On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People (Speaking Notes)

Date: 1957-02-27
Source: Secret Speeches of Chairman Mao: From the Hundred Flowers to the Great Leap Forward
        (Harvard University Press, 1989), ed. Roderick MacFarquhar, Timothy Cheek, Eugene Wu

---

contradictions between the enemy and ourselves [and] contradictions
among the people—and, in fact, I want to talk about both, not just
the one. However, since today we want primarily to talk about the
second problem, we will not emphasize the question of the enemy
and ourselves, though I will discuss both. These two types of problems are of a different nature, [and so] the methods of resolving them
are different. We have discussed this before with two slogans:
“Clearly distinguish between the enemy and ourselves,” “Clearly distinguish between right and wrong”! [separate out] who is the enemy,
who are the people. To distinguish clearly right and wrong, well,
that’s to discuss what’s among the people, and the problems among
the people are problems of right and wrong, not problems between
the enemy and ourselves. If that’s so, then are [problems] between the
enemy and ourselves also questions of right and wrong or not? They
are, but they are problems of right and wrong of a different nature. In
common parlance we talk of them as contradictions between the enemy and ourselves (our custom of comparing the two [types of
contradictions] makes things clearer). One type is antagonistic contradictions: contradictions between the enemy and ourselves, or antagonistic contradictions. Contradictions among the people are
non-antagonistic contradictions. The People’s Daily carried an article,
“More on the historical experience of the proletarian dictatorship’.
lated here was circulated in 1985. Since then an identical copy has appeared in the Peking
University teaching materials (New Mao Texts, vol. 15D). A third version has been reported, but to date has been unavailable for comparison: See Michael Schoenhals, “Original
Contradictions—On the Unrevised Text of Mao Zedong’s ‘On the Correct Handling of
Contradictions Among the People,” The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs 16:109, n. 2
(July, 1986). The highly edited official version that appeared in RMRB (19 June 1957) has
been reprinted officially several times, most recently in SW5. The versions differ significantly. The speaking notes are about 28,000 characters in length; the official version in XJ5
is some 24,000. Language, emphasis, examples and numbering of points differ among versions, but the rough organization is the same. The rambling, ungrammatical nature of
many passages makes us believe Text 3 is a transcript based on a tape recording.
For the reader’s convenience, we have inserted headings before each of the numbered
points. They do not appear in the original.
lTwo slogans: Fenging di wo and fenqing shi fei.
2For a discussion of the circumstances surrounding this article, published 29 December
1956, see Origins 1, p. 272ff. The article was a rejection of the speech Tito made in Pula, Yugoslavia, on 11 November 1956, in which he stated that the problems within the Soviet
bloc were due not just to the errors of Stalin but more fundamentally to the system which
made them possible. The Chinese rejected Tito’s views in “More on the historical experi-
Contradictions among the People
That People’s Daily article primarily discussed international problems.
When it discussed these two types of contradictions, it was in regard to
international affairs. It didn’t say much about domestic affairs. Moreover, on actually how to resolve contradictions among the people it
offered no detailed analysis but only an explanation of the principle.
[191] And that is the proletarian dictatorship, and the differences between the systems of dictatorship and democratic centralism. What
does dictatorship do? What areas does dictatorship control? Dictatorship is used to handle [contradictions] between the enemy and us. To
solve contradictions between the enemy and us is a matter of forcing
others to submit, but it is not completely a case of so-called total repression. For instance, we speak of denying them the right to vote or
the freedom to publish newspapers. Antagonistic classes—for example, the landlord class or imperialist elements— may not freely publish
newspapers among us, nor may Taiwan. To prohibit the landlord class
from publishing newspapers, to deprive them of freedom of speech
and the right to vote all tall within the scope of dictatorship. The exercise of dictatorship must also make use of democratic centralism.
Who is to exercise dictatorship? It must be the people! Class dictatorship is the dictatorship of one class over another. If you want to control him, kill him, seize him, naturally you must go through the
People’s Government, and moreover, you must have the people [on
your side]. What we now call the system of democratic centralism
applies only to the ranks of the people. If it is not the enemy, then it
is the people; and in that context it is not a question of dictatorship
nor of who exercises dictatorship over whom. The people do not exercise dictatorship over themselves; for they have the freedom of speech,
the freedom of assembly, the freedom of association, and the freedom
to demonstrate which are written into our constitution. This is a problem of democracy. Democracy is democracy with leadership; it is
democracy under centralized leadership, not the democracy of anarchism. Anarchism is not what the people want.
ence of the proletarian dictatorship,” in which they suggested for the first time that contradictions could exist inside as well as between socialist countries. For the Pula speech, see
Paul E. Zinner, ed., National Communism and Popular Revolt in Eastern Europe (New
York, Columbia Univ. Press, 1956), pp. 516-41; for “More on... ,” see Communist China,
1955-1959: Policy Documents with Analysis (Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 1962).
The problem of big democracy [da minzhu] and little democracy
[xtao minzhu).
Some people have been delighted by the occurrence of the Hungar- | |
ian and Polish incidents: Come on, [they say,] let’s bring in big democracy! In their so-called democracy hundreds of thousands go out onto
the street seemingly delighted by this. There are a small number of people who call this big democracy; [but] as I have just said, dictatorship
is the people exercising dictatorship, a class exercising dictatorship, one
class exercising dictatorship over another. Throughout history all so called big democracy, mass democratic movements, dealt with antagonistic classes. Some of our friends outside the party, naturally few in
number, do not understand this clearly; in addition, there are a few
people with hostile feelings who hope to use big democracy [192]
somehow to punish the People’s Government. They exist. “The day
we model ourselves on Poland, model ourselves on Hungary, and punish the Communist party, I will rejoice. We can’t go on with this Communist party, the dictatorship is too severe.” One university student
issued a call. He wants to kill lots of people, to kill several hundred
people. [To say] several hundred is an underestimate; [he] wants to kill
several thousand, tens of thousands, millions, tens of millions. Of
course, this is a bit of hyperbole. Even if he is allowed to kill, I fear he
won't be able to kill quite so many! But this indicates something of
what is on his mind. In addition, there are also a few naive people who
do not understand the concrete situation in the world, who imagine
that European democratic freedoms are wonderful and that we haven't
enough of them. They like parliamentary democracy and say that the
National People’s Congress suffers in comparison with Western parliaments. [They] advocate the two-party system, like the two-party systems of foreign countries: this party on top, that party down, and then
vice versa. [They] want two news agencies in competition with each
other. Some people propose abolishing the dictatorship sooner; some
say democracy is the goal. We say to them: democracy is a means, you
can also say democracy is both democracy [an end?] and a means. But
in the final analysis Marxist political economy tells us that human
[society], this superstructure (To which category does democracy belong? It belongs to the superstructure, belongs to politics), serves the
economic base. Thus, as soon as you say democracy is a means and not
an end, then [they] don’t feel so comfortable; you’ve got to say democracy is the end before [they'll] feel a little happier.
VOMLTAAICIIONS AMON the reopie
Freedom. Some people say the freedoms in foreign countries are
wonderful and ours are very few. We say to them: freedoms abroad
are not all that numerous. Their parliamentary freedom is just a
facade for others to see, is only freedom for the bourgeoisie. There is
no freedom in the abstract, only class freedom; to see freedom in its
most concrete form, look at which class or group [has it]. In England
the Conservative party has freedom of the Conservative party, the Labour party has the freedom of the Labour party. Conservative party
freedom wants to attack the Suez Canal; the Labour party proclaims
that the Canal should not be attacked. A group of men have split
from the Conservative party, such as Anthony Eden’s assistant,
[Anthony] Nutting, Minister of State in the Foreign Office. He
wrote articles propagandizing his point of view.? Thus, [193] Eden
has Eden’s freedom, Nutting has Nutting’s. In class freedom you have
this kind of group freedom and even individual freedom for a very
small number of individuals. There has never been such a thing as abstract freedom in the world.
Ideological problems, problems among the people, cannot be
solved by crude methods. To use crude methods to resolve ideological
problems, problems in the mental realm, or problems among the people, is a mistake. All attempts to use administrative flat or compulsion
to solve ideological problems are not only ineffective, but harmful.
For instance, religion. It cannot be abolished by administrative fiat,
nor can people be compelled not to believe [in it]. [We] cannot compel
people not to believe in Idealism. In all questions of an ideological
nature, the way to make the people believe you is to use the methods
of discussion, debate, criticism, education, and persuasion.
Where do we put the national bourgeoisie? In the first type of
contradiction or the second? “More on the historical experience of
the proletarian dictatorship” did not discuss this Chinese question.
But, we all know that the national bourgeoisie cannot be put in the
first type, in the category of contradictions between the enemy and
ourselves. [This is] because the national bourgeoisie has a dual character: they are willing to accept the constitution, to accept socialist
7Anthony Nutting was a protégé of Premier Eden’s who seemed destined for a brilliant
political career, until he broke with him over the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt to
recover the Suez Canal in October-November 1956. The articles Mao refers to were written after Nutting’s resignation.
LID
transformation, to walk the road to socialism. For these reasons the |
national bourgeoisie is different from imperialism, bureaucratic capi- ; q :
talism, and feudalism. Having these differences, the national bour- 1
seoisie is willing to accept socialist transformation. The working 4
class and the capitalists, that is to say the national bourgeoisie, are 4
two antagonistic classes. They are antagonistic; but antagonistic a
contradictions, if properly handled, can become unantagonistic, they a
can be transformed into non-antagonistic contradictions, from the j
first type of contradiction into the second. If we handle them improp- q
erly, if we do not use such policies as uniting and educating, then [the ®
contradictions] must move toward antagonism. If we put them [the @
national bourgeoisie] in the first category, then we will turn them @
into the enemy. [It won’t do] to run things in defiance of reality, in a
country like China, with a national bourgeoisie like China's, [194] a
national bourgeoisie with an anti-imperialist mindset. A moment
ago I brought up this question of how to handle contradictions &
among the people. The question of how to handle contradictions
among the people is a new question. Historically, Marx and Engels
talked very little about this problem; Lenin discussed it, but briefly,
saying that while antagonism in socialist society has vanished, contradictions still exist. That is to say, what we call the antagonism has
been vanquished, the capitalist class has been knocked down, but
there are still contradictions among the people. Lenin [himself] said
contradictions among the people exist, but Lenin did not have time
enough to analyze this question fully. As for antagonism, 1s it possible for contradictions among the people to be transformed from nonantagonistic contradictions into antagonistic ones? It must be said
that it is possible; but in Lenin’s time this had not yet happened, and
perhaps he did not watch this problem carefully since he had such a
short time [as leader of the Soviet Union]. After the October Revolution, during the period when Stalin was in charge, for a long time
he confused these two types of contradictions. Problems like bad
mouthing the government, talking about the government, being dissatisfied with the government, being dissatisfied with the Communist party, criticizing the government, criticizing the Communist
party, are in origin problems among the people. But there are two
types of criticism: There is the enemy criticizing us, the enemy being
dissatisfied with the Communist party; and there are the people
criticizing us, the people being dissatisfied with us; and the two must
. “1 a.
. ie
ao
- ian
a
Contradictions among the People
be distinguished. Stalin for so many years did not make such distinctions, or rarely did. A few [comrades] who have worked in the Soviet
Union for many years have told me there were no distinctions; you
could only talk about good things, not bad; you could only sing
praises, not make criticisms; whoever made a criticism was suspected
of being an enemy and ran the risk of imprisonment or execution.
These two types of contradictions have always been easy to mix up,
easy to confuse. We, too, have sometimes failed to avoid confusing
[them]. In suppressing counterrevolutionaries we have taken, indeed
have often taken, good people for bad and rectified them, and suspected [those] who never were counterrevolutionary to be counterrevolutionaries and struggled against them. Isn’t this so: It happened in
the past and is still happening now. The point is, we have a rule:
Clearly distinguish between the enemy and ourselves; where there is
suspicion, then struggle; where there are mistakes, redress them.
Moreover, government offices and schools in the Yan’an period had a
rule: Counterrevolutionaries in offices, schools, the armed forces,
organizations, and people’s organizations, even if they were bona fide
counterrevolutionaries, were not to be killed; minor counterrevolutionaries [195] were not to be killed, nor were major ones to be
killed. In practice they carried out this rule, even though it was not
stipulated by law. Because there are exceptions to the law, a small
number of exceptions are inevitable. But in practice we did not kill.
Not even one. With this rule we are guaranteed that in the unlikely
event of a mistake, we still have room for redemption. How easy it is
to mix up Is seen, too, in the two factions, leftists and rightists. People with rightist tendencies in thought make no distinction between
the enemy and ourselves, take the enemy to be us. There are still people who make no distinction between the enemy and ourselves. We
still have such people among us now. In our view, in the view of the
broad masses, they are the enemy, [but] in the view of these few people they are friends. For example, I have a document here, a comrade
wrote me a letter and now it has been distributed to you. He opposes
the release of Kang Ze.* In his view, Kang Ze is an enemy. This person
*Kang Ze (1904-732), who had been one of the leaders of the notorious Blue Shirts groups
and a close confidant of Chiang Kai-shek, was a KMT general captured in 1948 by the CCP
armies. A Whampoa Academy graduate, he had studied in Moscow. See Lloyd Eastman, The
Abortive Revolution (Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 1974), pp. 36-7, 71-4.
[the letter-writer], who was a representative at the [second] Congress a
last December of the All-China Federation of Industry and Com- 4
merce, is from Xiangyang district.* Kang Ze previously worked in 4
Xiangyang. (He killed the [letter-writer’s] son) and so he [the letter- 3
writer] opposed Kang Ze’s release; but those who had been Kang Ze’s 1
friends had a different view; they thought and felt differently, and 4
therefore their [position] diverged greatly from that of the people. It 4
does not distinguish the enemy from us. The American moon and 4
the Chinese moon are no different, [but] some people even say the
American moon is better than the Chinese moon. I believe the American moon and the Chinese moon are the same moon, but to say the
American moon is better than the Chinese moon I just can’t believe.
Why should your moon be better than mine?
“Left” -ists, “left” opportunists. So-called “leftists” are “left” in quotation marks, not the true left. These people excessively emphasize
antagonistic contradictions between the enemy and ourselves. For example, Stalin was this kind of person; we, too, have such people who
stress [them] to excess, mistaking the second type of contradiction,
contradictions originally among the people, for the first type, mistaking them as [contradictions] between the enemy and ourselves. In the
campaign to eliminate counterrevolutionaries this emerged time and
again. As I have already said before, this is “left”. In the Yan’an period,
in 1942, we put forward the slogan of calling for unity-criticismunity as a principle for resolving contradictions among the people.
We worked out this formula. More precisely this means to start from
the desire for unity, pass through criticism or struggle, to arrive at a
new unity on a new foundation. Later, we [used this] to resolve intraparty contradictions, contradictions within the Communist party,
[196] that is, the contradiction between dogmatism and the broad
mass of party members, and the contradiction between dogmatism
and Marxism. The policy previously empioyed was the one brought
back from the Western Paradise.* That “Western Paradise” was Stalin,
>Xiangyang is a county in northern Hubei province, touching the Henan border. We do
not know who the letter-writer is.
©Mao appears to be combining at least two Buddhist allusions here: (a) the “Western Paradise” presided over by the Buddha Amitabha (E-mi-tuo-fo in Chinese); (b) the journeys to
the west (1.e., India) of Tang dynasty monks, notably Xuanzang (Hsuan-tsang), who
brought back sacred texts from the homeland of Buddhism and translated them into Chinese. The famous fantastical novel Xi you jz loosely based on Xuanzang’s exploits has now
Contradictions among the lreopie
and [the policy] was called “ruthless struggle and merciless blows.”
Seeing that this was not suitable, when we later criticized dogmatism, we discontinued using the method of “dealing with a man as he
deals with you” [1e., ‘an eye for an eye’). [We] chose another method,
another policy, which is to unite with them, to proceed from the desire for unity, to go through criticism or struggle, to achieve unity
based on a new foundation. This policy was apparently [sic] raised in
the 1942 Rectification [Movement]. After a few years, in 1945, at the
time of the Seventh Party Congress, the goal of unity was reached,
while the intervening period had been of criticism. Why do [we]
want the first unity, want to have the desire for unity? If you do not
have the first unity, do not have the desire for unity, once you start to
struggle, you will be bound to struggle to a total mess, with no way
to stop. Isn’t that still “ruthless struggle and merciless blows’? Because subjectively you didn’t have such a desire, you have not prepared to unite with them; you therefore need to go through the
process of first uniting, then criticizing and struggling, finally reaching the result of unity. From going through this process we have obtained this formula: unity-criticism-unity. Later this was extended
outside the party, [then] step by step extended to Beijing. We advised
the democratic parties also to adopt this method of criticism. ...
