]” and Other Articles in the People’s Daily (May 1955) The reason we are only now publishing Hu Feng’s “My Self-Criticism”—which was completed in January of this year, revised in February, and further supplemented with an “Addendum” in March—alongside Shu Wu’s article “Some Materials Concerning Hu Feng’s Anti-Party Group,” is to prevent Hu Feng from continuing to deceive readers by using our newspaper as a platform.

From the evidence revealed in Shu Wu’s article, readers can clearly see how long ago Hu Feng and the anti-Party, anti-people literary group he led had already turned into bitter enemies, harboring deep hatred and animosity toward both the Communist Party of China and non-Party progressive writers.

Can anyone detect even the faintest whiff of revolution in the letters Hu Feng wrote to Shu Wu? Do these letters not reek of the very same stench we once encountered in publications such as Social News and News World, which were issued by Kuomintang secret service organs? Phrases like “the revolutionary spirit and stance of the petty bourgeoisie,” “realistic literature opposing various tendencies rooted in feudal tradition from the standpoint of democratic demands,” “a position of sharing a common destiny with the people,” “the spirit of revolutionary humanism,” “revolutionary ideas of people’s liberation against imperialism and feudalism,” “alignment with the Party’s political program,” and “if it were not for the revolution and the Communist Party of China, I personally would have had no place to call home or any purpose in life over the past twenty-plus years”—can any of these claims possibly be believed?

If one were a genuine intellectual possessing “the revolutionary spirit and stance of the petty bourgeoisie” (and there are countless such individuals in China who cooperate with the Communist Party and are willing to be led by it), would such a person really adopt an attitude of hostility, hatred, and enmity toward the Party and progressive writers?

A sham is a sham; pretense must be stripped away. There may still be others within Hu Feng’s anti-Party group, like Shu Wu, who were deceived but are now unwilling to continue following him. They should provide the Party with more materials exposing Hu Feng. Concealment cannot last forever; sooner or later, the truth will come to light. Even the tactic of switching from offense to retreat—that is, engaging in self-criticism—cannot fool anyone. Such self-criticism must be genuine, like that offered by Shu Wu; mere sham self-criticism will not do. Lu Ling ought to possess additional secret letters from Hu Feng; we hope he will turn them over. Anyone else who has obtained secret correspondence through association with Hu Feng should likewise hand it over—it is far better to surrender such materials than to hoard or destroy them. Hu Feng himself should undertake the task of removing his own mask rather than indulging in deceptive self-criticism. Stripping away the facade, revealing the truth, helping the Party fully clarify the entire situation surrounding Hu Feng and his anti-Party group, and thereby becoming a truly upright person—this is the only path open to Hu Feng and every member of his faction.

Published in the People’s Daily on May 13, 1955. (Based on Mao Zedong’s handwritten draft.)

On January 20, 1955, the CPC Central Committee’s Propaganda Department presented a report to the Party leadership recommending the launch of a campaign to criticize Hu Feng’s ideas. The report argued that “Hu Feng’s literary and artistic thought is thoroughly bourgeois idealist and constitutes anti-Party, anti-people ideology. His activities constitute sectarian, small-group behavior aimed at securing leadership for his bourgeois literary and artistic views, opposing and resisting the Party’s literary and artistic principles and the Party-led literary movement, and attempting to reshape society and our country in accordance with his own vision, thereby opposing socialist construction and socialist transformation.”

The CPC Central Committee approved and forwarded the Propaganda Department’s report, instructing party committees at all levels to attach great importance to this ideological struggle and regard it as a major front in the class struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie.

Around April of the same year, a collection of letters Hu Feng had written to Shu Wu came to attention, was compiled into a dossier, and, together with Hu Feng’s “My Self-Criticism,” was published in the People’s Daily on May 13. Mao Zedong penned the present editor’s note, officially designating Hu Feng and certain like-minded individuals as “Hu Feng’s Anti-Party Group.”

On May 18, 1955, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress approved Hu Feng’s arrest.

Subsequently, on May 24 and June 10, the People’s Daily published respectively the “Second Batch of Materials Concerning Hu Feng’s Anti-Party Group” and the “Third Batch of Materials Concerning Hu Feng’s Counterrevolutionary Group.” These three batches of materials, gradually released throughout June, were later compiled into a book titled “Materials Concerning Hu Feng’s Counterrevolutionary Group,” for which Mao Zedong wrote the preface.

In 1965, Hu Feng was sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment and deprived of political rights for six years. In 1969, he received an additional life sentence. At the end of 1978, the life sentence was overturned, and Hu Feng was declared free.

On September 29, 1980, the CPC Central Committee transmitted a notice to the Ministry of Public Security, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Party Leadership Groups of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the review report on the “Hu Feng Counterrevolutionary Group” case, announcing the rehabilitation of Hu Feng and his associates. The notice stated: “The ‘Hu Feng Counterrevolutionary Group’ case, under the historical conditions then prevailing, involved a confusion between two fundamentally different types of contradictions, leading to the wrongful designation of certain comrades engaged in erroneous speech and sectarian activities as counterrevolutionaries and members of a counterrevolutionary group. The Central Committee has decided to rectify this error. All those previously labeled as counterrevolutionaries associated with Hu Feng shall have their convictions overturned, their reputations restored, and their original salary levels reinstated from the date of rehabilitation. Any other issues in their personal histories shall be addressed separately according to their nature, with the relevant units responsible for making appropriate arrangements for their resettlement. For those whose convictions were based on legal proceedings, it is recommended that the courts originally handling their cases formally rescind those judgments. Those who suffered collateral damage due to the ‘Hu Feng affair’ must also be fully redressed.”

In 1981, Hu Feng was re-elected as a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and appointed as a consultant to the Chinese Writers Association.

In May 1985, the Ministry of Public Security conducted a review of several outstanding matters in Hu Feng’s political history, reversed the previous rulings, and, with the approval of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee, issued a circular to the relevant authorities.

In June 1988, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee issued a supplementary notice on further rehabilitating Comrade Hu Feng, conveying the results of a review concerning certain aspects of Hu Feng’s literary thought and related issues, as agreed upon after deliberation by the Standing Committee of the Politburo. With regard to the so-called “Five Knives” issue, the supplementary notice stated: “Following review, it has been determined that this characterization does not accurately reflect Comrade Hu Feng’s original intent and should therefore be withdrawn.” As for the question of “sectarian activities,” the notice declared: “Guided by the principle that historical issues should be addressed broadly rather than in minute detail and by the spirit of uniting and looking forward, no political conclusions need be drawn on this matter in central documents. This point should be removed from the notice.” Concerning Hu Feng’s literary ideas and propositions, the notice concluded: “It is appropriate for the literary community and the general public to reach a proper resolution through scientific, normal literary criticism and discussion; there is no need for a definitive decision to be made in central documents. This point should also be deleted from the notice.”£± ５

--- Notes

Notes [1] Hu Feng was at the time a deputy to the National People’s Congress, a member of the National Committee of the All-China Federation of Literary and Art Circles, a director of the Chinese Writers Association, and a member of the editorial board of People’s Literature magazine. In July 1954, he submitted to the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee a report titled “On the Situation of Literary and Artistic Practice Over the Past Several Years” (commonly known as the “Thirty-Thousand-Character Letter”), systematically setting forth his views on literary and artistic thought and work.