Commentary on “Some Aspects of the Criticism of Zhang Naiqi at the Second Plenary Session of the First National Committee of the China Democratic Construction Association” (December 1956) To Comrades Shaoqi and Chen Yun [2]: Please review and return to Mao. The first article [3] concerning Zhang Naiqi is worth reading. Printed from Mao Zedong’s manuscript.

Notes [1] Zhang Naiqi was then Vice Chairman of the China Democratic Construction Association and Minister of Food. [2] Chen Yun was then Vice Chairman of the CPC Central Committee and Vice Premier of the State Council. [3] Refers to “Some Aspects of the Criticism of Zhang Naiqi at the Second Plenary Session of the First National Committee of the China Democratic Construction Association,” published in Xinhua News Agency’s Internal Reference, No. 2068, December 3, 1956. The article states that the recently concluded Second Plenary Session of the First National Committee of the China Democratic Construction Association subjected Zhang Naiqi to severe criticism. The resolution adopted at the meeting, “On Discussing Several Important Principles at Present,” was specifically directed against Zhang Naiqi’s erroneous views. A summary of this resolution had already been reported by Xinhua News Agency (see the November 17, 1956, issue of People’s Daily), but Zhang Naiqi’s own views were not made public. The article also briefly outlines Zhang Naiqi’s main arguments and related circumstances. Zhang Naiqi maintained that the dual nature of the national bourgeoisie had been essentially eliminated following the comprehensive public–private joint operation across all industries. As for the duality in their ideological outlook and work style, he argued that this was a matter of long-term ideological reformation—not only for industrialists and merchants, but for many people. In this sense, he contended, the dual nature of the bourgeoisie no longer existed. “The political and economic duality of the national bourgeoisie has been basically eradicated; what remains are merely vestiges or aftereffects.” He further asserted: “The Chinese national bourgeoisie, having become a revolutionary class under the leadership of the working class, could hardly be called ‘red bourgeoisie’ without being an exaggeration.” He also said: “The call issued by the various democratic parties to study the documents of the Eighth National Congress is nothing more than ‘praising achievements’ and ‘courtesy that incurs no blame.’” Moreover, he claimed that “it is preferable for the industrial and commercial circles to enter socialism by handing over their enterprises without any attachment, rather than for those who arrive empty-handed, shouting slogans and posting banners.” The Second Plenary Session of the First National Committee of the China Democratic Construction Association criticized these erroneous views of Zhang Naiqi, pointing out: “Even after the comprehensive public–private joint operation in all sectors of capitalist industry and commerce, the dual nature of the Chinese national bourgeoisie still persists. To deny or fail to acknowledge the negative aspects of the national bourgeoisie would in practice inevitably blur the distinction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class, leading to a neglect of the current class contradictions and class struggle. This, in turn, would undermine efforts to further educate and transform members of the national bourgeoisie and would be detrimental to our country’s socialist transformation and socialist construction.”