Speech on the Question of Intellectuals
(January 20, 1956)

Source: Kau & Leung, The Writings of Mao Zedong 1949-1976, Vol. II
Pages 7-15
============================================================

(2); Dec. 6, 195); Dec. 21, 1955; and Dec. 27, 1955(1) and (2) in vol. 1. What we see
here is an example of the characteristic linkage that Mao makes between the standin g
of a group or sector of society (in this case the intellectuals) in socialist China and
its attitude—support of or opposition to, or lukewarmness and indifference, toward
the process of socialist transformation and the Party’ s schedule in this regard. The
underlying proposition here, it seems, is that ultimately the issue of whether or not
they rally to the cause of agricultural cooperativization and the impending socialist
transformation of industry and commerce and handicraft industries will become the
political litmus test for China’ s intellectuals under the socialist regime. In this speech,
however, even though the question is made implicitly clear, Mao appears to be
hesitant about how far and how quickly the issue should be pressed, For the time
being, he appears to be ready to let the subject lie for awhile. This is consistent with
Mao's belief that the intellectuals are not a class in and of themselves, but are
‘attached’ to class interests ‘‘as hair is attached to skin.’ Thus the strategy is not
to attack the hair, but to push forward the processes of transformation on the front
of socioeconomic change, and to assume that ‘‘when the skin no longer exists, to what
would the hair be attached?’’—.e., if the socioeconomic basis of bourgeois capitalism is transformed and removed, the intellectuals, even those previously identifying
themselves with bourgeois interests, would come around and be forced to attach
themselves to socialism. This is a belief that Mao maintained well into 195 7, and we
shall see more of this skin-hair analogy in the documents of mid-1957 (especially see
text Apr. 1957[{2], note 14). However, one must be reminded that this relatively
tolerant viewpoint had its limitations, and while it might have been applied to the
intellectuals as a whole, it was certainly not applied to those specific cliques whose
anti-Party character had been exposed. One must not forget that this speech had come
only a few months after the stern campaign against the Hu F eng clique of ‘‘anti-
Party”’ intellectuals. (See text May-June 1955, vol. 1.)

The conference has been very good. Iam very happy to have listened to the talks
given by the various comrades; I can see that our comrades’ level of consciousness
is by no means low, but is very high; many of the speeches were very good..

What I would like to talk about now is the question of leadership methods. There
are two methods of leadership: one is a method that makes an undertakin g proceed
a bit more slowly, and with somewhat less Satisfactory [results]. The other is a
method that makes an undertaking proceed a bit more quickly, and with somewhat
better [results]. Take such matters of the past year as the cooperativization of
agriculture, the transformation of capitalist industry and commerce, and the question of the intellectuals; they could have been [handled] in one way or the other,
they could have been delayed a bit and not done quite so well, or they could have
been done a little earlier and a bit better. When we were in Yanan we organized a
Society for the Promotion of Constitutional Government,! but we don’t have one
now. Some people say that the Central Committee is a national society for the
Promotion of socialism; this conference is also a promotion society, and provincial
and municipal Party committees, as well as the various departments, are also
Promotion societies. Leadership organs can promote progress, or they can promote
retrogression; or there can be [both] some progress and some retrogression. The
Nationalist Government of Chiang Kai-shek was a Nationalist Government for the
Promotion of Retrogression, it promoted the retrogression of the society. Our
leadership organs should promote the development of [our] undertakings. It has
not been entirely this way, however. For example, the Rural Work Department2