With capitalists, that is, exploiters, we can use this method. To get Taiwan to use [it], will, I think, be more difficult! Because they are exploiters, [but] they are a different type of exploiter. It wouldn’t work
tor Chiang Kai-shek to use it. Chiang Kai-shek and Hu Shi are of the
other type. The struggle between the two men,’ can it be like us wanting to criticize John Foster Dulles; should we start from the desire of
unity, go through criticism and on a new foundation reach unity?
Impossible. (Laughter) But it’s possible [to do so] with the national
bourgeoisie; this has been completely verified. People who have
made mistakes, people with various types of petty-bourgeois thought,
people with capitalist thought, Idealists, people with metaphysical
thought, [as well as] religious circles, in all these cases one can use this
been translated in full in Anthony C. Yu’s The Journey to the West, 4 vols., (Chicago, Univ.
of Chicago Press, 1977-83). An earlier, much abbreviated translation was published by the
late Arthur Waley under the title Monkey (London, Allen & Unwin, 1942).
This was an obscure passage, but Mao seems to be referring to his belief that the USA was
using Hu Shi to isolate Chiang Kai-shek.
method, popularize this method, [and] expand it throughout the 4
ranks of the people. Schools, factories, cooperatives, shops, all can
use this [197] method. Among a population of 600 million [it] can be |
used even with disarmed enemies, enemies who have been relieved of |
their weapons. For instance, in the past we treated prisoners of war 4
[POWs] this way. The way we treated POWs after they had been dis- q
armed as compared to before they were disarmed are two [different] |
kinds of attitude. Before they are disarmed, it’s soldier against soldier, 4
general against general, you die and I live; once they have been disarmed, we use a different attitude to handle them. With regard to q
those criminals sentenced to remolding (gaizao) through labor, we 4
also use this method, starting out from the desire for unity. A POW, 7
a disarmed enemy, a disarmed spy, whom [we] clearly recognize as q
such, we decide not to kill. So what then? Remold him. To remold is 4q
to proceed from the desire for unity. You let him live, don’t wipe him {
out. Last year, on 2 May 1956, I spoke of ten items [shi tiao] at a ses- |
sion of the Supreme State Conference. At that conference I discussed
one [set of] ten items, among which were two items (many of you q :
here today also attended that meeting); one item was the enemy and q :
ourselves; one item was right and wrong. One item was the relation- }
ship between the enemy and ourselves; one item was the relationship
between right and wrong. This relationship between right and wrong
is none other than mutual relations among the people, contradictions among the people.®
®’The text of Mao's speech to the SSC is not available in full, but the circumstances surrounding it are discussed in Origins 1, pp. 51-6. The 2 May speech officially launched the slogan,
“Tet a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend.” A brief extract is translated
in Survey of China Mainland Press 4000 (U.S. Consulate General, Hong Kong), p. 16. Mao’s
reference above to “ten items” brings to mind his closely related and more famous speech to
an expanded Politburo conference on 25 April 1956, which officially appears as “On the ten
great relationships” (Shi da guanxi), in SW5, pp. 285-307, and is discussed in Origins 1, pp.
48-51. The two items (tia0) Mao mentions, as well as his use of the term “relationship”
(guanxi) to describe them, seem to refer to items 8 and 9 from this earlier speech. Whether
there is a confusion of the April and May speeches here, or whether the same or a similar
ten-point format was used in May, as this passage implies, is unclear. In fact, the officially
printed “Ten great relationships” is apparently a conflation of these two speeches done by
Mao’s secretary, Hu Qiaomu, in 1975 in preparation for SW5. See Gong Yuzhi, “Tong Shi
Lamu jiaoshou de tanhua” (A conversation with Professor Schram), Wenxian he yanjiu:
1984 nian huibianben (Documents and research: 1984 selections) (Beijing, Renmin chubanshe, 1986), pp. 251-2.
Eliminating Counterrevolutionaries
What I have said above is part one, the beginning. The problem of
two types of contradictions.
Secondly, Tl discuss the problem of eliminating counterrevolutionaries.
ELIMINATING COUNTERREVOLUTIONARIES
The problem of eliminating counterrevolutionaries is a problem of
the first type of contradiction [i.e., between the enemy and ourselves].
Speaking comparatively, in the last analysis how has our country handled the work of eliminating counterrevolutionaries? Poorly or well?
In my view there have been shortcomings, but in comparison with
other countries we have done relatively well. Better than the Soviet
Union, better than Hungary. The Soviet Union was too leftist,
Hungary was too rightist. We have drawn a lesson from this; it’s not
that we're especially clever. Because the Soviet Union has been too
left, we have learned something from that experience. We ourselves
have committed leftist excesses, too. During the period of the southern base areas, when we were still rather ignorant, we suffered losses
and every base area without exception used the same Soviet method.?
Later [we] put things right, and only then did we gain experience. In
Yan’an [we] finally enacted some rules. Not a single person was to be
killed and the bulk [of offenders] were not to be arrested. Once in
Beijing [1e., after the 1949 Communist victory] there were some
improvements, though naturally there are still shortcomings, errors.
Still, by now progress has been made. Compared with the Soviet
Union, it is two lines!° [198] (this refers to the past, not the present,
namely the time when Stalin was in power; he did things badly).
There were two sides to him. One side was the elimination of true
counterrevolutionaries; that was the correct side. The other side was
the incorrect killing of numerous people, important people. For
example, a high percentage of delegates to the Communist Party
[National] Congress were killed. How many in the Central Committee did he kill? He seized and killed XX percent of the Seventeenth
?This refers to the late 1920s and early 1930s.
10Mao appears to be saying that the CCP and the CPSU had pursued two very different policles towards “counterrevolution,” at least until recently.
Party Congress delegates, and he seized and killed XX percent of the q
Central Committee members elected at the Seventeenth Congress.!! @m
We didn’t do this sort of thing, having seen his example. Have there
been any people unjustly killed? Yes, at the time of the great [cam- J
paign] to eliminate counterrevolutionaries [sufan], 1950, 1951, 1952, q
in those three years of the great sufan, there were. [When] killing ]
local bullies and evil gentry [tuhao lieshen] in [the campaign against] 4
the five types of counterrevolutionaries, there were. But basically 4
there were no errors; that group of people should have been killed.
In all, how many were killed? Seven hundred thousand were killed,
[and] after that time probably over 70,000 more have been killed. But
less than 80,000. Since last year, basically we have not killed people;
only a small number of individuals have been killed. So people say,
“You people are so capricious; if you had known it would come to
this, why did you start as you did? And now again you want no more
killing.” In the past four or five years we've only killed several tens of q !
thousands of people. From last year we more or less haven't killed,
only killing a small number, a few individuals. In 1950, 1951, 1952,
we killed 700,000. The Hong Kong news papers expanded that estimate (at that time we didn’t need to reckon accounts with them);
they said we killed 20,000,000. If we subtract 700,000 from
20,000,000, that really leaves a remainder of 19,300,000. They were
19,300,000 over. “The tyrant Zhou cannot really have been as wicked
as all this.”!2 How could we possibly kill 20,000,000 people? It is true
that 700,000 people were killed; [but] if they had not been killed, the
people would not have been able to raise their heads. The people
demanded [yaoqiu] the killing in order to liberate the productive
forces. They [those killed] were fetters on the productive forces. “Evil
”The CPSU 17th Party Congress was held in 1934. The excisions of the precise figures
were presumably made by the compilers of this unofficial volume. Another version of this
text in Mao zhuxi wenxian san shi pian (Thirty texts by Chairman Mao) (Beijing, Beijing
Teshu Gangchang Xuanchuan Qinwuzu, n.d.), pp. 96-7 gives figures at this point: 80% of
the delegates and 50% of the CC killed. Unfortunately that text is not currently available,
but is discussed in part (including the quotation and citation of this passage) in Schoenhals,
“Original Contradictions.”
'2The quotation refers to the notorious last ruler of the Shang whose crimes were held to
have been the reason for the collapse of the dynasty in the 12th century B.c. See Arthur
Waley, The Analects of Confucius (London, Allen and Unwin, 1938). Luo Ruiging, one-time
Minister of Public Security, reportedly said in 1964 that 4 million people had been executed
from 1948 through 1955 (a figure excluding battle deaths).
Liiminating Counterrevoiutionartes
despots’—the Eastern despot, the Southern despot, the Western despot, the Northern despot, the Central despot,'3 the backbone elements of the five types of counterrevolutionaries.
Now a few people want to reverse this verdict, a few friends want
to reverse this verdict. It’s wrong to reverse the verdict of that time; I
don’t think it is worth reversing. If it is reversed, the people will rise
up and strike us with their carrying poles, the peasants will rise up
and strike us with their carrying poles, the workers will grab some
weapon, grab iron bars and beat us.
[199] Hungary, for instance, Hungary basically did not eliminate
counterrevolutionaries. They killed Rajk; [they] actually killed some
revolutionaries but very few counterrevolutionaries.'* Thus emerged
the Hungarian Incident. Looking at our country, following incidents
like that in Hungary, people say conditions in China are very stable.
Foreigners who have seen [things] here also agree, [and] we, too, feel
this way.
Since the Hungarian incident, has China had any disturbances?
We have had a few small disturbances. “A breeze about to rise
blows ripples over a pool of spring water.”!5 Those spring waters
were whipped up, but there were no great waves like that sucked up
by a force-7 typhoon. For what reason? Several reasons. The cam-
‘>The term is e ba or ba tian. Ba is normally translated as “hegemon”; but in this case Mao
is not referring to the ancient warlords but employing a popular term for “local despot”
used in a series of Peking operas, such as the operas based on the Qing novel, Shi gong an
(Cases of Lord Shi), of which one was Si ba tian (The four celestial despots). This usage of
ba tian was current among peasants to describe village despots during the early 1950s campaigns against counterrevolutionaries. |
147 4szl6 Rajk was hanged in 1949 after a Soviet-style show trial, at which the former Politburo member and Interior Minister made the unlikely confession that he had plotted with
Tito to overthrow the Soviet-backed Budapest regime and take Hungary out of the communist bloc. Like similar high-ranking victims in other East European countries at that
time, Rajk was a scapegoat in Stalin’s drive against the specter of “national communism” in
the wake of Yugoslavia’s defiance of his orders and expulsion from the bloc in 1948. See
Hugh Seton-Watson, “Introduction,” in Melvin J. Lasky, ed., The Hungarian Revolution
(London, Secker & Warburg, 1957), pp. 18-9; and Ernst Halperin, The Triumphant Heretic
(London, Heinemann, 1958), pp. 188-95. In the Chinese text, Mao actually says “he” killed
some revolutionaries, which could conceivably refer to Rajk’s activities as Interior Minister;
but the sense of the passage is clearly that Rajk was one of the wrongly executed revolutionaries and that ta (“he”) should be read tamen (“they”).
l> Feng zhaqi chui zhou yichi chunshui. This is a quotation from the Five Dynasties period
poet Feng Yansi (903-960). The translation is from Daniel Bryant, Lyric Poets of the Southern Tang (Vancouver, Univ. of British Columbia Press, 1982), p. 35. The same phrase ts mentioned again by Mao below on p. 206 of the Chinese text.
paign against counterrevolutionaries basically eliminated the counter- 4
revolutionaries; only a few remained, only a very, very few. This is 4
one [reason]. But this is not the primary reason! Primarily [because]
the base areas, the Liberation Army, the Communist party, and the 4
democratic figures have emerged from decades of revolutionary steel- 3
ing; coming out of decades of steeling through struggle, our party has 4
taken root, our army has fighting power, we have passed through the
gradual development of the base areas, [and] did not suddenly take {
control of China. Democratic figures, too, have gone through steel- 4
ing, have shared the hardships. Students have [participated in] in the
December Ninth [Movement], the September Eighteenth [Incident],
the May Thirtieth Movement, the boycott of Japanese goods, [and] |
the May Fourth Movement. Beginning with the May Fourth Movement, various kinds of student movements have been in the antiimperialist tradition. The what-you-call-it, the people's vanguard 4
corps, were the first. They were the first to become steeled during the
long period of struggle against imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism,
and feudalism. The people have learned [from this]; the intellectuals,
too, have learned [from this]; the self-education of intellectuals is
none other than self-transformation. But Hungary doesn’t have this.
The second [reason] is our virtual elimination of counterrevolutionaries; naturally there are otler reasons, as well. For example, [our]
economic measures, our policy towards the national bourgeoisie: [the
policy of] uniting with the national bourgeoisie, uniting with the
democratic parties. Now in our universities, what is the composition
of the student body? Even now 80 percent are the sons and daughters of
landlords, rich peasants, and capitalists. But Hungary’s university students are 60 percent the sons and daughters of workers and peasants.
The sons and daughters of the workers and peasants are big on going
on strike, big on demonstrating, listening to the orders of the “Petofi
Circle.”!¢ Our [200] sons and daughters of landlords, rich peasants,
and capitalists—we don’t have a “Pet6fi Circle,” naturally—love their
country. Except for a very few who mouth strange words, complain,
and advocate big democracy, advocate killing people, the great major-
‘6This writers’ organization, named after a 19th century revolutionary poet who became a
symbol of Hungarian nationalism, played a leading role in demanding democratic reforms
in the months leading up to the Hungarian revolt; see Lasky, pp. 21, 47. Mao became quite
obsessive about the Petofi Circle syndrome.
Lltiminaiing Counterrevotutionaries
ity are patriots, [who] approve of socialism, [and] want to make
China into a great nation; [and because they] have this kind of ideal,
we are better off than Hungary. Comparatively speaking, our elimination of counterrevolutionaries was not as leftist as the Soviet
Union’s, and not as rightist as Hungary’s. Our policy is, Purge counterrevolutionaries, correct errors; if there are counterrevolutionaries,
they must be eliminated; if there are mistakes, they must be corrected!
Have there been excesses? Yes. Have there been omissions? Again,
yes. Excesses and omissions both exist. The line we pursued relied on
the masses to purge counterrevolutionaries. This line naturally has its
defects, but in the main it is better... the masses have gained experience, in the midst of struggle the masses have gained experience. [If]
a mistake is made, the masses gain the experience of making a mistake; it is known as making a mistake; [if] things get done right, [then
the masses] gain the experience of getting things done right. We hope
that these mistakes in the work of eliminating counterrevolution will
be corrected. The Communist Party Central Committee has already
adopted measures to rectify these defects. We propose that this year
and next year (if possible these two years; if it is done well, then it can
be completed this year) to carry out a great investigation, an overall
investigation, a summing up of experience. [In the case of investigations in] central [organizations], the standing committee of the
National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Congress will take charge [zhuchi]; [in] the localities the standing committees of provincial and municipal People’s Congresses and
Political Consultative Congresses will take charge. Individual investigation may not be effective, [where we wait for] someone to write a
letter saying he has a problem and then make an investigation. Our
current goal is, first, not to pour cold water on [cadres]; [and],
second, to help them. To throw cold water on the majority of cadres
is not good. [If one says,] “[You’re] all wrong,” “It was you who did
things wrong,” the result will be that no cadre will dare to raise his
head. First, don’t pour cold water. Second, whenever a mistake
occurs, it certainly must be corrected, that mistake must be corrected. This includes [mistakes in the work of] the Ministry of Public
Security and the Ministry of Supervision.!” Also the departments in
7 The latter ministry was formed in 1954 from the People’s Supervision Committee. It was
abolished in 1959 with no indication that its functions were being assumed by a new body.
charge of remolding through labor have numerous defects.1® The
standing committee of the National People’s Congress and the standing committee of the CPPCC are to be charged [with the conduct of
the investigations]; moreover, we hope members of these standing
committees, the National People’s Congress representatives, and
CPPCC committee members, can also join in; specifically, all who
can manage it can join in the investigation and make a comprehensive investigation. This will help our legal work. In local regions
there are regional People’s Congress representatives and [201] Political Consultative Congress committee members to join in.
