Commentary on Professor Grezherman of the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s Letter to Yang Xianzhen Concerning the Experience of Philosophical Teaching at the Marx–Lenin Institute of the CPC Central Committee (September 8, 1955) I have read this letter with great interest.
Mao Zedong, September 8, based on the manuscript.
Notes [1] Grezherman was at that time Director of the Department of Dialectical and Historical Materialism at the Academy of Social Sciences directly affiliated with the Central Committee of the CPSU, and a professor. [2] Yang Xianzhen had formerly served as Vice President of the Marx–Lenin Institute of the CPC Central Committee (the predecessor of the CPC Central Party School), and from April 1955 held the post of President of the Central Party School. [3] Refers to Grezherman’s letter of August 1, 1955, addressed to Yang Xianzhen.
The letter states: At our departmental meeting on dialectical and historical materialism, we discussed the materials you sent—“A Summary of Philosophical Instruction in Classes II, III, IV, and V of the Marx–Lenin Institute” and “The Experience of Philosophical Instruction in Section II of the Marx–Lenin Institute.”
We studied your experience with keen interest.
First and foremost, we regard as most valuable your sharp stance against both dogmatism and empiricism in learning.

Dogmatism reduces the study of Marxism–Leninism to rote memorization of concepts and terminology, while neglecting its connection with practical activity; empiricism, on the other hand, underestimates the significance of theoretical study.
The close linkage between theory and practice is the most precious aspect of your experience.
This is entirely in keeping with the spirit of Marxism–Leninism, and such an approach enables us to expound theoretical principles in a form most readily comprehensible to students.
Colleagues participating in the discussion also emphasized the great value of your thorough, concrete research conducted among the students.
It is likewise highly commendable to demonstrate the organic connection between one’s worldview and actual work, as well as the Party’s style of work, presenting it as a guide for action.
We further consider it an important and valuable lesson to organically integrate the study of theory with the implementation of the principles of criticism and self-criticism.
During our deliberations on the materials you forwarded, our colleagues also reviewed the Soviet experience in teaching philosophy.
The history of philosophical research and instruction in the Soviet Union has taught us two key lessons: first, we must oppose the estrangement of theory from practice, a characteristic inherent in certain Menshevik idealist currents in the Soviet Union at the time; second, we must guard against a simplistic interpretation of the relationship between theory and practice.
In the early 1930s, our party press engaged in a critical debate concerning attempts to mechanically attach dialectics to specific technical fields—for example, by labeling departments such as fisheries or the steel industry with categories of dialectical thought.
The danger of this oversimplified understanding of the theory–practice nexus persists even today in the teaching of dialectical and historical materialism.
Our colleagues noted that errors in practical work do not invariably stem from deficiencies in one’s worldview.
Of course, flawed political strategies do have their theoretical roots.
However, if we were to infer idealism, metaphysics, individualism, and the like from every kind of practical mistake, we would run the risk of falling into a certain degree of simplification.
Some comrades also raised the question of whether it might be beneficial to draw upon materials from the history of Chinese philosophy when studying dialectical and historical materialism.
Your practice of integrating the general principles of dialectical and historical materialism, together with the strategy and tactics of Marxism–Leninism, with assessments and analyses of your country’s historical development, and with research into Chinese history and the history of the Communist Party of China, constitutes a truly invaluable experience.
We believe that it is precisely this approach that opens up the broadest possibilities for establishing an organic link between Marxist–Leninist philosophy and the Party’s policies.
This letter was subsequently published in the People’s Daily on September 17, 1955.