was for a time a Department for the Promotion of Retrogression in Rural Work,
because it wanted to chop off some of the cooperatives;3 also, at one time, the
Ministry of Public Health was a Department for the Promotion of Retrogression
and made a mess of their work.* Has this kind of phenomenon also existed in [other]
places and departments? When the superstructure is not compatible with the
economic base and cannot promote economic development, it loses the function
the superstructure ought to have. [There are] the forces of production and the
relations of production, which are the base. On top of the relations of production
there are still the government, the Party, and the various departments [of the administration], all of which are the superstructure and which must assume the function of
promoting the development of the forces of production.‘ If [the superstructure] fails
to promote [this development), then it has lost its function. The purpose of opposing
Rightist conservative thinking is precisely to solve this problem, that is, to make
the superstructure adapt to the base, and [thus] promote the development of society.
[The organs of the superstructure] did not pay enough attention to, or make
adequate estimates of, the development of objective conditions. Everything has a
dual character, and in ten thousand years things will still have a dual character.
However, the dual character [of things] this year will not be the same as that of
next year. If there were no change at all, there would be no Marxism. But right now
Marxism still prevails. Looking at things from [the perspective of] Marxism,
agriculture has thrown off much of its backwardness in the last few years. During
the past several months the peasants have been going at a very fast pace, and in
only a few months they have transformed the individual economy. The bourgeoisie
has done likewise. We have always said of them that ‘profit is their sole
objective’’; now they have already turned over their factories (which have become
joint state-private enterprises). In what way is ‘‘profit’’ their ‘‘sole objective’’? As
to the intellectuals, we have also always said they were no good, but at this
conference comrades have said that about 40 per cent of the intellectuals are
progressive elements, and about 40 per cent of them are middle-of-the-roaders.
There are still backward elements, of course, but they can be transformed, and
moreover [we] should promote this kind of transformation. However, some
comrades cannot see this kind of transformation, and they want to go and joust
in a place where there aren’t any opponents [to joust with]. If there are no lon ger
any targets, and one still insists on jousting, one becomes a Don Quixote. Of
course there are still targets, but they too are being transformed, and therefore
we should welcome this kind of transformation. We should look at the new
situation after the transformation of the relations of production. Things were so
difficult during the first half of last year that we were cursed everywhere. Inside
and outside the Party, people said we were no good: that was merely because
of a few handfuls of grain; during the second half of the year we weren’t cursed
any more. There were several happy events during the second half of last year.
The bumper harvest and [agricultural] cooperativization were two big events;
the suppression of counterrevolutionaries was also a happy event. In the last
two or three years, Chinese society has undergone a drastic transformation, and
these circumstances have been rejected among [our] comrades, among the


people, and among the intellectuals. We should be aware of these circumstances and adapt ourselves to them.

While speaking of promoting progress and opposing Rightist conservative
thinking, we should at the same time be careful not to undertake things for which
there is no basis and which cannot be carried through. Clashing the cymbals,
beating the drums, and announcing happy events is good. That is really promoting
progress! That exactly demonstrates that the Central Committee is a Society for
the Promotion of Socialism! But we can now see that there are some conditions
that should arouse our attention and which deserve some discussion. In the Program
for Rural Development,° a good number of the targets for agricultural production
increases have already been put aside; there is Rightist conservative thinking in all
areas. Of the two leadership methods, which one should we adopt? I [removed some
of the targets] because some of them have not yet been studied and are not set on
adequate grounds. For example, the reclamation of 900,500,000 mu of land,7
according to some, would require funds that would be equivalent to one year’s
budget.’ How much is that in renminbi? Reclamation must be carried on, but
whether that much can be reclaimed requires detailed study. Plans must be feasible
and must be built on a well-grounded basis; otherwise we will again end up doing
things blindly. At present the heads of some comrades have become fevered. It IS
good to cooperativize rapidly, but don’t do it at a pace for which there are no
grounds. Comrades in all the provinces should pay attention [to this]. The task of
transforming [cooperatives] to a higher stage? must be accomplished under conditions in which the overwhelming majority of the people are satisfied. I hear
currently that around 30 per cent of the people are still unwilling to let go of the
income based on the land shares. If this is the case, then it is better to wait a few
months. In the North the changeover can be made in the fall or winter of this year
or the spring of next year—next spring would be best. I suggest that you give this
some more thought. Comrade Chen Yun! said in reference to the joint state-private
enterprises that if people send a gift right up to your door, it is not good to refuse
it. But the question is whether in their hearts they are actually willing to do so. If
not, then we can wait a few months. A few months really isn’t very long to wait.
Don’t think I’m suggesting this in order to block your way, or that I am practicing
Rightist opportunism again! We must always make over 90 per cent of the people
happy; if more than a few per cent are not happy there will be problems. The targets
in the plans of each department must also rest on reliable grounds, Not doing what
Originally could have been done is not good, but [trying to do things] that rest on
an inadequate basis and that cannot be carried through can simply be labeled
blindness and constitutes Left adventurism.!} Even though this is not a major
tendency at present, it has nevertheless already become visible. There are some
comrades whose minds are not that sober and who are afraid to act on reality. They
are afraid of the embarrassing label of rightist opportunism. Once something has
undergone investigation and study and has been found to be unfeasible, one should
dare to say it can’t be done. We should dare to stop it and put the plans on a [more]
reliable basis [before proceeding].!2