There are still counterrevolutionaries, but not many. These are
two sentences expressing two things. Firstly there are still counterrevolutionaries. Some people say there aren’t, the world is already peaceful and tranquil. We can stack the pillows high, high.!? This does not
accord with reality. On the globe there is a China, China has a Beljing, Beijing has an Institute of Aeronautics, the Institute of Aeronautics has a Communist party branch in it, the Communist party
branch has a deputy secretary—what is this man called? We ought to
let this man’s name be known (off stage [somebody yelled]: Ma Yunfeng). Ma Yunfeng wrote a slogan: It said, “Oppose the Soviet Union
sending troops into Hungary.” Not only did he, a branch deputy secretary, not consult with the party committee, he [also] secretly wrote
numerous posters, [and] pasted them up everywhere. In reality this
Communist party member was approving a counterrevolutionary insurrection, approving Western nations going in to “assist” Hungary.
Therefore we must afirm, there are still counterrevolutionaries.
Excesses and omissions both exist. A person like him is not necessarily
counterrevolutionary, [although] he has reactionary thoughts; later
this man was expelled from the party. But he was still kept there [at
the Aeronautical Institute] to study. Even though he has reactionary
See Klein and Clark 2, p. 1113. Its abolition may have reflected the generally tougher handling of political crimes after the Anti-Rightist Campaign.
18Mao uses “remolding through labor” twice. Possibly he meant to specify both “remolding through labor” (/ao gai) and “rehabilitation through labor” (/zo jiao). For the difference
between these punishments, see Jerome Alan Cohen, The Criminal Process in the People’s
Republic of China, 1949-1963: An Introduction (Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 1968), pp.
258, 260.
1° This refers to the Chinese idiom, gao zhen wu you (“to sleep on high pillows without anxiety,” “free from cares”) originating in the Zhan Guo Ce (Stories of the warring states).
Lliiminating Counterrevoiuitonaries
behavior, to say he is a man sent over by Chiang Kai-shek or some
such is not right. [We have] discovered many reactionary posters, in
Beijing’s schools. Factories and schools both have them. Therefore
“che theory of the nonexistence of counterrevolution,” or the idea
that all under heaven is at peace, this idea is wrong. Secondly: but not
many [counterrevolutionaries exist]. That is, counterrevolutionaries
are very few. These two aspects must both be afhrmed. If [you] say
there are still many counterrevolutionaries now, this opinion is incorrect; the result of it will be to cause chaos. When I say [from] ten
fingers, take away nine, [and] at least one is left over, it doesn’t mean
there are still 10 percent counterrevolutionaries.?° It could be [that
there are] only 1 percent counterrevolutionaries; [if] there are 100
counterrevolutionaries, it could be only 0.1 percent; in sum, not
many.
Should there be a general amnesty? A general amnesty involves
many problems. [Some] friends are interested [in this]. I am in general not a supporter of this [idea]; [I am] a negative element.
(Laughter) So it is hard to avoid a tiny bit of friction with a few
friends. A general amnesty should never be granted. The constitution
stipulates [this]. Since you serve as Chairman, how could you not
abide by the constitution? I say, there is no need to use this term. In
fact, a general amnesty is possible; but there is no need to use the
term, general amnesty, [in which case] all counterrevolutionaries
must be released at once. [202] If there is a general amnesty, then it
must include Kang Ze, Wang Yaowu, the Xuantong Emperor [Pu
Yi], Du Yuming.?! [If] these men are all to be released, the common
2°The nine fingers/one finger formula was one of Mao's favorite devices for minimizing
problems. Here he clearly feels the need to elaborate in order to prevent hard-liners from
taking him literally.
2lFor Kang Ze, see n. 4 above. Wang Yaowu was an ineffective Nationalist general whose
half-hearted leadership as governor of Shandong contributed greatly to the loss of that province to communist forces in 1948. See Jacques Guillermaz, A History of the Chinese Communist Party, 1921-1949 (London, Methuen, 1972), p. 403; Lloyd E. Eastman, Seeds of
Destruction (Stanford, Stanford Univ. Press, 1984), pp. 163, n. 14, 261-2. Pu Y1 was the last
emperor of the Qing dynasty, whose abdication in February 1912 brought the imperial era
to a close. In 1934, he became “emperor” of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (Manchuria). After World War II, he was imprisoned by the Russians and in 1950 handed over
to the new Chinese Communist government. After ten years of imprisonment (labor
remolding) as a war criminal (toward the end of which he was frequently offered for interview to foreign visitors as an example of the regime’s magnanimity), he was pardoned at the
end of 1959. He became a member of the National Committee of the CPPCC and wrote
people will surely oppose it. Even now, criminals undergoing remolding through labor are saying, “You have pardoned all the big counterrevolutionaries, why haven’t you pardoned me?” The criminals all
speak this way. [If there is an amnesty] the courts will have no work
to do, the procuratorial organs, too, will not be needed, because even
Kang Ze can be pardoned! Some people say, “Even Taiwan can be pardoned, even Chiang Kai-shek can be pardoned, so why can’t people
like Kang Ze be pardoned?” Who pardoned Chiang Kai-shek? There
is no pardon for him, the National People’s Congress has not decided
to pardon Chiang Kai-shek! [What] we really did was to propose to
Chiang Kai-shek, If you rise in revolt, you will become in insurrectionary general, [and] then [you] will have [earned] the right to receive a pardon. You people on the Taiwan side must revolt. Now we
don’t say bandit Chiang, [or] “Bandit clique of Chiang Kai-shek,” but
he is different: Daily [he] calls us “communist bandits,” [and] he’s not
polite to the democratic personages, either, calling them “traitors,”
for example “Traitor Zhang Zhizhong”? and such like are published
in the newspapers.
So we can’t release [people]. Does that mean we can never release
[them]? Of course not. I think, [they] should be released slowly.
Secretly release one, openly release another; today release one, tomorrow release another. In any event, we don’t put it in the papers nor
his autobiography: Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi, From Emperor to Citizen, 2 vols. (Peking, Foreign
Languages Press, 1964, 1965). His life was recently depicted in the award-winning Bertolucci film, The Last Emperor. Du Yuming, one of Chiang Kai-shek’s favorite generals, was
captured while trying to escape from the battleground in Jan. 1949 after surrendering the
Nationalist rearguard to theCCommunists in the Huai-Hai campaign. See BDRC 4, pp.
326-8; and J. A. Fyfield, Re-educating Chinese Anti-Communists (New York, St. Martin's
Press, 1982), pp. 13-7. This latter volume also has a chapter (pp. 56-66) on Fushan prison
where Pu Yi was held. Wang, Pu Yi, and Du were all pardoned along with many others at
the same time (Pu Yi, p. 477).
427 hang Zhizhong, a leading Nationalist general, was close enough to Chiang Kai-shek to
be entrusted by him with negotiating with Zhou Enlai in the abortive talks at the end of
World War II. In early 1949, he led a mission to negotiate peace in the civil war; but when
the Communist terms were rejected by acting president Li Zongren, Zhang bowed to the inevitable, stayed on in Beiping (as it was then called), and later helped the Communists take
over his former bailiwick, the Northwest. At the time of Mao’s speech in 1957, he was a
member of the standing committees of the NPC and the CPPCC, and the holder of the
PRC’s Order of Liberation, First Class. Zhang’s autobiography, Wo yu gongchan dang (The
Communist party and I) (Beijing, Wenshi ziliao) appeared in 1980. See also BDRC 1, pp.
41-6.
Socialist Transformation
(do we] send down a directive. [The release of] a small number of
famous names will be considered in the future. For example, how
should one handle the Xuantong emperor? He is the emperor, my direct superior. (Laughter) People over the age of forty or fifty are all
his subordinates, all his people; but this Xuantong emperor has also
offended the people. In the future he can be released, but now he
cant be released. At present there still can’t be any general amnesty. A
pardon is of no benefit to him; [it] is of no benefit to Kang Ze, either,
nor to Du Yuming. The people will not [understand the release of
these men]. We can invite them out for a visit to see the Gate of
Heavenly Peace, the big Wuhan bridge, the factories and the villages.
The Xuantong emperor has [been out and] seen things and Kang Ze,
too.?? Study, education, read the papers, research. We can think about
whether it’s possible to find a bit of work to give them to do. [One
can] even give them a little work inside prison. Gradually release
those few criminals who have reasonably thoroughly repented.
Those who have repented reasonably thoroughly, the ones whose
crimes were not serious, gradually release them. Release [them] in
this manner from now on; don’t print it in the papers, because this is
a problem concerning the people; [otherwise] the peasants will grab
their poles and the workers will grab their iron bars [203] and attack;
we won't be able to stand it, our hands lacking the strength to truss
a chicken. This 1s the second question.
SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION
Third is the question of socialist transformation. [I] will discuss just
a few points; one question is collectivization.?* Since the second half
of last year, after the high tide of the first half of the year, people have
coolly reflected, and a few questions have emerged. In the first half of
the year the superiority [of the APCs] was immense, by the second
half of the year the superiority of the APCs became very small; a
*3Pu Yi was permitted a three-day inspection visit in Fushan early in 1956 and another
longer one, again in the Northeast, in the second half of 1957; see Pu Yi, vol. 2, pp. 408-16,
444-53, The justification for pardoning him and Nationalist generals in 1959 was magnanimity on the occasion of the PRC’s 10th anniversary; ibid., pp. 466-7.
*4The term is actually cooperativization (hezuohbua), for Chinese collective farms were
called Agricultural Producers’ Cooperatives (APC). For the significance of the collectivist
high tide of 1955-6, see Origins 1, p. 15 ff.
wind arose, not a typhoon, but a breeze which carried the message,
Collectivization won't work! Among the documents distributed
today, one concerns the Wang Guofan APC; please look at it.25 Here
[we] lack a bad, a bad model. In the future [we] should search for a
few [different] types of models; [here] is a good model, it is the best
model of arduous struggle. APCs must certainly be established
through arduous struggle; every undertaking has difficulties, [and]
the growth of newly emerging things [xinsheng shiwu}* must proceed through twists and turns, must undergo criticism. People are
not accustomed to collective life; collective life is an unaccustomed
thing to people, especially well-to-do middle peasants. Well-to-do middle peasants are the most unaccustomed. Who are the people who
support APCs? The poor peasants and the lower middle peasants.
Who are the people dissatisfied with collectivization? In addition to
the landlords and rich peasants, it is the well-to-do middle peasants.
Those who are very dissatisfied with cooperatives are only about 1
percent of the entire peasantry in some places, in some places [they]
are 2 percent, in some places 3 percent, in some places 5 percent,
[but] in all it is only a few percent. Because in the first few years
when a well-to-do middle peasant is in a cooperative it does not live
up to his expectations, it’s worse than when he worked on his own,
because he can’t hire laborers! He can no longer hire labor, neither
long-term nor short-term hands! So, how long will it take for the
APCs to be consolidated? The great majority of APCs in existence
throughout the country have a history of only one year, just last
year, [plus] the winter of the year before. In a history of only a bit
more than a year, how can we demand that they be perfect? This just
won't do. Only gradually can they be consolidated. Probably five
years will be needed; last year was one year, [so] four more years beginning with this year. For example, the Wang Guofan cooperative
has been in existence for five years. This cooperative which is in Zunhua county, Hebei province, near the Great Wall and Rehe, is com-
25The Wang Guofan or “paupers” APC was one of Mao's favorite examples for showing
what could be done with determination and hard work. The document distributed at this
meeting was probably an updated version of the chapter in Socialist Upsurge in China’s
Countryside (Peking, Foreign Languages Press, 1957), pp. 11-6. The Chinese edition of this
book, which Mao edited personally, appeared in January 1956.
This term was often used approvingly by Mao’s propagandists, such as Yao Wenyuan, in
the Cultural Revolution, and earlier in the 1964 attacks on Zhao Shuli.
socialist Lransformatton
pletely consolidated.?” Have there been changes for the better in the
lives of the peasants? There have been changes for the better. In the
-past seven years, starting from 1950, in the past seven years grain
[production] has increased by [204] 140 billion catties of grain; in
1949 there were only 220 billion catties of grain. The output of grain
nationwide by the peasants increased by 140 billion in the past seven
years. At present we have 360 billion catties of grain; last year we had
369 billion catties of grain.” So the life of the peasants has changed
considerably for the better. To say that the lite of the peasants has not
changed for the better does not accord with the tacts. For some peasants, life has not changed for the better; households lacking grain are
probably around 10 percent, in some areas 15 percent, in some areas
a few percent. I think it will take three or four years for the households lacking grain gradually to disappear. Didn't we say the consolidation of the APCs would take five years? After five years,
households lacking grain will have disappeared. Later, the state
monopoly for purchasing and marketing fof grain] will become a
monopoly only for purchasing and not marketing, [and] we will no
longer sell grain to the peasants. We are prepared in the next few years
not to increase the amount of our purchases of grain, [that is] to increase production [but] not purchases. How much grain is in the
hands of the peasants now? 360 billion catties. The small part [of production] that the state collected as land tax was nothing but a tiny
portion; the largest portion was paid for, was obtained through purchases. Taxes and purchases, the land tax and grain purchases together, added up last year to 80.2 billion catties. Of the 320 billion
catties [sic], the state had in its hands 80.2 billion catties. How much
(of that] did the state sell in the villages? In the entire nation [to the]
households lacking grain and peasants in disaster areas—for instance,
peasants who grow cotton—[we] sold only 39 billion [to] 40 billion catties; the [remainder of] 80 billion catties [went to] cities and exports.
*7Zunhua county is some 95 miles East North East of Beijing. “Rehe” was the old province
in that area (now divided between Liaoning and Hebei provinces), a name which would
have been familiar to Mao’s generation of Chinese, who would have composed the bulk of
his audience.
28 A jin or cattie is approximately one pound or half a kilo in weight. Thus, 140 billion catties would be about 70 million tons, 369 billion catties about 185 million tons. Mao ts
clearly hazy about the precise 1956 output which was officially estimated at 365 billion catties; see Jen Great Years (Peking, Foreign Languages Press, 1960), p. 119.
Exports were only 3.8 billion catties, [or] 4 billion catties; the total of q
grain consumed or stored by urban people was only 40 billion catties 4
or a little more. In the next two or three years, if only this much
grain is levied, then the peasants will all become prosperous; they
will be able to raise more pigs, raise more draught animals; the peasants will be able to put a part [of the grain] in reserves. Thus, to say
the life of the peasants has not changed for the better, to complain of
the hardship of the peasants, [saying that] the bitter cries of the peasants [can be heard] everywhere, is incorrect, it’s impossible. We have
a few cadres who also cry out [about this hardship]. Some of them in
reality represent the well-to-do middle peasants. Because [when] these
cadres have a little money, they send some home, a little this year, a
little next year, within a few years their families will get rich and
become well-to-do middle peasants. Well-to-do middle peasants complain the most, [and this] influences our cadres; democratic personages are influenced by them, too, and they probably have relatives
and friends among these people. This deserves analysis. [Among]
democratic personages, Communist party [members], and non-party
[members], there are some who've joined [with the well-to-do middle
peasants] in crying out that APCs are not [205] superior. I think
[APCs] are still superior. If you don’t believe it, take a look at the
Wang Guofan cooperative. Why haven't Hungary and Poland made
collectivization work? In Poland only 6 percent of the peasant population joined collectives. A gust of wind blew away most of them.
One speech by Gomulka toppled them. Of over ten thousand collectives, only a few more than a thousand survived, 90 percent were
blown away. There are many reasons why in our country so quick a
collectivization was possible: First, the most basic reason is the lack
of land and the large population. [So] terribly large [is the population
that} everyone has very little land, [and] combining [it] 1s better.
Second, are the steps taken by our party and People’s Government.
Because [we] did it step by step, in several steps, our process of collectivization was different from the Soviet Union’s. For several years
their collectivization instead of increasing production kept bringing
it down. Our collectivization increased production; for example, last
year we increased production by 2 billion catties. Aside trom the complaints of well-to-do middle peasants, which have influenced comrades inside and outside of the party, there is still a partial reason [for
legitimate complaint] and that is peasants are truly [suffering] bitterfransformaiton of Capitalism
ness, namely the few percent of households lacking grain which I just
mentioned. There is yet another [reason for complaint] and that is
the comparison of town and country. Wages in the urban areas are
relatively higher. Currently the average annual income of peasants 1s
60 yuan; there are some above 60 yuan, there are some below 60
yuan, for example 50 yuan, 40 yuan [which] are still acceptable, [but]
30 yuan is not enough; still there are [annual incomes of] 20 yuan
[or] 17 yuan. [For] a family of four [if each member gets only] 17
yuan, 4 times 7 give 28, [it] will have to live on 68 yuan for an entire
year.?? [This] is the most bitter case, but there are instances [of annual
income] which could be as high as 100 yuan and more. Are there
cases of [earning] more than 200 yuan? There are cases of [earning]
200 yuan and more. There are [even] cases of one man [getting] 1,000
yuan, so a household of four will get 4,000 yuan. After a few years,
you will see, the peasants will become richer than the workers. Workers, you see, except for some unskilled labor and temporary work for
which wages are inappropriate, [get] 80 yuan a month as soon as they
come to the city. Some of these wages are inappropriate. Compare
this with the peasants, and, the peasants get upset. But the city and
the countryside are two kinds of life. For example, in the countryside
if every person has 50 or 60 yuan in cash, in a year a household [ot
four] will have 240 renminbi, and one can get along [nicely] on that.