Beijing has entered [the stage of] socialism. As far as entering it is concerned,


we've done that, but [the transition to] socialism has still not been completed, and
we ought not to say that it has already been completed. To complete it will still
require several years’ work (let’s say another three or four years). [The question
of] in what year the ‘‘tail’’ [of capitalism ]—fixed interest for the capitalists !3—will
be cut off depends on how the situation develops. The method of self-evaluation
used in the clearing of accounts and the auditing of capital by capitalists in Beijing
can be recommended.!4 In the future, in the rural areas, [when deciding questions
related to] the admission of landlords and rich peasants into the cooperatives, as to
who are good people and who are bad, who can be considered members of the
cooperative and who can be considered alternate members, and who should
participate in production under surveillance—could we also let people evaluate
themselves while we provide the leadership? I suggest that each locality try it and
see. Let them develop the struggle among themselves.

One more thing, some comrades quote what I said in the Preface to The Upsurge
of Soctalism in China’s Countryside: ‘*We can no longer do things entirely
according to the way we originally conceived.’’!5 What I meant by ‘‘can no longer
...€ntirely according to’’ was that in general we must still [operate] according to
[our original plan]; otherwise wouldn’t the five-year plan!6 have ceased to exist?
However, some comrades have changed my words into ‘‘no longer do things
according to’ or to ‘“entirely impossible to do things according to... .’” Obviously
their heads have already become a bit feverish.

What Comrade XXX said in his statement was very good.!7 I fully support his
opinions regarding language reform. Do you support them or not? It is no great
problem for the common people; it will facilitate [their] learning characters.
However, there are some people who feel that while the adoption of the Roman
alphabet for phoneticization is fine, it’s a shame that the Roman alphabet was not
invented by the Chinese. [They] have no problems with foreigners imitating things
invented by the Chinese, or ““using Chinese [things] to transform the barbarians, ’’!8
but that when foreigners invent things and the Chinese imitate them, using barbarian [things] to transform the Chinese, then there are problems. [But I feel that]
Western writing systems are better, and what Comrade XXX said makes sense.
There are [only a] few letters [in the alphabet], and in writing you go in one
direction; the Chinese writing system is no match. Some professors say, ‘‘Of all
the writing systems in the world, the Chinese writing system is the best.’’ As I see
it, that’s not necessarily true. Therefore we have adopted the Roman alphabet. For
instance, Arabic numerals were also invented by foreigners, but doesn’t everyone
use them now? The Roman alphabet originated in Rome, but aren’t countries such
as Britain, the United States, and Russia using it? I have never studied the history
of writing, [but I believe that] in the past, each of [the nations} had its own writing
system. It’s said that our Chinese writing system was created by Chang Jie,'9 but
I don't see it that way. Socialism didn’t originate in Russia, [but] Russia borrowed
itanyway. We should take over all the good things from foreign countries and make
them into things of our own, [so that] in ten or twenty years we can catch up to an
advanced level by international standards. This was what happened in the Han and
Tang dynasties.2° The Tang dynasty had seven types of music and dance, of which


six were from foreign countries. The Tang dynasty is well-known [for its music
and dance]; after [these types of music and dance] had been performed for a long
time they were known as things of the Chinese.

In Comrade XXX's speech there was one thing with which I disagreed.2! That
was when he said, °’This is a consequence of the report Comrade Mao Zedong gave
on July 31 last year** regarding the problem of cooperativization of agriculture,
which gravely criticized Rightist conservative thinking and employed a new social
outlook and theory to mobilize the masses and organize the masses.’’ ‘‘This new
kind of outlook and theory can only be produced after the development of the
society ’s material life has placed before society new tasks. After a new outlook and
theory have appeared they become the most critical forces, and they can then
promote the resolution of the new tasks that have arisen in the course of the
development of the material life of the society, and thereby promote the forward
development of society.”’

This kind of talk makes it appear that agricultural cooperativization is something
new, that it [involves] a new social outlook and theory. But this is not something
new; it has been written about in The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union (Bolshevik).23 They—the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—were the
first in the world to do it. Moreover, Marx had already talked about it more than a
hundred years ago; and thirty years ago Russia had already done it. What we are
talking about now really doesn’t represent any new outlook or theory. We really
don’t have anything new—if we have [something], we’ll [say we] have it, and if
we don’t we won't. In Europe in the past, when new tasks were already placed
before Marx and Engels, a new outlook and theory were produced, namely
Marxism. Later on, Lenin developed it further. Do we have anything new? Yes,
we do; in the area of form and detail, such as the widespread development of mutual
aid teams,?4 and [the conversion of] entire trades to joint State-private management,*> these are new. Regarding the alliance with the bourgeoisie in the period of
transition, Lenin had already talked about the theoretical aspects; we merely
implemented [these theories] more fully and in a methodical step-by-step manner.
This is very good, and there is a need to develop it further. In building socialism
we can’t let our mutton become unappetizing, and we can’t let the Nanjing pressed
duck and Yunnan ham become unappetizing. (Is there no more ham in Yunnan
now?) We cannot allow a decline in variety in our material [life], or shortages of
Cloth. And mutton does not necessarily have to be prepared according to Marxism.
In a socialist society, mutton and duck should be even tastier, even further
advanced. Only in this way can we provide concrete experience of the advancement
of socialism over capitalism; otherwise we would no longer have prestige in the
eyes of mutton. Socialism must definitely be better than capitalism, and more
advanced. We must pay attention to the complexity of situations, and be good at
analyzing [things] so as to adapt to all types of complex situations. In a good many
[areas Of] work, there is still room for development. For instance, the elimination
of counterrevolutionaries must be furthered. The [campaign for the] elimination of
Counterrevolutionaries has now [gone through] a preparatory stage, and much can
be done in this regard. It’s a good [idea] not to fight a battle unprepared. If the

ee


preparatory work is done well, we can carry out [the campaign] faster and better
than [we did} in Yanan,6 and even [faster and better] than last year. If preparatory
work is done poorly, and [we] don’t ascertain the true situation, the amount of time
[required] will be dragged out and we will make too many enemies. These are all
matters related to leadership technique, and there is also a lot of room here for
development. Since last summer there has been development in leadership
techniques in the work in several areas, such as the anti-Hu Feng [campaign],?7
the cooperativization of agriculture, and the transformation of capitalist industry and commerce. On this basis, we can move one more step forward. In the
field of theory, too, we should make some contributions; we should take over
what has been said by those who came before us and further develop [it]. But
from the October Revolution to the present there has not been any significantly
new thing.

On the question of peace: Peace is something we are all concerned about. Is it
possible that we will be allowed a twelve-year period [of peace] in which to
basically complete our industrialization? It appears that it is possible. Altogether,
twenty-one years elapsed between the First World War and the Second World War;
we've now gone through ten years since the Second World War, and there will
probably be a few more years [of peace]. The situation now is different from that
which followed the First World War, primarily because Germany and Japan are
not as they were in the past and are not very likely to provoke war. The Americans
are preoccupied with making money; they don’t do things that [result in] a deficit.
There is no one else to carry them in a sedan chair, and they don’t want to walk on
their own feet. The way the American armed forces are currently deployed does
not make it appear that they are going to fight a war. They are setting up bases
everywhere, which is like an ox having its tail tied to a post; how can it move
effectively? However, we must take into account the possibility of a sudden attack,
that a maniac could appear in the world—that must be taken into account. Therefore, the earlier we can complete our work the better, and the more to our advantage
it will be.