In one area [individual income] has been calculated at 48 yuan in
cash, each person with an income of 48 yuan; a household with four
people each [earning] 48 yuan, would lead a very good life. In the
rural villages there are lots of things that one doesn’t have to buy
with cash, while in the city, everything requires money. Thus, they
are two [different] situations, [and] [206] to confuse these two situations is inappropriate.
TRANSFORMATION OF CAPITALISM
Fourthly, concerning the transformation®® of capitalism. I haven't
researched [this], but my nose has smelled out something, so [I'll] say
2°Here Mao first multiplies the units column of 4 x 17 (ie. 4 x 7 = 28) and in the next
phrase gives the full product, 68.
30Tn the following passage, we have translated the Chinese term gaizao by either “transformation” or “remold” according to what seems the more appropriate English term.
LJ
a few words here. In the area of the transformation of capitalism |
there is also a small wind; once again it’s “A breeze about to rise j
blows ripples over a pool of spring water.” What it says is that capi- 4
talists need not be remolded, [that they] are more or less like the %
workers, even to the point of saying that the capitalists are a bit wiser 4
than the workers. There are some people who talk like this; naturally #
it 1s possibly [only] a small number of people who have this type of |
thought: “If transformation is needed, why does the working class
not remold?” Who says the working class doesn’t need to remold?
The working class needs to remold. In the course of class struggle the
working class not only transforms society but also itself. This is
what Engels said. In the course of class struggle the working class not
only remolds other people, [it] also remolds itself. Moreover, if the
proletariat does not liberate the whole of humanity, then they themselves cannot be liberated. They [the proletariat] make overall plans
taking all factors into consideration [tongchou jiangu]; this is a strategic objective. Speaking of our China, if the population of 600 million is not liberated, well, then, the working class itself cannot be
liberated. Thus, in the course of class struggle all are remolded, for
example, we who are present here [today]; every year we make some
progress, [and] this is also one type of transformation. I myself originally was an intellectual, had all kinds of thought. Mr. Shirob
Jaltso,>! [following] your Buddhism we prayed to bodhisattvas; once |
also made a pilgrimage to the Southern Peak,>2 to fulfill my mother’s
promise; I believed in anarchism. Hey! That anarchism is great; [I]
also believed in the Idealism of Kant. You see what a complicated
man I am. Only later did Marxism really penetrate me, change my
mind; we call this remolding which is achieved mainly in the course
of class struggle. During past decades have the capitalists been so wise
that they don’t have to remold even a little bit? I don’t think so. Even
I need to remold [myself.] Don’t you need to remold [yourselves]?
(Laughter) Do you not have a two-sided character? [Do you really]
have only a one-dimensional character? That is a metaphysical view-
*1Shirob Jaltso was a Tibetan Living Buddha and chairman of the Chinese Buddhist Association. As a major non-communist “personage” and a member of both the NPC and the
CPPCC, he was an obvious invitee for a session of the Supreme State Conference. For more
details about him, see Klein and Clark 2, pp. 766-8.
>*Hengshan, which Mao calls by its alternative name, Nanyue shan, is one of the five
sacred peaks in China, in Hunan not far from Mao’s home village.
t
a
i
Ce ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ae eee eee ee
lransformation of Capttatism
point. With only a one-dimensional character, analysis of material
things is impossible. There are always weak points. The theory of the
two aspects.?3 Strong points, weak points. Moreover, the roots of the
capitalist class have not been severed; the capitalist class has not yet
removed [its] cap; it still requires a period of thought remolding
(before] the cap can be removed. If the theory [advocating] the abollition [of remolding] wins, then the capitalist class will have no more
responsibility to study. [But] now all of us study! Even government
people [207] are studying! [If] on the other hand, the capitalist class
doesn’t need to study, then it is unnecessary to have those short term
training institutes. This does not conform with the wishes of the
majority of industrialists and merchants. They are willing to study.
Study for forty days and return to the factory [and] things take on an
entirely new look; there is [now] a common language.* Private and
public representatives previously were like square pegs in round
holes—you are a capitalist, I am a public representative, both people
are very polite, seemingly in harmony but actually at odds, on the
same bed but dreaming different dreams. Now are you considered a
capitalist or am I a capitalist? Am I [really] considered a capitalist?
Since I came back from the forty-day training course, [we] have had a
common language. Some people become afraid as soon as they hear
the word remolding. We have such people. This thing, remolding,
the Americans call it brainwashing. We call [it] remolding. I think
the Americans are the real brainwashers, Americans can really do a
eood job of washing [brains]. We here are a bit more civilized. According to this kind of discussion {1.e., that remolding is unnecessary], the
constitution will need to be changed; for in the constitution it says
the alliance between workers and peasants which is led by the working class is the basis of the people’s democratic dictatorship, [but in
this view] they are all the same. Not only are the workers the same as
the peasants, [they] are moreover the same as the capitalists. Thus,
the leadership of the proletariat will be abolished. I have just now
made clear that this is not the opinion of most people. It 1s what a
tew people say.
*3Liangdian lun. | | -
34 frer the incorporation of all private enterprise into the state sector in early 1956, bustnessmen were sent on ideological courses to ensure that their thinking was in tune with the
new era; see Robert Loh and Humphrey Evans, Escape from Red China (London, Michael
Joseph, 1963), pp. 158-66.
LOD
INTELLECTUALS AND STUDENT YOUTH
Fifth, the question of intellectuals. and student youth. We said earlier ]
that our 600 million people have made great progress; the national
bourgeoisie has made great progress; the workers have progressed; the
peasants have made great progress; the intellectuals and student 4
youth, as well, have made great progress, but [they] also have incorrect thought, evil winds, too; [there] have been some disturbances.
Since the occurrence of the Hungarian incident there have been {
some strange discussions. As I have already said, disgust with Marxism, only wanting to perfect one’s professional capabilities, talking
about the future [in terms of] earning one’s salary, which is simply in
order to eat; in addition to this there is also taking a wife, taking a
husband. In general [they] live for these two things: one, to eat; the
other, to have children. As to any politics, any future or ideals, that’s
not important. It seems as if this Marxism was popular for a while,
[but] from the latter half of last year it has become less fashionable!
Since weak points do exist, [we] must strengthen ideological work,
strengthen political work. Among our youth, among the intellectuals, self-remolding needs to be furthered; [we] still need to bring up
[the question of] remolding, [we] should not avoid this [question of]
remolding. In the past such [208] thought remolding was a bit rough,
in some cases people got hurt. Now [we] don’t want to carry out that
kind of remolding. Study diligently; aside from [making progress in
one’s] specialty, make progress ideologically, progress also politically,
study a bit of Marxism, study a bit of current affairs, study a bit of
politics; these things are very necessary. If [you] don’t have these
things, then [you] won't have a soul. [It is maintained by some that]
if [you] study only that single specialty, [you'll] never run out of
[food] to eat. No political work, don’t do political work. Recently
political and ideological work have weakened, the education departments do not supervise political work. If the education departments
do not supervise it, who will? The Ministry of Higher Education
should supervise political work. I think the Communist party
should supervise [it], the Youth League should supervise [it], the
administrative departments should supervise political [work]. What
used to be moral education, intellectual education, [and] physical education, we have now changed to two educations. Intellectual education is devoted to intellectual education; beyond that add a little
increasing Froduction and fracticing Economy
mnastics, that’s called physical education. Moral education is discarded. So-called moral education is to study a bit of Marxism, to
study a bit of politics, to study a bit of this sort of thing.
INCREASING PRODUCTION
AND PRACTICING ECONOMY
Sixth, increase production and practice economy and oppose extravagance and waste. [You say,] Yet again! Haven’t we put it right
[already]? Now once again [we] oppose extravagance and waste. All
the Communist party [does] is this stuff; moreover, [they’ve] figured
out that the Communist party after all can only do this stuff, after a
few months there'll be no problem [1.e., it will pass]! Now we have
this kind of talk, is this true or not? I think it is partially true. The
one time of genuine opposition [to extravagance and waste] was the
Three-Antis.35> During the Three-Antis extravagance and waste, [and]
corruption and degeneration were combatted, [but] the fight didn't
continue after that. One year the practice of economy was championed, but what was being economized? That was economizing on
non-productive basic construction, lowering standards; in the year
before last it saved over 2 billion [yuan], a lot of cash. But in some
areas the economization was inappropriate, with the result that the
engineering projects were no good; [it was] excessive economizing. In
addition, the economizing in the area of materials for production
went so far as to lower quality; that is, the quality of basic construction was lowered [and] the quality of production [in general] was lowered. These were the shortcomings of that time; but the
accomplishment was great: over 2 billion [yuan] was saved. Other
[work units] generally did not economize; [government] ofhces,
schools, factories, cooperatives, commercial systems, and transportation systems all did not institute [economizing]. Now we. want to
champion economizing; now we want to launch a nationwide movement to increase production and practice economy [and] to oppose
>>The “Three-Antis,” or sanfan campaign was launched in August 1951 against corruption,
waste, and bureaucratism within official ranks. From January 1952, it was merged into a
“Five-Antis” (wufan) campaign against bribery, tax evasion, stealing of state property, cheating on government contracts, and stealing state economic intelligence, mainly on the part
of businessmen; see A. Doak Barnett, Communist China: The Early Years, 1949-55 (New
York, Praeger, 1964), pp. 131-71.
1538 TEXT THREE
extravagance and waste. In this way, as we put it into effect now, @m
tables, chairs and benches [1.e., office furniture] are not bought any @@
more; carpets—nobody wants ‘em. I’ve got some carpets [209] for %
sale, are there any customers here at the meeting? I think if you [the
customers] don’t want them, then there’s nothing I can do. Everybody champions the increase of production and the practice of econ- 3
omy; I’ve got loads of carpets—[it’s] scandalous. Now opposition to 4
[extravagance and waste] applies to me! This time [the opposition to
extravagance and waste] could be implemented a bit more thoroughly.
If it’s not completed this year, do it again next year. I'll make an analogy; it’s like washing your face. How does each of you wash your face,
do you wash it once a week? (Laughter) Most of the folks I know
wash their face once a day, at least. Some wash it several times a day.
For what reason? Why wash the same face day after day; what are
they up to? Does it increase production or [improve] the practice of
economy? It’s for nothing more than making one’s face look a little
better, making your honorable visage a bit better. Washing your face
once a day, no matter if it’s communist or non-communist everybody does it! It’s not because the communists champion face washing that one does it; ever since ancient times [we've been] washing
our faces! The current opposition to extravagance and waste, this
thing is equivalent to washing your face. People indeed regularly . {
want to wash their face. People are not [like] other animals; other animals do not wash. People are superior animals, so they want to wash
their face. Our party, various political parties among the democratic
parties, democratic figures without party [afhliation], intellectuals,
industrialists and merchants, the working class, peasants, artisans—a
population of 600 million. Let’s champion the practice of economy.
Now it’s not being done to standard, [because] for many people no
more has developed than the thought of winning a promotion and
getting rich. Last year’s grading [of cadres] created a problem. The
grading served nothing more than a scramble for fame and profit.
Vie for a name at court, scramble for profit in the market.?”
For a brief description of the regime’s regularization of the system of cadre grades in
1956, see A. Doak Barnett, Cadres, Bureaucracy, and Political Power in Communist China
(New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 1967), pp. 41-3.
37Mao uses a common saying here, zheng ming yu chao, duo li yu shi.
Uverait Consideration and rroper Arrangements
OVERALL CONSIDERATION AND
PROPER ARRANGEMENTS
Seventh, unified planning with due consideration for all concerned
[and] appropriate arrangements.°** This is a strategic policy. The so called unified planning with due consideration for all concerned 1s
(aimed at] the population of 600 million. All the comrades [present]
are responsible comrades, taking responsibility for the nation. Our
plans, work, [and] thinking all should start from the [awareness] that
we have a population of 600 million. Our nation which has such a
large population, this is something other nations in the world do not
have; ours has so many people, a population of 600 million. Here
[we] need birth control; it would be great [if we] could lower the
birth [rate] a bit. [We] need planned births. I think humanity is most
inept at managing itself. It has plans for industrial production, the
production of textiles, the production of household goods, the production of steel; [but] it does not have plans for the production of
humans. This is anarchism, no government, no organization, no
rules. (Loud laughter) If [we] go on this way, I [210] think humanity
will prematurely fall into strife and hasten toward destruction. If
China’s population of 600 million increases tenfold, what will that
be? Six billion: at that time [we] will be near destruction. There'll be
nothing to eat; and with advances in hygiene, sanitation, inoculations, the babies will be so many that it will be disastrous, with everyone being of venerable age and eminent virtue. (Loud laughter) I
won't dwell on birth control today, because our own Mr. Shao Lizi 1s
a famous specialist! (Loud laughter) He is a graduate of university
training.3? (Laughter) He’s brighter than I am. There’s also Minister Li
°8The shorter heading above is from the official version of this speech; see SW5, p. 407.
This expanded wording is more self-explanatory.
39Shao Lizi (1881-1967) passed the imperial examination for the juren degree in 1903, graduated from Fudan University in 1907, and subsequently studied journalism in Japan. His
level of education under the old and new systems was thus higher than Mao’. But as in all
his dealings with intellectuals, the Chairman’s mock humility here is two-edged; in effect he
is saying—“You may be more learned, but I have the power.”
Shao was an early supporter of Sun Yat-sen, and later served the Nationalist government as Governor of Shaanxi (1933-6) and ambassador to the Soviet Union (1940-1). After
1949, as a leading non-communist working with the new regime, Shao became a senior
member of the NPC and the CPPCC and thus a regular participant at Supreme State Conferences. Shao had been the first prominent Chinese publicly to advocate birth control,
Dequan.*° [She] also pays great attention [to the subject]: Perhaps q
this government should establish a department, establish a planned q
birth department—would that be a good idea? (Loud laughter) Or
how about establishing a committee, a birth control committee, to §
serve as a government organ, [or we could] organize a people's group? 4
Organize people’s groups to advocate [birth control]. Since [we] need 4
to solve a few technical problems, [we will have to] provide funds, 4
think up methods, propagandize. Now I won’t talk about this much; 4
what [I want] to talk about is still strategic policy. For example, afew 4
affairs of our own. Disaster relief. Every year throughout the coun- |
try there are disasters, there are many disaster victims. [We] should
give them grain, as in unified [state] marketing [tongxiao]. The Soviet
Union has never done this. Every city and village, including house- q
holds without grain and households lacking grain, we take them all
into consideration. For example, [we] arrange jobs in industry and
commerce, [we] arrange work for the unemployed, [our] unified
[state] purchasing, [our] unified planning in various areas—all these
are unified planning with due consideration for all concerned and
appropriate arrangements. Last year alone over 3 million people were
employed. There were hassles and major problems. According to the
plan, the original plan was [for] 800,000 [to be employed]; but in fact
the increase ran to about 3 million people, an excess of over 2 mulion, so the wages paid out were greater. Not only have those 800,000
people [seen their wages] increase, [but] the wages for the original 18
million people have more or less increased; the new increase [in
employment] last year was about 3 million [people]. That’s a very
heavy burden. But has unemployment been totally eradicated? Not
yet. For example, Guangzhou still has quite a number of unemployed;
shortly after the completion of the report on the 1953 census; see Leo A. Orleans, Every
Fifth Child (London, Eyre Methuen, 1972), p. 39. He was criticized then; but as top-level
backing for the proposal developed, he spoke up again. The “loud laughter” that greeted
Mao’s mention of his name here was probably occasioned by Shao’s insistence that even old
wives’ remedies, such as the swallowing of tadpoles, should be investigated; see William Ste-.
venson, The Yellow Wind (London, Casell, 1959), pp. 315-6. In fact, an unsuccessful experiment with the tadpole method of contraception was carried out later in 1957.
4°T i Dequan, the widow of the warlord Feng Yuxiang (known as the “Christian general”),
served as Minister of Health from 1949 to 1965; see Klein and Clark 1, pp. 531-4. Her ministry spearheaded the birth control campaign in 1956-7 and set up a research committee on
the subject; Orleans, pp. 39-40.
WH OCP AEP SUPPER PAE EUS td A oD rhepeee iif tailed acted
they say [they] must think of [various] ways [to deal] with the problem]; every case can’t be treated the same. Shanghai, too, has some
unemployed; other areas still have some—some more, some less. But
the unemployed have already decreased. Some people suggest letting
Gve people eat the food of three people. This method is worth considering. [We'd] rather lower salaries a bit; for instance, we have not
talked about raising our salaries for ten or eight years. As I bring this
up, perhaps [211] most of you will oppose, or perhaps you will
approve. If salaries are not raised for ten years, [if] high officials’ salaries are not raised for ten years, I don’t think it will kill anyone, it
can’t kill! With not killing people as the principle, one’s age can be
venerable, one’s virtue can be eminent. Why eminent virtue? Isn't
not raising salaries virtuous? (Sounds of laughter) When [salaries] are
raised again, let the lower levels be raised a bit.
What to do about the student problem? Of school-age kids, 40 percent have no school‘ [in] this the People’s Government 1s not an
omnipotent government, the People’s Government cannot reach the
sky in a single bound. Currently there still are 40 percent of the people who have no school to go to. In addition there is another matter:
This [can be] called the 4 million. This year there are 4 million graduates from higher primary school who cannot advance to middle
school, there’s no way to advance to middle school, no space, no
funds. Aside from those who should advance, aside from this year's
plan for advancements, there are 4 million who cannot advance. Graduates from higher primary school will return to production units,
including those in the rural areas. How many graduates from lower
middle schoo! cannot advance to higher middle? 400,000. How many
higher middle school graduates cannot advance to university? One
estimates 40,000, one 80,000, one 90,000. (Premier Zhou [says]
800.000 lower middle school [students] not 400,000) Ai! 800,000
lower middle [school students], not 400,000, an [estimate] made in
the morning is superseded by evening.*! (Sounds of laughter) Eight
hundred thousand lower middle [school] students unable to advance
[in their] studies, a great many of them have problems with finding
employment, too. [They] must wait for employment. Eight hundred
thousand is so many! There are 90,000 higher middle school students
*1Bither the bureaucracy had got the figures totally mixed up, or Mao misremembered and
excused himself with a quip at the bureaucracy’s expense.
avu
unable to advance to university; this, too, has created an employment J
problem. To wait until later is one kind of arrangement. For exam- §
ple, buying pork. [You] wait at the end of a snaking, long line, and 4
up front [the pork’s] already sold out: Best just to go back home— 4
after all, [the pork] couldn’t be bought! This is quite a big problem, 4
[and I] want to ask you all to think it over; the government, too, q
should think it over. In sum, this year’s plan is for just so much 4
money. In a word, with only so much money, only so much can be 4
done. Let’s take a break.
(15 minute recess)
BLOOMING FLOWERS AND CONTENDING SCHOOLS
Fight, Pll talk about the questions of letting a hundred flowers bloom
and a hundred schools contend, and about long-term coexistence,
[and] mutual supervision.‘ This is a question of contradictions
among the people—didn’t Lenin say so? There are contradictions
among the people, contradictions remain while antagonisms within
socialist society disappear. I [have] said that in Lenin’s time, he would 4
not fully investigate this question; [and still] lacking experience, he
[212] died. For a long time Stalin did not admit that socialist society |
had contradictions, but in his later years—he died in 1953-—in ’52 he
wrote a book called, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.* In
that book he recognized contradictions between the relations of production and the forces of production. If the two are handled well,
contradictions will not develop into antagonistic contradictions. [If %
they are] not handled well, they will become antagonistic.
(Premier Zhou: He used the word “conflict” [chongtu], but in fact
it is “antagonism” [duzkang}).
42T he policy “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend” was first adumbrated by Mao on 2 May 1956, as part of his attempt to encourage greater liveliness in literature and the arts (“flowers”) and in academia (“schools”). The policy is discussed in the
introductory articles in this volume and in Origins 1, pp. 5-56. The policy of “Long-term
coexistence and mutual supervision,” designed to chart the future relationship between the
CCP and the “democratic” non-communist parties, was spelled out in Mao’s speech on the
“Ten great relationships” in April 1956; see Origins 1, pp. 48-50, 112-6.
*3Mao’s remarks here anticipate his more detailed critiques of Soviet economic thinking in
subsequent years. See Mao Tse-tung: A Critique of Soviet Economics (New York, Monthly
Review Press, 1977).
Blooming flowers and Contendaing schoois
[Chairman:] That they develop into conflict, he [Stalin] had
already seen this point. We have been learning from the Soviet
Union for about forty years. The Chinese Communist Party [and]
Marxists led the revolutionary struggle, from the creation of the base
areas—[in] 1927, or ten years behind [our] Soviet comrades. They
were Victorious in 1917, the revolution was victorious, the revolution
began to be victorious. [Whereas] we only began in 1927 to establish
base areas in various places. 1927, ’37, 47, 57, we also have thirty
years of experience. [We] should affirm that contradictions in socialist society exist; these are basic kinds of contradictions, namely,
contradictions between the relations of production and the forces ot
production, [and] contradictions between the superstructure and the
economic base. These contradictions all appear as contradictions
among the people. Because at this time socialist society does not have
exploiters, the system of ownership is that of the whole people or collective [ownership]; there are no private capitalists, no private landowners, no private factory owners [or] enterprise owners. Therefore
Stalin, we say that Stalin was somewhat deficient in dialectics, but
[not that he] was without dialectics. In the People’s Daily editorial we
said he partially but seriously turned [his] back on dialectical materialism. That’s what [we] said. Under his influence a book was written, called A Concise Dictionary of Philosophy, written by two men.**
Of the two, one is the Soviet Ambassador Yudin.*> It [was written]
under Stalin’s influence, [and] in the context of discussing identity
[tongyixing]—he had a topic called identity on which he rambled on
and on—[he] refuted formal logical identity, [but] failed completely
to analyze clearly whether formal logical identity and dialectical iden-
44Mao was quite upset with this dictionary and the implied criticisms of Chinese policy it
contained. Through Chen Boda, Mao later asked Yang Xianzhen, head of the Central Party
School, to write a rebuttal of the Soviet interpretation of “identity” (tongyixing), which was
to devolve into the internal Chinese philosophical debates of the 1960s. See Carol Lee Hamrin, “Yang Xianzhen: Upholding Leninist Orthodoxy,” in Carol Lee Hamrin and Timothy
Cheek, eds., China’s Establishment Intellectuals (Armonk, N.Y., M. E. Sharpe, 1986), pp.
62-4.
45Pavel Yudin, Soviet ideologist, was at this time ambassador to China. In the early years of
the PRC, Mao allegedly consulted Yudin on doctrinal points; see Khruschev Remembers, tr.
and ed. by Strobe Talbott (Boston, Little Brown, 1970), pp. 464-5. In April 1957, Yudin
departed from Soviet orthodoxy to admit that Russia like China had contradictions
between leaders and led, something Khruschev later denied; see Roderick MacFarquhar,
The Hundred Flowers Campaign and the Chinese Intellectuals (New York, Praeger, 1960), pp.
31-2, 306.
tity are the same thing or not. Then [he] quoted Engels to say, Engels @
said there is no such identity, in reality everything exists in change, in §
objective reality [213] there is no such identity. Then he brought up q
some metaphysics; he says things in opposition, mutually repellent F
opposites, cannot be said to have identity. For example, the bour- 9
geoisie and the proletariat, these two classes in a single society, they
have no identity, have only mutual rejection, have only struggle. War 4
and peace have no identity; life and death have no identity. To say §
these things have identity is a mistaken concept. After Stalin died, q
Soviet philosophers, the Soviet Union began to change on this ques- 4
tion. I haven't read much, but I can see they have changed. In phil- 4
osophy Stalin had a rather metaphysical outlook. The so-called 4
metaphysical outlook [means that things] have no change, war is war, “J
the bourgeoisie is the bourgeoisie, the proletariat is the proletariat.
Our theory is different: The bourgeoisie becomes the proletariat; the 4
oppressed proletariat transforms into the proletariat which rules the 4
nation. War turns into peace, peace turns into war, life turns into
death, death turns into life. In the midst of identity, after quoting } :
what Engels said (what Engels said had no metaphysics), he [the q }
Soviet author] brought up a piece of metaphysics, these two things
short of change cannot have unity, cannot be transformable, but Stalin in his book on economics said socialism has contradictions,
between productive forces and productive relations, [and] moreover
[that] if [the two] are not handled well, they can become antagonistic. This is well said; nonetheless it is not thorough. I say his dialectics are bashful dialectics, are coy dialectics, or could be called
hesitant dialectics. As we look at this question now, we should recognize socialism contains contradictions; the basic contradiction is the
contradiction between relations of production and productive forces.
The ideologies of the superstructure (politics, law, religion, philosophy, these various ideologies) should serve the economic base; [they]
should match the economic base. If [they] do not match [it], then
contradictions emerge. Letting a hundred flowers bloom, letting a
hundred schools contend, long-term coexistence—how did these slogans come to be put forward? It was in recognition of various different contradictions in society. In the arts and literature it is expressed
in letting a hundred flowers bloom. This hundred flowers blooming
includes this sort of thing, that is, various different kinds of [214]
flowers; but it also includes one kind of qualitatively different flower.
DiOOMING LLOWETS ANA CONLENAING sCNOOLS
For example, [we] say that among the hundred schools contending
there is Idealism, [and among] the hundred flowers blooming it is possible that, although Hu Feng sits in prison, his spirit still lives in the
world, writing Hu Feng kinds of works. But one requires only that
he refrain from destructive acts. What was Hu Feng all about? He
organized a secret group; that’s not good. So long as he does not run
secret groups, you [Hu Feng types] can cultivate that little flower;
[since] our China’s area is so big, 9 million square kilometers, what’s
so serious about this little flower blooming? Cultivate that little
flower for everybody to see, [and] people can also criticize flowers
like his, saying I don’t like your flower. [We're] talking about weeds
and fragrant flowers. Some are poisonous weeds. If you want only
grain, want only barley, wheat, corn, rice, millet, and absolutely
don’t want any weeds, that’s unachievable. Every year the peasants
have to weed; if you don’t believe it, go out at this year’s spring
ploughing and take a look; weeds will have grown on that land, [and]
you wouldn’t know where such weeds could have come from. In
short, the yearly growth of weeds is just like the daily necessity of
washing [your] face. Year after year the peasants must weed. To ban
all weeds, not allowing their growth, is that possible? In reality it 1s
not; they will still grow, [and] you will still have to hoe [to get rid of
them], and that’s that. If someone were to send down an order, [that]
weeds should stop growing, that of course would simplify matters
and the peasants would be ever so grateful. But in reality so many
weeds compete with grain, [and] among them are poisonous weeds.
A fragrant flower, a poisonous weed, IJ say you are, of course, a fragrant flower. But dogmatism certainly is not a fragrant flower. What
kind of flower is dogmatism? Is dogmatism Marxism? Dogmatism
certainly is not Marxism; dogmatism is a petty bourgeois [and] bourgeois thing. The method of dogmatism is the method of metaphysics, one-sided, isolated; to do things one-sidedly is unanalytical;
metaphysics, this “learning” was present in ancient times, but [it]
developed particularly during the bourgeois period, in foreign countries, and in China, too. It is difficult to distinguish fragrant flowers
from poisonous weeds. Previously in the eyes of the people, many
things at the time of their first appearance, many newly emerging
things—in the old society seemingly all newly emerging things—were
bound to be attacked. Take for example Marxism. Marxism was seen
by people as a weed, [and] considered a poisonous weed. The Nation-
1909
alist party [Kuomintang], the United League [Tongmeng hui], in the 4
days of the Qing government, Sun Yat-sen was seen as [215] a poisonous weed! The Communist party was called the bandit party, the 4
Communist bandits! Having dealings with the Communist party @
was called connections with bandits [tong fei]! Our meeting here 4
today comes from poisonous weeds turning into fragrant flowers: But 7
in Taiwan, they still call us poisonous weeds, still call [us] communist §
bandits. Confucius was also unrecognized. Confucius that venerable 4
master, in his whole life did not achieve his desires, nobody took up 4
his principles. Jesus, Jesus at first was not recognized by society. How J
about Buddhism, how about Sakyamuni? [He], too, went through I
this process, suffered oppression, a lack of social acceptance. When 4
Christianity came to the Protestantism** of Martin Luther, it, too, did q
not have social acceptance. Monkey,‘? why was Monkey awarded 4
[the title of] Master of the Imperial Stables [Bimawen}? Calling Sun
Wukong Master of the Imperial Stables was simply not to recognize 4
him. His own title, his self-assessment (cadre appraisal), he identified 4
himself as the Great Sage of Heaven [Qitian dasheng]. The Jade
Emperor appraised him and made him Master of the Imperial Sta- j
bles, that is saying [Monkey] was a poisonous weed. Xue Rengui*®
served as an army cook, didn’t Xue Rengui serve as an army cook?
This 1s the appraisal given to him of Zhang Shigui.*? The astronomy 4
of Copernicus, for a long time [no one] dared publish. Only many
years after [his] death, was [his theory] recognized by people. The
physics of Italy’s Galileo, Darwin’s theory of evolution, at the start
*©Mao is loose with his terminology here. He uses Yesusiao, the Chinese term for Protestant
Christianity, to refer to the pre-Reformation Catholic Church; then he uses xinjiao, an alternative term for Protestantism, to refer to Luther’s religion.
*7Monkey, also known as Sun Wukong, is the famous fictional character from The Journey
to the West, and a favorite metaphor in Mao’s writings. See n. 6, above. Bimawen was an
insignificant title, so Monkey took offense.
*8Xue Rengui (614-83) was a famous and popular general in the early Tang Dynasty, whose
distinguished service in campaigns in Korea saved him from execution when he was later
badly defeated by the Tibetans; see C. P. Fitzgerald, The Empress Wu (London, Cresset,
1956), pp. 57, 71-3, 80. Xue’s career was often depicted in a fictional manner; see C. T. Hsia,
The Classic Chinese Novel (New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 1968), p. 331.
Zhang Shigui was once Xue Rengui’s superior officer who repeatedly claimed credit for
himself for Xue’s military feats, and was eventually exposed and executed. He figures in the
novel, Zheng dong quan zhuan (Story of the Eastern Conquest) and in a number of Peking
operas based on it. Zhang also appears in a similar discussion in Mao’s 8 March 1957 “A talk
with literary and art circles” (Text 7).
blooming flowers ana Contenaing Schoois
people did not accept them. I read a scientific booklet, the history of
sleeping pills: who invented sleeping pills? A pharmacy clerk in Germany invented them. Germans wouldn't give [the stuft] recognition,
(but] the French did. They invited him to France; later it was recog:
nized. There was a Chinese, Li Lieyuan, who was a central committee
member of the Nationalist party; he is dead now. The first time he
went from China to Ma-sha®° [phonetic rendering, 1.e., Marseilles],
from Marseilles riding the train to Paris, he took a sleeping pill. He
said this stuff was indeed good, [it] helped people to sleep.*! There
was an American dancer, a dancer called [Isadora] Duncan. She had
children, the birth of the first child was very painful, [so] for the
birth of the second child she took a sleeping pill. What I am saying
is that all inventions in the world [be they] political, scientific, [or] literary and artistic, in the beginning none are recognized. Sima Quian’s
Historical Records at first was not accepted by people! He could only
“Hide it [in] a famous mountain, pass it on to other people’; [he]
wasn't able to publish it; at that time there were no publication
organs, people made copies by hand, but transporting scrolls upon
scrolls was difficult. In sum, for newly born forces to be recognized
by society, [they] must pass through arduous struggle.>? Our society
is a little different, [216] [it’s a] socialist society; but there are still
numerous new things that are held back. [They] run into bureaucratists, run into the diehards. After all what is to be called a fragrant
flower? What is to be called a poisonous weed? Stalin in the past was
100 percent a fragrant flower; Khrushchev in one stroke turned him
into a poisonous weed. Now [Stalin] is again fragrant.