Our initiative is now increasing day by day, in agriculture, in the transformation
of capitalist industry and commerce, and so on. In the matter of the intellectuals,
we have not yet taken the initiative at present, and we must let some time pass
before we can do so. We have not yet taken the initiative in the area of industry
either, and we must still depend on foreign countries for large amounts of machinery. We cannot manufacture [very] large machinery either or [very] small
(precision) [machinery]; we can only manufacture medium-sized [machinery]:
‘We cannot manage the two ends, but the middle is all right.’” We have nothing
to brag about even if we wanted to, [because] we are not independent in industry,
we are not independent in science, and we are incapable of manufacturing either
important industrial equipment or precision machinery. We have lots of land and
people, but how many automobiles, tanks, and airplanes do we make ourselves?
One automobile and one airplane are just not enough, are they? What is there that
calls for our cocking our tails in the air?28 Some comrades have said some stupid
things, such as ‘‘We can get along without them,’’29 and ‘‘Me, I’m revolutionary


[and that’s all it takes]."” This kind of talk is wrong. At present, we call for
technological revolution and cultural revolution; it is a revolution against stupidity
and ignorance. We can’t get along without them. It won’t do to rely solely on such
uncultured people as ourselves. These are wise words, and we must make them
clear to the broad [ranks] of [our] cadres. To fight a war nowadays you need
airplanes that can reach an altitude of 18,000 meters and travel at supersonic speeds;
it’s not like the past, when we rode horses. We can’t do without high-level
intellectuals. Now that we can see these facts we can start to take the initiative. If
we’re to have large numbers of high-level intellectuals, we must [first] have even
more ordinary intellectuals. From now on we must see to it that everyone has the
mathematical knowledge of a Hua Luogeng?° and can read Capital. This is
possible, if not in twenty years, then in thirty years, or at most in a hundred years
or so. Otherwise, how could we call it Communism? Comrades, when you go back
you must explain this matter clearly to all sectors [of the population.] China should
have a large number of intellectuals. We must first approach world standards and
then later catch up with world standards. Our nation’s land area is immense, our
population is large, our geographic position is good, and our coastline is long
(although we don't have steamships,) so we should become the number one country
in the world in terms of cultural, scientific, technological, and industrial development. We have a socialist system, and with hard work we can make it. Otherwise,
what are 600 million people who are “‘industrious and courageous’’ striving for?
If in several decades we were still not the number one nation in the world, it would
be wrong. The United States now has only a dozen or so hydrogen bombs and
[produces] 100 million tons of steel; I don’t consider that anything so terrific. China
should produce several hundred million tons of steel.

China has some good points: one is that it’s poor; another is that it’s blank
(without knowledge).3! This also has a dual character; being poor [makes people]
want revolution. Lack of knowledge is not good, but it’s like this blank sheet of
paper; once this side has been written on you cannot do much more with it; this
other side that hasn’t been written on is clean and blank, and many things can be
written on it. In a few decades we can catch up with the foreign countries.

Notes

1. We have not found any definitive information regarding the existence of this society
in the Yanan period of CPC history. There was, however, much controversy surrounding
the role of the CPC and how it might work together with other political entities to promote
a constitutional united front to govern China in place of single party (be it the CPC or the
KMT) domination. These controversies, which suffused the late- Yanan period, encircled the
issue of forming a political consultative conference including representation of the various
Parties (see text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 2). We therefore speculate that Mao is not referring
(oO an actual society, but to the notion that the CPC played, in the Yanan period, the role of
such a society.

2. See text Oct. 11, 1955(1), vol. I, notes 21 and 42, and text Dec. 6, 1955, vol. I, note 2.

3. See text July 31, 1955, vol. I, notes 18 and 19; see also text Dec. 27, 1955(2), ‘‘Editor’s
Note’’ no. 1, early paragraphs.