Most recently there have been some criticisms. I’m talking about
[what’s happening within] the Communist party; in the Communist
party there are also leftists and rightists. In the central Propaganda
Department there is a cadre, Zhong Dianfei.*? He wrote some articles
©The note taker has mistaken the second sound of this phonetic rendering for Marseilles
and put down the wrong character.
>IT i Liejun’s biography is in BDRC 2, pp. 312-6. It is not clear from where Mao got this
anecdote.
>2Mao was always impressed by the role of outstanding individuals in history. In his
Chengdu speeches a year later, he emphasized the youth of some of these same people
when they made their contribution; see Stuart Schram, Mao Tse-tung Unrebearsed (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1974), pp. 118-20.
>3Zhong Dianfei (1919-87), an editor of Wenyi bao and famous film critic, was later
denounced as a rightist, particularly for his article “Drums and gongs of the film circles.”
under a pseudonym, saying [our] past was a complete mess: |
negated everything. Now these articles have drawn criticism, spark /
debate. But Taiwan really appreciates these articles. In addition, Son
leftists, namely the head of the Cultural Department under the Pol
ical Department of the Military Affairs Commission, Chen Yi, agl
his subordinates, Chen Qitong, Ma Hanbing, and a few other com
rades published a declaration in the 7 January [1957] People’s Dail
signed by the four men as authors.® [Its thrust] is to cast doubt g
the policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schogg dl
contend. It maintains that ever since this policy was introduced th
have been no significant works [produced]. That conclusion is a } i
premature, because comrade Lu XX’s®> article was written in Jug
and published in July of last year [1956]. August, Septembi
October, November, December—when did these four comrades pul 7
lish [their] article? It was 7 January. In only five months, how cow 4
an article of several tens of thousands of words be finished? So [they
said that there were no significant works, no significant works bein
produced ever since [the policy of] letting a hundred flowers blooig
and a hundred schools contend was put forward, that we no longed
produce Marxist works, no longer use socialism or realism, only de i
bad stuff. Up to now, it has been a while [since the hundred flowed
policy was introduced and] what the attitude of our People’s Daily®
remains unclear to me. At the meeting of provincial and municip@
secretaries in late January,°* I had this four-man declaration copie”
and distributed to everyone. There were comrades from the People
Daily there at the time. What did they say? They expressed 0
See The China Quarterly 2:70 (April -June 1960); and D. W. Fokkema, Literary Doctrine #
China and Soviet Influence, 1955-60 (The Hague, Mouton, 1965), p. 155. See below, Text §
note 12. 3 :
4See Text 1, note 6. For details of these men and their article, see also Fokkema, pp. 124-9
Merle Goldman, Literary Dissent in Communist China (Cambridge, Harvard Unyv. Pres 4
1967), pp. 181-2, and Origins 1, p. 179. In fact, Chen Qitong was the senior author of tt cn |
group; perhaps Mao misremembered; more likely he wished to slight him. 4
>>Clearly Lu Dingyi, the propaganda chief, but his explanation of the Hundred Flos 4
policy was given as a speech on 26 May 1956 and published in the People’s Daily on 13 June
see Communist China, 1955-1959, pp. 151-63. Lu Dingyi’s name is partially omit oy
because, by the time this collection was issued, he had been purged. 4
°€Mao’s summation of this January 1957 meeting appears in Wansui (1969), pp. 81-90; trans
lated in JPRS 61269-1 (20 February 1974), pp. 54-62. a
Blooming Flowers and Contending Schools
ude. Now a month has passed, more or less. What should be
act Did you publish that thing to approve or oppose it? It there
do one from the People’s Datly here today? Sooner or later you're
“a to have to deal with this matter! Or you should talk it over, if
i” cant make up your minds; find [some] leading comrades in the
rparty] Center” and discuss it! See how to handle the situation. I will
now express my attitude: I do not approve of that article, that article
5 wrong. But [217] there are many different things in this world; difforent people like what they like. Taiwan likes Zhong Dianfe’s artiles. Socialist countries like Chen Qitong’s and Ma Hanbing’s article.
Pravda published it, but Pravda did not publish Lu XX’s article, “Let
, hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend.” [They]
liked Chen Qitong’s, Ma Hanbing’s—the four comrades’ [article]. In
addition, Czechoslovakia published [it]; Rumania published [it]; [it
won] quite a market.
(Offstage someone said, The Literary Gazette published it, not
Pravda)
[Chairman:] It was the Literary Gazette? Not Pravda? Then that’s
better.°8 (Laughter) “Birds of a feather flock together, people split
into [like] groups”; different [people] like different things, like two of
a kind>? Dogmatism likes dogmatism, opportunism likes opportunism. I’m afraid I must make a criticism now. There is a young writer,
Wang Meng. [He’s] not called Wang Ming,® but probably is Wang
Ming’s brother. (Laughter) [He] wrote a piece titled, “Newcomer to
the Organization Department’*! which caused a furor. Some
approved of it, some opposed it. Later it was believed that this
[newcomer] was also a Communist party member [and the story was
about] the Communist party, attacking the Communist party, [and
"The Chinese use the term ‘center’ (zhongyang) loosely. See Text 1, n. 9.
*Mao says “that’s better” ironically, because Literary Gazette, though the main Soviet cultural newspaper, did not carry the official weight of the party newspaper Pravda.
This phrase and the one in quotation marks above carried a negative connotation, certainly at the time Mao was speaking, though in recent years it has gradually lost this. The
Hanyu chengyu cidian (Shanghai, 1978), p. 679 gives for the former: “An analogy for evil people colluding with each other.” Chinese dictionaries make clear that these refer to the comination of ideological work style and personal tastes and interests.
See Text 1, note 10, above.
Mao has got the title of Wang Meng’s short story slightly wrong. See Text 1, note 3.
the critics] said he [Wang Meng] did not have a single good point.
Among these was Ma Hanbing’s criticism. Others criticized, saying P|
Beijing is the site of the [party] Center, [how can] there be bureaucra- @ j
tism in a district Communist party committee in Beijing? Thus the @
background of his [Wang Meng’s] model was badly chosen, perhaps @
best to choose Shanghai [for the story]. This place of ours [Beijing] a
won't do. X X place won't do, because it is the site of the [party] @ 1
Center. I could never figure out where this principle [used by the critics] came from. I haven’t studied much Marxism, but I have never @&
seen [this opinion] in it (Laughter), saying the site of the [party] Cen- |
ter does not produce bureaucratism? Even the [party] Center produced bureaucratism, why can’t the site produce it [too}? What kind
of people has the [party] Center produced? The [party] Center has @™
produced Chen Duxiu, produced Zhang Guotao, produced Gao
Gang [and] Rao Shushi; [it has] also produced Li Lisan, Wang Ming,
so many!® So this principle [that the site of the party Center does *
not produce bureaucratism] is a mistaken notion.
Marxism still develops; Marxism is not [something] that 1s
finished once studied. There is still the need to continue studying, 4
[because] circumstances change. Dogmatism 1s not Marxism. Dogmatism is anti-Marxist. Opportunism, too, is anti-Marxist. China with a
population of 600 million is a kingdom of petty bourgeoisie; it’s a
mighty kingdom. [There are] 500 million peasants, over 10 million
handicraft workers, [and then] shopkeepers, peddlers, landlords, rich
peasants; [218] the bourgeoisie probably make up a population of 50
million, the petty bourgeoisie make up a population of 500 and some
tens of millions. This is an objective reality. You want all these peo- “@
ple not to express opinions, to have them completely gagged, only letting [the gag] off a little when they eat, and as soon as they’ve eaten
gap them up again. How can that work? I say the mouth has two functions, one is to eat, the other to talk. It’s very difficult to gag it. The
bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie must certainly reflect their ideological consciousness; moreover, [they] must express themselves, using
various methods, staunchly—in a thousand and one ways [they must]
express themselves. We cannot use coercive methods to stop them
62Chen Duxiu, first general-secretary of the party, was dismissed and disgraced in 1927; see
Lee Feigon, Chen Duxiu (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1983). For Zhang Guotao, Gao
Gang, Rao Shushi, and Li Lisan, see Text 1, n. 10.
Bbiooming flowers and Contenaing scnoots
from expressing [themselves]; [we] can only debate with them at the
time of their expression. [We can] say, Comrade, what you say is a bit
inappropriate; [then we] make an analysis, [and] write articles of crit-
‘cism. These articles [should] not be dogmatic articles, [they] cannot
use metaphysical methods, but should use dialectal methods. [They]
should be convincing, [they] should be fully convincing. Can senior
cadres be criticized? [On] this problem of criticism, from Marx
onward, never once has it been said that junior and senior cadres
should be distinguished, [or] said that only junior cadres can be criticized [and] senior cadres cannot be criticized. Our constitution stipulates that people are equal before the law, so when it comes to the
problem of committing errors, [or] incorrect thought, Communist
party members [and] non-party members must be equal. There is a
eroup of people—for example, senior Communist party cadres or senior cadres of the democratic parties—[simply] because they have seniority, they have the right to freedom from criticism. Is that
permissible? I think that won't do. If while you are living you receive
no criticism, after you are dead, people will still criticize you.® We
have criticized the dead, [we have] criticized Confucius: Down with
the house of Confucius!¢* Even a man who has been dead for several
thousand years, [we] still criticize! Now Confucius is a bit better. Stalin was also criticized after his death! Living people can be criticized,
[and] dead people can also be criticized. There [should be] no distinction between major and minor official positions, or [between] old
and young, elder and junior. Isn’t it true that, the older you get, the
more [you] live in ease and comfort, avoiding criticism? After committing an error, one should always be criticized. Is it acceptable that
someone should eat by relying on seniority? OK, you have seniority,
that [we] recognize. Because he is old and lived to such a great age,
and doesn’t die, he thus has a small qualification, a little usefulness.
[He] can still play bit parts,S> wave flags [and] cheer, applaud, and
lend a hand. I think Mei Lanfang®* has played bit parts, cooperating
with other people, blade in hand, [219] standing there [on stage]. Is
3A prophetic utterance!
64This was one of the famous slogans of the May Fourth period.
65This term, pao long tao, means a minor actor, but can also mean a stagehand.
66Mei Lanfang (1894-1961) was the doyen of Peking Opera stars and one of the great
figures in Chinese theater in the pre-1949 period, known for playing female roles (ging y);
see his biography in BDRC 3, pp. 26-9. Mao mentioned him several times in his speeches
Afi
Mei Lanfang here today? I think that at the age of eighty you can still : [them] long-term education. Many cadres among us, 1n fact, do not
have a role, at least in a bit part. My own role can only be that of a 4
bit part; the leading part I won't sing: that [is for] people like our Pre. 4
mier Zhou. (Laughter) You all [should] sing.*? In Az xiang ji the }
singer is that Hong Niang; I can’t sing [that part]. (Laughter) That 4 |
old lady in Xi xiang ji, she comes out [on stage] and sings those few am
lines, makes a few turns, [then] retires backstage.*8 If you do not stop “4
singing, [and] sing too much, people will boot you out. (Laughter) 4
Moreover, old-timers no matter how old you are, you must handle ‘@%
[your] work correctly, [you] must be right. You [could] live in right- 4
eousness to the age of ninety-nine; but [if] on the day you turn a hun- %
dred you do some foul deed, then you won't be acceptable. What
good deeds has Rakosi®? done in the past? I don’t know. If Rakosi }
hadn't done anything wrong, but at the very last did some evil deed,
[then] he couldn’t escape criticism just because he was an old-timer.
New cadres naturally are the same, too; [if they’re] wrong, [they] q :
must be criticized. Lenin said God forgave him; God can still forgive
young people because of their youth, [but] with old-timers [we]
should be strict. With old cadres it’s like that, [and] with young 4
cadres one should be strict, too; [but we] should help them as well. If
[we] are strict with young cadres, [we] should also patiently give 4
in 1957-8; see below, Texts 11 and 12. He was 62 at the time of this speech and was almost
certainly in the audience.
°7Mao was in the process of withdrawing to what he called the “second front” during this
period, a fact that was known to his senior colleagues but became publicly visible only
when he handed over the post of head of state to Liu Shaoqi in the spring of 1959. The idea
was to establish his successors firmly in authority so that China could avoid the kind of
struggle for power that followed Stalin’s death; see Origins 1, pp. 152-6. In fact, as his colleagues later discovered to their cost, Mao was never prepared to relinquish power totally.
An interesting aspect of his remarks here is that he singles out Zhou Enlai (China’s No. 3)
and not Liu Shaogi (the No. 2) as an example of a leader who would take over a leading role |
from him; this may have been because Liu was not on the rostrum (see Origins 1, pp. 250-2).
©8X7 xiang ji (Record of the West Wing) is a famous musical drama of the Yuan period by
Wang Shifu. The character Hong Niang is the maidservant who helps bring together her
mistress and the leading man. The old lady is her mistress’s mother. See Lai Ming, A History
of Chinese Literature (London, Cassell, 1964), pp. 242-5.
6?Matyas Rakosi was the Stalinist Hungarian leader dismissed in July 1956 in the aftermath
of Khrushchev’s “secret speech.” Mao seems to be hinting in this passage that Rakosi was
basically a good man who was rightly criticized for a few mistakes in his later years, whereas he in fact presided over all the brutality of post-World War II Hungary. Mao's aim may
be to minimize any internal justification for the Hungarian revolt.
approve of the [party] Center’s policies—the policies of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools contend, [and] of longterm coexistence, [and] mutual supervision. Am I overstating the
case? I say that among high-level cadres nine out of ten do not
approve or [only] half approved, or do not understand well. [Those]
who really understand, really think this policy is correct, are a minority, so there is a real need to work [at this], to work at persuading
[people]. [We] must [criticize] the antagonists of dialectical materialism: For instance, those who mouth Idealism must be criticized; not
to criticize [it] is incorrect. But dogmatic criticism does not solve
problems. On the contrary, it fosters the growth of those bad things.
This is a policy, one of [getting] self-education and the development
of one’s career within the ranks of the people. Correct things develop
from struggle with incorrect things; Marxism is like this. In this
world every new thing, every living thing, no matter what, everything develops through struggle with old objects, old things. [220]
Marxism developed through struggle with capitalism. We Chinese
Marxists have had to grow up on Chinese soil [where] some [things]
don’t conform to Marxism, some don’t conform a great deal, some
[just] a little, [but] some are even antagonistic. All these fragrant
flowers and poisonous weeds that have grown up—what is there to
fear from their growth? There is nothing to fear; I feel there 1s
nothing to fear. Every year weeds grow; in China they have already
grown for several hundred thousand years, [and] aren't they still growing today! Suppose you send down a directive prohibiting whatever
flowers [there are] from blooming, whatever weeds from growing—
[well,] among the bad flowers there might be some good flowers
[too], such as [if we look back] in history, the theory of evolution,
Galileo, Copernicus, flowers like these. Flowers that wear the cap of
Marxism sometimes are not necessarily Marxist. [Like] Stalin, [he]
was 70 percent a Marxist, 30 percent not a Marxist. [He] was 30 percent bourgeois, 70 percent Marxist. This is a basic principle. The lite
of Marxism (we now are continuing to evolve) is a struggle with different things. Only within mutual criticism, in the midst of criticism
can [it] develop. Now our comrades cannot connect these points of
view. I don’t know how many times, for how many years [I have]
talked about this. [The principles of] the united front, long-term
coexistence, learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones, cure the
illness to save the patient, mutual supervision, let a hundred flowers
bloom, let a hundred schools contend, oppose metaphysics, oppose
dogmatism, all these are forgotten when it comes time to write arti- a |
cles, give speeches, hold meetings, [or] make comments. There is no (|
intention of curing the illness to save the patient, no intention of |
helping other people, [only] of clubbing [those who err] to death
with a single blow. Leaving this aside, this question reminds me of
smallpox vaccinations. Why give smallpox vaccinations? Have you
all had it? I have—[but] what I got was not smallpox, it was [a disease]
something similar to smallpox—the germs made the disease grow
inside the human body where the body and these germs struggled.
The result of the struggle is immunity from the disease; if there is no
struggle with the germs, then there can’t be immunity from the disease. Therefore, those who do not contract disease 1n their lives run
a great risk; it is dangerous; getting sick regularly is a good thing, it
can produce immunity.
STRIKES AND DEMONSTRATIONS
Ninth, how to handle the problems of strikes, student strikes, demonstrations, [and] petitions. Probably among your documents, comrades, are a few concerning such problems. Why hasn’t Kunming’s
[221] Aeronautical Institute had any disturbances? ((Here we] lack
materials on disturbances; it would be best to go find a typical case of
a disturbance and print it [for distribution and study].) It is [the]
absence of bureaucratism; if schoo! administrators all did their work
according to this [model], that would be good! This is the Marxist
method of operating a school; [it] recognizes the ideological state of
current youth. The Central Committee of the Youth League has provided a document: Last year among universities and middle schools
in 28 cities there were reportedly over 7,000 students involved in disturbances in 29 schools. The analysis in this material is pretty good:
The cause of the disturbances was nothing more than bureaucratism
and student naivete; youth, workers, [and] students did not understand the complexity of the world, did not understand arduous struggle. At the same time, the school authorities [and] the administrators
used various methods to deceive them [and] didn’t share weal and
woe with them. Then there’s also the business of workers’ strikes
[and] petitions. Partial statistics in the report of the [All-China] Fed-
JETIRES ANA LACTHONSLTALLONS
eration of Trade Unions [show] some fifty strikes; among these there
were [strikes] of a few people, some with scores of people, the largest
one had over a thousand people on strike. How are contradictions
amongst the people to be handled? I say contradictions constantly
occur within the ranks of the people. Strikes, student strikes, peasants hitting out with their carrying poles, [these] happened last year,
[and] they are likely to happen this year, too. They [also] took place
several years ago, [so] they all can’t be blamed on Hungary, [with the
excuse] that since the Hungarian incident, things have been difficult
to manage in China. You see thousands of students on strike, a portion of the workforce on strike, demonstrations: What [should we]
do? P’ve worked out a few points on this problem. [I will] pose four
points; see if they are right or not.
Point one. Work hard to overcome bureaucratism, then people
won't strike! Appropriately resolve contradictions, then people won't
so on strike, won't make disturbances.
Point two. If bureaucratism has not been overcome [and] they
want to make a disturbance, what [should you] do? Permit the disturbance or not? One [way] is not to permit disturbances, to say all agitators are counterrevolutionaries, to say [they] want to rebel. As |
have already said, there are counterrevolutionaries, but they are very
few. [We] can’t say that these agitators are mainly counterrevolutionaries. On the contrary, it is mainly the defects in our work: We don’t
know how to educate, we don’t know how to lead. To permit or not
to permit disturbances? I say it’s better to permit disturbances. After
all, workers want strikes; peasants want to make a din; students want
strikes; the peasants want to hit someone with their poles!
Point three. When a disturbance occurs [and there’s a confrontation], is it right to call it off in a hurry? There are also two policies
[on this]. [If] [222] after only two or three days of disturbance,
[when] the agitators haven't satisfied their craving [but] the author!-
ties urgently want to end it, this produces a contradiction, how
should it be resolved? I say let them agitate to their hearts’ content.
Mr. Shi Fuliang”® created disturbances, apparently in Zhejiang; I, too,
70Shi Fuliang was an early member of the CCP, who renounced his party membership in
1927. In 1945 he helped organize the China Democratic National Construction Association, one of the democratic parties in post-1949 China. At this time, he was a member of
the standing committees of both the NPC and the CPPCC and was presumably in Mao's
audience.
1/6 TEAIT THREE
created disturbances at school, because problems couldn't be a
resolved! Moreover we wanted to agitate to our hearts’ content. If one
week is insufficient, two weeks; if two weeks are not enough, three J
weeks; if three weeks are not enough, four weeks. In sum, [when “im
they’ve] satisfied themselves, [they] won’t agitate any more. Make the am
process of the disturbance serve as an educational process, serve as a a ]
political course. Our political work has been insufficient, [our] ideo- q
logical work hasn’t been done well; [this is] bureaucratism. [We] must }
look upon strikes, student strikes, [and] the peasants waving their @m |
poles as the process of remolding our work, [and] educating workers a |
[and] students.
[Point four.] Should the chiefs and leaders of a disturbance be
expelled or not? I think [they] shouldn't be expelled. Aside from a
few exceptions, if [they] kill someone, then [they] should be put in “@™
jail at the Public Security Office. [That’s] because {they] murdered, 4
committed crime. If you don’t hit people, murder, [do] nothing seri- q
ous, then [you] shouldn’t be expelled. Expelling leaders of strikes and q
student strikes, this is a bourgeois method; in general [they] shouldn't
be expelled. Leading persons, both correct and incorrect, should
remain. Why should we help the incorrect ones? They should be
kept as “instructors.””! Because [they] have committed errors, [say]a 4
few individuals have been identified as spies, should they be kicked
out of school? I think let [them] study, just so long as they’re not
active criminals. What’s wrong with a school having a few spies in it?
Will you be comfortable only when it is scrubbed spotlessly clean?
So, that student at Qinghua University who wants to kill thousands
of people now remains there; he is an “instructor,” because he pub- 4
lished that famous proclamation. [People like him] are hard to come
by. I have discussed these four points: The first point is work hard to q
overcome bureaucratism to stop disturbances; second, if [they] want
to agitate, let them agitate; my third, [if they] feel they haven't agitated enough, let them agitate to their hearts’ content; fourth, don’t
expel. Expulsion is the method of the Nationalist party; we want to
proceed in opposition to the Nationalist party’s ways. I think that in
the future there will still be many problems; the will of the people
isn’t uniform; in a population of several hundred million there are
going to be lots of people with ways of thinking different from ours.
”! Haoyuan is a general term for teaching professionals inside and outside formal education.
Are Listurbances Good or Bad?
That’s one aspect. The second aspect is that our working personnel,
responsible people at schools, in factories, in APCs, in [government]
offices, come from [223] very many different areas, and many of
them have a low educational level; even those people with a high educational [level], even intellectuals, too, cannot avoid committing
errors. Sometimes in comparison with those of a low educational
level, the intellectuals make the more severe mistakes. In the “leftist”
and rightist [errors] which our party has committed, intellectuals
have been numerous: Chen Duxiu, an intellectual; Li Lisan, an intellectual; Wang Ming, an intellectual; Zhang Guotao, an intellectual;
Gao Gang, doesn’t count; Rao Shushi, an intellectual.
ARE DISTURBANCES GOOD OR BAD?
Tenth, is creating a disturbance a bad thing or a good thing?
As to this problem [of] strikes, student strikes, marches, petitions,
demonstrations, I think there are both good and bad, [because] they
have a dual character! Things like strikes and student strikes have a
dual character, too. [The incident in] Hungary has [its] dual character. Do you think the Hungarian incident was good or bad? I say [it]
was both good and bad. Of course it was bad, since they had disturbances. But Hungary did one very good thing; the counterrevolutionaries really helped us. Since the end of the Hungarian incident,
things have been more secure than before. Hungary now is better
than the Hungary of the past when there were no disturbances —all
in the socialist camp have learned [from Hungary’s experience]. Thus
I say the Hungarian incident has a dual character, both good and bad.
An anti-Soviet, anti-communist current has arisen in the world. For
the first time, especially with regard to the recent instance, it was
worldwide [in nature]. How do we look on it? Naturally, I think it’s
not good. Secondly, [it] is good; this is a good thing. Because imperialist anti-Sovietism and anti-communism steels the Communist
party. The French Communist party has destroyed its -party newspaper; the Swiss Communist party is doing particularly badly; [their]
general secretary is hiding in the mountains, hiding in our embassy,
afraid to see [people], afraid to go out. [If] people see [him, he'll] get
beaten up. Many party members have left the party. In Holland and
Belgium a good many have left the party. England’s intellectuals, the
more intellectual [they are}, the more they want to leave the party.
Thus there are two types of intellectuals; the more important they
are in stature, the more they disapprove of the Communist party.
[Even] old party members who have muddled along [in the party]
for several years or decades want to leave the party, too. Is leaving the
party good or bad? Both good and bad, but mainly it is good. If you
leave, what’s wrong with that? Our China has this gentleman Hu
Shi, who is writing lots of articles at present. We've proposed letting
a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools contend. He says he
has already suggested letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred
schools contend. (Laughter) How [should we] look on the criticism
of Stalin? We [humans] are also commodities [224] of dual character.
The criticism of Stalin has a two-sided nature. One side has real
benefit; one side is not good. To expose the cult of Stalin, to tear off
the lid, to liberate people, this is a liberation movement; but his [1.e.,
Khrushchev’s] method of exposing [Stalin] is incorrect; [he] hasn't
made a good analysis, clubbing [him] to death with a single blow. On
the one hand, this provoked the worldwide currents of the latter halt
of last year; on the other hand, it later also provoked the Hungarian
and Polish incidents. But he [Stalin] had his incorrect side; although
our published articles have not pointed at the [CPSU] Twentieth
Congress, in fact [we've] talked about it. What have we discussed
with the Soviet comrades face to face? About how the Stalin problem
has not been handled appropriately; [we] discussed our great-nation
chauvinism. I think the United States’ non-recognition of us also has
two sides. Not recognizing us is, of course, not good; [we] can't enter
the United Nations; they say there is no such country [as us] in the
world. We should be recognized and they won't recognize [us], this
naturally isn’t good. But there’s also been a great benefit; the United
States does not recognize us, [but] we are [still] very comfortable. I
have exchanged opinions with numerous friends, and, in sum, I have
not convinced them that this is the case. I feel that [since] the United
States does not recognize [us] now, it'd be best if [after] six years,
when the second FYP is completed, at least after six years [they will]
recognize [us]. It’s better like this. The best would be after eleven
years, when the third FYP is completed; at that time make them
obtain legal status in China, [that] would be advantageous for us.
Without them we are still able to carry on with [economic] construction. [Let’s} wait until we have more or less completed construction,
Are Disturbances Good or Bad?
[and] ask them to come take a look. (Laughter) It will be too late [for
them] to regret it! (Laughter) Still the United States raises its tail,
obstinately saying it doesn’t recognize [us]; [they’re] so happy. The
United States more or less wants to recognize [us], [and] I worry on
their behalf, but this is an American affair. The US Chief-of-Staff is
an American, not our Nie Rongzhen.”? Nor do we have to give him
advice, but [we'd] better be prepared. If recognition comes quickly,
what to do? Accept their insistence on recognition? I say that
wouldn't do. But there is the Taiwan question; Taiwan must be
returned to us. This thing is a problem to work on; if Taiwan is not
returned, I don’t care about your recognition. England recognizes us,
but we won't establish diplomatic relations with you, [we establish]
semi-diplomatic relations, [we] won’t send a formal representative,
only a chargé daffaires. Because she [England] votes for Chiang Kaishek in the United Nations.”
We have articles, [but] its OK to publish a few wrong articles.
Didn’t I just [225] criticize a few comrades? At the same time [I]
should thank them. Wrong articles have done good work, because
they've given us some grounds, given our criticism an object,
[including] dogmatist articles, opportunist articles. This article
appeared in nine sections, and still should produce a few more. Not
only is its nature no good, not only is [it] incorrect, but in addition
it has a service [to give]. It gives us the possibility to counter-criticize.
What do [we] do about the lack of significant works [and] good movies? I say this is a bad thing. There are no significant novels, few good
movies. This will itself produce significant works [and] good movies.
Because there are none? [After] a long period of dearth, eventually
[it} will come; things will develop in the opposite direction when
they become extreme; the more that bad things are done, [ultimately]
the good will emerge. This dialectical method was not invented only
72Nie Rongzhen, one of China’s ten marshals, had been acting Chief-of-Staff from 1949 to
1954. The current Chief-of-Staff was actually General Su Yu.
7$Britain recognized the PRC in January 1950; and, but for the Korean War, Ji Pengfei
(later Foreign Minister) would have been the new regime’s first ambassador in London.
After the 1954 Geneva Conference, at which premier Zhou Enlai and Foreign Secretary (as
he then was) Anthony Eden had struck up a cordial working relationship, the minimal
level of diplomatic relations was raised to the chargé-d’affaires level. Ambassadors would not
be exchanged until 1972.
1/79
in Marxism-Leninism. Our China’s Lao Zi—the one who regarded
himself as the number one authority under heaven‘ (Laughter)—
spoke like this long ago. He said in every bad thing one should see
good; in the good, one should see bad. In misfortune there is fortune,
in fortune there is misfortune; when the old man of the frontier lost
his horse, who could have guessed it was a blessing in disguise;75
when the old man of the frontier loses his horse, congratulate him
[and] say it was good to lose the horse, it was well lost. In the past
there were people who even went to give congratulations when
another man’s house burned down. When Japan beat China, the
Japanese called [it] a victory; the greater half of China was occupied.
China called this defeat. But that defeat for China contained a victory, the Japanese victory contained a defeat. [Though they] occupied the greater part of China, plus the Philippines, Indonesia, [and
various] countries in Southeast Asia, [their] victory contained defeat.
The result indeed was victory transformed into defeat, whereas the
occupied countries, like China, transformed defeat into victory. Isn't
this so? [When] Hitler’s armies approached the cities, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, all of Europe was occupied; [they] were just on the
point of victory, but this contained defeat, and occupied Europe,
[and] the greater half of the Soviet Union still contained the inevitability of victory.
Should [we] fight World War III at this time?
You wait, this will be discussed later. Our China has two things:
one, poverty; two, ignorance.’ [You] say Chinese are smart, but the
Chinese are illiterate. On the one hand, the standard of living 1s not
high; on the other hand, the educational level is not high: The standard of living is very low; the educational level is very low. This circumstance, too, has its dual character. Our revolution relies on these
two things: one, poverty; two, [226] the low educational level. It
China becomes prosperous, just like the standard of living in the western world, then [people] will not want revolution. The western
74Mao is simply enjoying the pun on Jao zi here—both the name of the ancient philosopher and the “authority” of the phrase he quotes.
7>This refers to a traditional story in which an old man loses his horse, only to have it
return a few months later with a host of fine horses.
76This recalls Mao’s commoner characterization of China as “poor and blank”; see for
instance, Stuart Schram, The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung (Harmondsworth, Penguin,
1969), pp. 351-2.
AWVE LASTHYDaATICeS \r00d Or Dads
world is rich, [but] has its shortcomings; its shortcoming is [being]
non-revolutionary. [Their] standard of living is so high, their weak
point is [being] non-revolutionary. This is not as good as our illiteracy; I think after all illiteracy is better. (Laughter) Naturally illiteracy must be eradicated. I am not here advocating continuing to
preserve illiteracy. Our socialist transformation has proceeded so
quickly—this is precisely because China is too poor. What if [we]
fought World War III? [What if we] started fighting right now; [if] for
example, after the meeting [we] heard on the radio [that] World War
Il] had begun? What do we do? You all haven’t thought about it? Do
you have [any] mental preparation? I think preparation is necessary.
If [you] want to fight, fight. Just like student disturbances: If [you]
want to agitate, then agitate; that is a contradiction among the people. This [war] is a contradiction between the enemy and ourselves. If
[you] want to fight, then fight. What choice do we have? [If] the
whole world fights another round, World War II, humanity will be
reduced by a half; some people say the entire [human race] will be
wiped out. I don’t accept this argument. Nehru7’ and I have debated
this. The prime minister of Pakistan and I have also debated [this].
As regards fighting World War III, I say that in the first place we do
not welcome [it], [but] it’s OK [too]. (Laughter) I say that after World
War I, there emerged the Soviet Union with a population of 200 million; after World War II, many [socialist] countries appeared, with a
population of 900 million; after World War II, [the socialist camp
will number] probably at least 1.5 billion or 2 billion, not many will
be left out. Thus, war has dual characteristics. [It] has a destructive
side; at the same time [it] also stimulates people’s activism, arouses
people’s consciousness, makes revolution erupt. What position do
you take on fighting World War III? How will you handle [it]? Do it
again, Just as with Japan’s occupation of China? What about having
Beijing, Zhengzhou, Wuhan, Guangzhou all occupied again? Everyone will wail and cry [if] that situation comes to us; we will have one
long face; we won't be as good as Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek; but
Generalissimo Chiang did not have a long face. We have all gone
through this, [we have had] no long faces. If World War III is to be
”7Tawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964), Prime Minister of India from independence in 1947 ull
his death, was the first major Third World figure to pursue a neutralist foreign policy,
eschewing alliance with either the West or the communist bloc.