4. See text 1953, source note, and text Oct. 1953 in volume I.


14 {/ MAO ZEDONG

5. The sentence in Wansui (1969) reads “‘shengchanli he shengchan guanxi, shengchan
guanxi shi jichu, shangmian haiyou zhengfu, dang, ge bumen, zhe do shi shangcheng
jianzhu.,”’ Strictly translated, this would be rendered as “*[Between] the forces of production
and the relations of production, the relations of production are the base. On top [of these]
are the government... .’’ To consider the relations of production as the base vis-a-vis the
forces of production would, however, be fundamentally inconsistent with socialist economic
analysis. We believe, therefore, that this is a misprint and that the phrase “‘sii jichu’”’ ought
to follow the first occurrence of the phrase ‘“‘shengchan guanxi’’ (relations of production)
rather than the second occurrence. If we rearrange the sentence on this assumption, it appears
in the manner of our rendition here, one that is more consistent with Mao’s general
arguments. Itis also useful to note here that Mao disagreed with Soviet theorists as to whether
the relations of production are part of the economic base or the superstructure. The Soviets
argue that the relations of production, that is, class relations, are part of the superstructure.
Since, according to the orthodox Marxist economic theory, the superstructure is determined
by the economic base, which in this view consists only of the forces of production, that is,
the means of production and their development in the various forms of technology, Soviet
theorists place little emphasis on the problem of the relations of production, that is, on class
relations. Mao, on the other hand, argued that the relations of production are part of the
economic base, and that therefore they, along with the forces of production, must be changed
in order to bring about further development in the superstructure. He argued, further, that
the superstructure itself is not mechanically determined by the economic base but that it in
turn has an effect on the economic base. Hence, as he says here, the superstructure has the
function of promoting the development of the forces of production. For a more detailed
discussion of this issue see text 1960 RN, Mao’s reading notes on the Soviet Union’s
Textbook on Political Economy; see also text Feb. 27, 1957, note 42, and surrounding text
July 8, 1957(2), note 38.

6. Here Mao’s phrase was nongcun fazhan gangyao, but he may have been referring
to the Program for Agricultural Development (nongye fazhan gangyao), also known as the
Forty-Article Program for Agricultural Development. The latter was discussed during the
conference at which the present speech was delivered and was put in final form at a meeting
of the Political Bureau three days later. See also text Dec. 6, 1955, vol. I, source note and
note 3.

7. The Wansui (1969) text reads wu yi wu shi wan, which translates as 500.5 million,
as rendered here. It is useful to note, however, that Mao might have meant to say (or, if he
said it, there could have been a simple typographical error) wu yi wu gian wan, which could
have translated as 550 million, considering that the target set for land reclamation in Article
16 of the National Program for Agricultural Development (see note 6) was 560 million mu.

8. Here Mao is apparently referring to the total expenses in a single year’s national
budget.

9. See text Oct. 15, 1953, vol. I, note 1.

10. Chen Yun was vice-premier and head of the Ministry of Commerce at this time. For
more biographical information on Chen see D. Klein and A. Clark, eds. (1971), I, pp.
149-153, and text Dec. 18, 1950, vol. I, note 2; text Oct. 15, 1952, vol. I, note 1; text Nov.
23, 1954, vol. I, note 4.

Il. See text Oct. 11, 1955 (1), vol. I, pp. 646-647.

12. There are minor discrepancies between the Wansui (1969) version and the Wansui
(1967b) version for the last part of this paragraph, starting with ‘‘the targets in the plans of
each department.’’