162 «TEXT THREE
fought, let it be fought. How many atom bombs do you have? We
have none, [just] millet and rifles; but the eventual outcome of the
fighting will be that you are defeated in battle, because you are reactionary [and] backward; even though [your] economy is advanced,
[your] civilization advanced, yet [your] politics are backward, you
contravene the will of the people. In the whole [227] world there are
only two countries that [cannot] be destroyed: one is the Soviet
Union, the other is China. The Soviet Union is adjacent to the Arctic Ocean, we are adjacent to the Kunlun Mountains (Sounds of
laughter), indestructible. So if World War III is to be fought, I think
[it,] too, has a dual nature. Japanese say to me that they are very sorry
for attacking us. I say, Friends, you did a good thing. They really
became confused [at this]. I say, If you had not attacked, had not occupied so much land, [then] the Chinese people wouldn’t have been educated. I say, You were our teachers, motivating all the Chinese people
to oppose you, this is your contribution. International affairs
influence each other, permeate each other. Someone wrote a poem in
the past: two bodhisattvas, smashed into pieces, remixed with water,
again molded into two bodhisattvas.78 Thus I am part of you, [and]
you are part of me. Now the world, too, is like this, the world is two
mud bodhisattvas. There is something of us inside the capitalist mud
bodhisattva, and something of them inside the socialist bodhisattva.
Thus inside you is me, [and] inside me is you. Now the world, too, is
like this; the world is two mud bodhisattvas. There are more Hungarys; there are more [people] who listen to what they say. Various
nations in Eastern Europe listen to their broadcasts; the Soviet
Union, too, likes to listen to the Voice of America [and] European
radio [stations]. Our China, too, has this kind of person, [who] is
influenced by them. There are spies as well; they daily calculate [the
date of] their arrival. Some landlords cling on to business documents
{and] land contracts; some Nationalist party members retain their
party identification cards as proof, waiting for that day when they
come, [to say]—[Look], we have party cards! Prepare for the worst;
[in] fighting a big war, [you] either fight or don’t fight. First, [you]
’8This allusion in verse recalls a poem attributed to the wife of the renowned calligrapher
Zhao Mengtu (1254-1322). She dedicated it to him, celebrating their inseparableness. Over
the centuries, this inseparable you-me relationship was often referred to on the basis of her
original theme. The incorporation of bodhisattvas came in a later corrupted version.
a
i
i
ft i
ime oy
t
Ae LASTHYOATICeS Uy00d Or Dads’
prepare for him to strike, in case he goes crazy! Naturally in the end
we will be victorious. Now we [the socialist camp] have a population
of 900 million, double that is 1.8 billion. Secondly, I don’t think
there will be a war for a long period of time, perhaps giving us a
[breathing] space of a dozen or more years. First, let’s talk about losing the war, not an entirely bad thing. Even a good thing. What
about [economic] construction? Construction stops. [We] devote all
our energies to fighting the war. But under current circumstances
what is it that this imperialism is doing to us? Mutual infiltration
with the socialist camp. They hope to see Polish and Hungarian
[-type] incidents occur. What is the main contradiction in the world
today? It is imperialism battling for colonies, battling for Asia [and]
Africa. American and European imperialism, British, French, and
the like, this is their [228] main contradiction. [There are] three
forces: one is the force of socialism; one is the force of the national
independence movement; one is the force of imperialism. These
three forces do battle [with each other]; and the second force, the
national independence movement of Nasser, and others,”? can cooperate with us on various problems, on the problem of peace, on the
problem of imperialism; the degree [of collaboration] is not [always]
the same but [they] can cooperate with us. There is no great benefit
for the imperialists in going to war. The results of [such a] war would
not be of great advantage for them. What if [they] don’t go to war?
[They] can fight among themselves for the loot; the Americans battle
the English for Asia and battle the French for Africa. I think [they
will] adopt this method. In oil baron Rocketeller’s letter to [President] Eisenhower, his policy is just what we estimated: It seems what
[China] tells him to do, he does. His primary goal is not to attack us,
but to punish England [and] France. There are three types of country
[according to Rockefeller]: one type is Soviet-leaning Pakistan;
another type is the neutral states like India; [yet] another type is the
colonies with absolutely no independence, countries like Morocco
and Algeria. Rockefeller’s letter to Eisenhower was written in January of last year [1956], [and] this year—who knows from where [they
7?Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-70) was the president of Egypt, the leading Arab statesman,
and, with Nehru and Tito, one of the architects of the non-aligned or “neutralist” movement. He had met Premier Zhou Enlai at the 1955 Bandung conference and established diplomatic relations with China a year later.
TEAL LHREE
obtained it] and it was published in a German (East German) paper.
We have now published it and it’s very much worth a look.®°
NATIONAL MINORITIES
The eleventh problem, the problem of national minorities and great
Han chauvinism [and] the problem of Tibet. China has several tens
of millions of national minorities; the land that the national minorities occupy 1s vast, some 50 or 60 percent [of all China}; [their] population is about 6 percent [of China’s]. That’s why I had a section of
my “Ten great relationships”®! saying that the relations between the
Han and the national minorities should be conducted well. This is
principally the resolution of the problem of Han chauvinism. Has it
been resolved? It still has not been resolved well. The Communist
party is preparing to hold a meeting this year, a plenum of the Central Committee, specifically to discuss the United Front and the
national minority problem. [We] must certainly change this great
Han chauvinist work style, [these] ideas [and] sentiments, monopolizing matters that ought to be done by others [i.e. the minorities themselves], the disrespect for national minorities. There’s a group in
Tibet who want to set up an independent kingdom. Currently this
organization is a bit shaky; this time India asked us to let them
return. We permitted the Dalai [Lama] to go to India; he has already
gone to India. Now [he] has already returned to Tibet. America does
[its anti-communist] work. There is a place in India called Kalimpong, [229] [where they] specialize in sabotaging Tibet. Nehru himself told the Premier [Zhou Enlai], that this place is a center of
espionage, primarily American [and] British. If Tibet wants to be
independent our [position] is this: [If] you want to agitate for independence, then agitate; you want independence, I don’t want [you to
have] independence. We have a seventeen-point agreement. We
advised the Dalai [Lama] that he'd be better off coming back: If you
stay in India, then go to America, it might not be advantageous [to
you or Tibet]. Premier [Zhou] has spoken with him several times.
®0We have not traced the Rockefeller letter.
51 The speech was made on 25 April 1956 to an enlarged Politburo meeting, but did not
become widely available until circulated by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.
The official text is translated in SW5, pp. 284-307.
aaah tine
oP ol
2A AP,
mise
vet
. ee
cin
moa
i
at
at
itt
“yak
ERE
1 tt
Vee
eet
Pa tie
wed i
MG
. “4 A “4
LM€ JOVIeL NOAA anda tre UCNinese nOada
Also with other independence movement people, a group of those
residing in Kalimpong, [the Premier] has also talked with them,
[saying] they’d do better to return. As for reform, the seventeen
points stipulate that reforms be made; but the reforms need your
agreement. [If] you don’t want reform, then we won't have any. If in
the next few years you don’t [want] reforms, then we won't have any.
This is the way we have spoken to them just now. There'll be no
reform under the second FYP, in the third FYP we will see what you
think; if you say [let’s] reform, then [we'll] reform; if you say no
reform, then we'll continue not to reform. Why [do we have to be in]
such a hurry?®?
THE SOVIET ROAD AND THE CHINESE ROAD
Lastly, the twelfth point. The face of China may gradually change
within three or four five-year plans. The Soviet Union has one road
to industrialization, [but] the road we are currently taking is not completely the same as the Soviet Union's. I think there are some differences. In the “Ten great relationships” there are some items, some of
the great relationships [that] discuss this problem: The ratio of heavy
[industry], light [industry], and agriculture; the ratio of investments
in heavy industry, light industry, and agriculture should be substantially adjusted in comparison with the past. The Soviet Union's [ratio
of investment] is nine to one, 90 percent to 10 percent. That is to say
82After considerable hesitation, the Chinese government had finally allowed the Dalai
Lama to accept an Indian invitation to attend celebrations of the 2,500th anniversary of the
birth of the Buddha. He had arrived in India late in 1956 and immediately indicated to
Prime Minister Nehru his wish not to return home. Among his reasons were the Chinese
imposition of “democratic reforms” in eastern areas of Tibet, which had provoked a revolt
by the Khampa people in 1955-6; it was to be the Khampas’ second revolt in 1958-9 that
would lead to the Dalai Lama’s flight to India in March 1959. But in 1956, Nehru urged the
Dalai to return and after conversations with premier Zhou Enlai, who visited India at this
time as part of an Asian tour, the Tibetan leader went back to Lhasa in April 1957. Perhaps
he was encouraged by reports of Mao’s remarks on this occasion. But Mao's statement that
the Dalai Lama had already returned either indicates misinformation or may have referred
to a commitment by the Dalai to return. See John E Avedon, In Exile from the Land of Sorrows (New York, Knopf, 1984), pp. 44-7. For the text of the 17-point agreement signed by
Tibetan representatives and the Chinese, see Tibet, 1950-1967 (Hong Kong, URI, 1968), pp.
19-23. For the use of Kalimpong (situated near Darjeeling at the southern end of the Indian
trading routes into Tibet) as a spy center, see Neville Maxwell, India’s China War (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1972), p. 101; and George N. Patterson, Peking versus Delhi (London, Faber, 1963), pp. 250-5, 289-90.
LOD
L100
LEAL LOAREE
90 percent is [investment in] heavy industry, 10 percent is investment q !
in light industry and agriculture. [This] skims off a bit too much HI
from agriculture, [though] naturally the money skimmed off is used 3
for construction and is not simply pocketed. Herein lies a problem: :
The activism of the peasants is not high, and so the market does not
flourish. Where is the market for heavy industry? The market for @&
heavy industry is light industry [and] agriculture. The market is
these hundreds of millions of people, among whom are 500 million
peasants. [In] our first FYP the [ratio of investment] was 8 to 1; when
it came to implementation it was 7 to 1, better than the Soviet
Union. Wasn’t the Soviet Union's [ratio] 9 to 1? Heavy industry 9,
light industry [and] agriculture 1. We [set] heavy industry at 8—
(Premier Zhou: Agriculture is not included, only heavy versus
light [industry].)
[Chairman:] Agriculture’s not included; [if] we add in agriculture,
then that ratio will have to be recalculated. I think [we should give]
further consideration to this ratio in the second FYP. [230] In sum,
[we] should help light industry [and] agriculture develop. Light industry [and] agriculture are more or less the same thing. Without agriculture there would be no light industry; without light industry there
would be no agriculture. One is the raw material; the other is the market. Agriculture provides the raw materials; light industry uses the
rural areas as its market. Should heavy industry take precedence in
development? Well, 6 to 1 is still taking precedence, this side stands at
six, that side stands at one! [That’s] still taking precedence. Heavy
industry still takes precedence. But by taking the new road, will the
rate of industrial [development] be quicker than the Soviet Union’s
or not? It may look a little slower, [but will be] a little faster. That
is where we place our hopes. I think after all [we] may be a bit faster
than them. Because the Soviet Union in twenty-one years—take
steel as an example, [their] old base production figure was 4 million
tons; ours was 900,000 tons. At the time of [World] War [IJ] in 1913,
the Soviet Union’s steel [production] was 4 million tons. Nineteen
seventeen was the year of the Revolution; and we won't count 1918,
1919, 1920, the three years of civil war. Counting from 1921, from
1921 to World War II (1941), that was twenty-one and a half years. In
that twenty-one and a half years, 14 million tons [of steel]
ipe JOoViel NOad ana tre Crinese Koda
were added to the 4 million tons, making in all 18 million tons. Our
old base production figure was 900,000 tons, not speaking of 1949
but of our highest annual level. Most of it was Japanese; very little
came from Chiang Kai-shek—only a few score thousand tons. If we
calculate from that year, calculate from 1950, what year will be the
twenty-first? Is it possible that the imperialists will give us twentyone years? I’ve already said it was possible. There are two possibilities:
one that [they] don’t give [that much time]; the other that [they] do.
[If they] don’t give it, then [we] fight, an earthshaking fight, [then]
the world [will be] in total chaos. The result is the world goes red, if
not the whole world the greater part of the world. After fighting,
start construction again. This is also one way. [If] they want to fight,
what choice do we have? The stronger possibility is that they won't
fight, [and] very likely they will give us the time. Twenty-one years,
such as the Soviet Union had, [from] 1950, twenty-one goes to 1970,
[and] the third FYP goes to 1967. Sixty-eight, ’69, ’70, still three more
years [after it]. We say industrialization [will take] three Five-Year
Plans or a little longer, I think it’s about right. In twenty-one years
I'm sure our steel [production] can develop from 900,000 tons to over
18 million [231] tons, perhaps over 20 million tons. If we follow our
currently adopted policy. Give it a bit of flexibility; do more work
on markets; let the peasants eat their fill, let the peasants have purchasing power, develop light industry; the peasants [will] produce
even more raw materials for industrial use and produce even more
food. [If] peasants increase [their] purchasing power, [then] light
industry will have both materials and a market, [and] heavy industry
will have a market, too. Chemical fertilizers will have a market;
trucks will have a market. Investment in water conservancy requires
steel, [so] steel will have a market. Electric power enterprises will
have to develop for use in light industry and agriculture. [I] don’t
intend to talk any more on economic questions, and anyway there is
no time for it. We still lack experience in this problem, having
worked [on it] for only seven years. [We] have more experience in revolution, [on] how to make revolutionary struggle, [we have] political
experience; we have gone through reverses, made mistakes. But we
don’t have much experience in running the economy. I hope we don’t
have to learn [as in] the revolutionary struggle, having to go through
great reverses, losing all the southern bases, going on the Long March,
ending with only the Northern Shaanxi base. Ninety percent of the
army was lost; 90 percent of the party, too, was lost; work in the
White Areas was almost a 100 percent write-off.8? [We had to have]
that kind of lesson to educate us. But in economics is it possible to
shorten that time a bit? [We should try to] shorten it substantially,
not take so long; the losses from committing errors should not be so
great. The price [we] paid for the experience gained in revolution was
too high. We only ask this much [i.e., that the price may not be too
high.] But we now still lack experience; in the end what [will be]
appropriate, on so many things we still need to collect experience.
Should [we] learn from the Soviet Union? Is the Soviet Union
good or not? Now it seems [it’s] not good. I think it is still a good
country. Who designed and assembled so many factories for us? Did
America do it for us? Did England do it for us? Did Japan? Did
France? None of them did it for us. Who designed for us our military factories, airplanes, artillery, tanks? Also the Socialist Soviet
Union. That the Soviet Union has shortcomings is one thing. They
are a socialist country, we are the same type of country as they are.
We are socialist, they are also socialist. Only that one country helped
us, isn’t that true? [We should] learn from all countries, [we should]
learn also from the United States, this point is certain. Only to study
the Soviet Union is not [232] what [I] am talking about. All countries should be learned from: English should be studied; French
should be studied; German should be studied; Japanese should also
be studied. It’s not enough just to study Russian. But primarily we
should learn from the Soviet Union. Because only they gave us these
things; only they dispatched engineers to design for us, teaching us to
be able to make designs ourselves; only they were able to give us
equipment, and the same in scientific cooperation as well. In nuclear
power, aside from the Soviet Union, what country will help us? so
the Soviet Union is the key point in our study. Learning has two
approaches: One is to learn everything—dogmatism, bad experience,
inappropriate experience, everything is to be transplanted, good and
bad all are transplanted. This is one attitude. This kind of attitude
isn't good. [What] we are talking about is learning from the Soviet
Union’s advanced experiences. Who asks you to learn from backward
experiences? We certainly have never put forward the slogan to learn
83White Areas” refers to places controlled by either Japanese or the Nationalists during
the revolution.
ihe Soviet Koad and the Chinese Road
from the Soviet Union’s backward experiences; we have never put it
in the papers, either. But sometimes, in fact, a few experiences that
are backward experiences, are labeled as advanced experiences,
[though] in reality they are backward experiences. We shouldn’t have
learned from them, yet we have, and not just a little. This should be
avoided. [We] should unite with the Soviet Union, unite with all
socialist countries; that is a basic, because we can only rely on these
people. The countries of Asia and Africa come only second. As for
the imperialists, those people have no conscience, their conscience is
questionable. Does Dulles have that much conscience? I don’t believe
it. You don’t give us help, [you] don’t send us machines: Where’s your
conscience in that? Every day [you] curse us, occupy Taiwan and
wont leave, won't let go. Comrades, [ve] talked too much. What
time is it? Seven oclock. Three oclock, four oclock, five o'clock, six
oclock, seven oclock: [I] won't talk anymore.