13. The paying of fixed interest was part of the so-called ‘‘redemption policy’’ (shumai
zhengce) by which the state compensated capitalists for the value of the means of production
they previously owned and which were gradually ‘‘bought over’’ by the state as the various
enterprises went from being solely owned by capitalists, to joint state-private ownership, to
full state or public ownership. in the first stage of this redemption policy, the method of si
ma fen fet (quartering the profits), prevalent before 1956, was implemented. Under this


method, the capitalists shared approximately one quarter of the profits of the enterprises,
with the other three quarters going to state revenue, worker welfare funds, and public
accumulation funds for the enterprises’ own development. (See text July 9, 1953, note 2,
and text Sept. 7, 1953, vol. I, note 9.) From 1956 on, when more and more enterprises became
jointly owned and managed by the state and the capitalists, the redemption policy entered a
second stage, and it became possible to pay the capitalists dividends according to a fixed
percentage interest irrespective of gain or loss. On July 28, 1956, this percentage was fixed
at 5 per cent per annum for the capitalists’ share of the profits (in individual cases exceptions
were made for a higher percentage), and the capitalists were expected to receive these
dividends for a period of seven years, up to 1962. (In 1962, an extension of three more years
was stipulated.) See also text Nov. 17, 1955, vol. I, note 4 (we apologize for the fact that at
that point we had mistakenly cited reference to text Jan. 20, 1956, note 11, when it should
be note [3), and also see, especially, Dec. 8, 1956, paragraphs 2, 9, and 10, where Mao
provides an extensive discussion on this issue, and text Feb. 27, 1957, note 39, where we
describe a debate at that time on the matter of *‘fixed interest’ payments.

14. Since often more than one capitalist owned part of the shares or stocks in an
enterprise, it was necessary, while transforming enterprises and turning them over to joint
state-private ownership, to determine the face value of each share or stock of the total
capitalist share of the enterprise and thus to assess the actual amount of ‘‘fixed interest’’ (see
note 11) to be paid to each individual capitalist. This was known as ginghu hesuan (cleaning
out the accounts and auditing capital).

15. Here Mao is not directly quoting himself but referring to the gist of his argument in
the second preface to the book Zhongguo nongcun shehui zhuyi gaochao (Upsurge of
Socialism in China’s Countryside). See text Dec. 27, 1955(1).

16. See text Feb. 10, 1953, vol. I, note 2.

17. Mao is referring to Zhou Enlai’s speech mentioned in the source note here. See
RMKB (Jan. 20, 1956), 1. See also text 1951, vol. I, and text May 1, 1955, vol I, note 1.

18. The terms here are xia for ‘‘China’’ and yi for ‘‘barbarians.’’ Xia was the name of
an ancient semi-mythological dynasty, and since it represented the first historically identifiable Chinese government, the name has been taken to represent China and its tradition. Yi
was identified in the ‘‘Wang Zhi’’ chapter of the Li Ji (Book of Rites) as the non-Chinese,
or “‘barbarian,”’ peoples to the East. In the traditional Confucian Chinese worldview, the
division between Chinese (Han) and ‘‘barbarians’’ (known by the phrase yi xia zhi fen) was
greatly emphasized.

19. In Chinese mythology Chang Jie is known as the official chronicler of the Yellow
Emperor (Huang Di) and as the inventor of the Chinese written script. According to this
legend the effort to unify and codify the Chinese written language began circa 2500 B.C.

20). During the Han dynasty (202 B.C.~A.D. 220), the Chinese empire came to include
all of China proper as well as northern Vietnam, Inner Mongolia, southern Manchuria, and
much of Korea. During the Tang dynasty (618-907) merchants and diplomats from Central
Asia, Tibet, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan visited the capital at Changan. The Han and Tang
were periods of much cultural borrowing from abroad. They were also considered to be the
most splendid of China’s historical dynasties, and to this day the Chinese often refer to
themselves culturally as the Han people or the Tang people. Mao, however, had long warned
against Han chauvinism. See text Mar. 16, 1953, vol. I. See also text Jan. 31, 1958, point

21. Mao is here referring to Liao Luyan’s speech. (See source note.)

22. This refers to Mao’s speech at a conference of Party secretaries. See text July 31,
1955, vol. I.

23. See text July 31, 1955, vol. I, note 26.

24. See text Oct. 15, 1953, vol. I, note 2.

25. See text July 9, 1953, vol. I, comment; text Aug. 12, 1953, vol. I, notes 11 and 12,
and text Sept. 7, 1953, text and note 2.

26. Mao is referring to the Party rectification campaign in Yanan in 1942-43; see text