February 27, 1957

[Speech at the Eleventh Session (Enlarged) of the Supreme State Conference.
Comrade Mao Tsetung went over the verbatim record and made certain additions
before its publication in the People's Daily on June 19, 1957.]


Our general subject is the correct handling of contradictions among the people.
For convenience, let us discuss it under twelve sub-headings. Although reference
will be made to contradictions between ourselves and the enemy, this discussion
will centre on contradictions among the people.

I. TWO TYPES OF CONTRADICTIONS DIFFERING IN NATURE

Never before has our country been as united as it is today. The
victories of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and of the socialist
revolution and our achievements in socialist construction have rapidly changed
the face of the old China. A still brighter future lies ahead for our motherland.
The days of national disunity and chaos which the people detested are gone,
never to return. Led by the working class and the Communist Party,
our 600 million people, united as one, are engaged in the great task of building
socialism. The unification of our country, the unity of our people and the
unity of our various nationalities -- these are the basic guarantees for
the sure triumph of our cause. However, this does not mean that contradictions
no longer exist in our society. To imagine that none exist is a naive idea
which is at variance with objective reality. We are confronted with two types
of social contradictions -- those between ourselves and the enemy and those
among the people. The two are totally different in nature.

To understand these two different types of contradictions correctly, we must
first be clear on what is meant by "the people" and what is meant by "the
enemy". The concept of "the people" varies in content in different countries
and in different periods of history in a given country. Take our own country
for example. During the War of Resistance Against Japan, all those classes,
strata and social groups opposing Japanese aggression came within the category
of the people, while the Japanese imperialists, their Chinese collaborators
and the pro-Japanese elements were all enemies of the people. During the
War of Liberation, the U.S. imperialists and their running dogs -- the
bureaucrat-capitalists, the landlords and the Kuomintang reactionaries who
represented these two classes -- were the enemies of the people, while the
other classes, strata and social groups, which opposed them, all came within
the category of the people. At the present stage, the period of building
socialism, the classes, strata and social groups which favour, support and
work for the cause of socialist construction all come within the category
of the people, while the social forces and groups which resist the socialist
revolution and are hostile to or sabotage socialist construction are all
enemies of the people.

The contradictions between ourselves and the enemy are antagonistic
contradictions. Within the ranks of the people, the contradictions among
the working people are non-antagonistic, while those between the exploited
and the exploiting classes have a non-antagonistic as well as an antagonistic
aspect. There have always been contradictions among the people, but they
are different in content in each period of the revolution and in the period
of building socialism. In the conditions prevailing in China today, the
contradictions among the people comprise the contradictions within the working
class, the contradictions within the peasantry, the contradictions within
the intelligentsia, the contradictions between the working class and the
peasantry, the contradictions between the workers and peasants on the one
hand and the intellectuals on the other, the contradictions between the working
class and other sections of the working people on the one hand and the national
bourgeoisie on the other, the contradictions within the national bourgeoisie,
and so on. Our People's Government is one that genuinely represents the people's
interests, it is a government that serves the people. Nevertheless, there
are still certain contradictions between this government and the people.
These include the contradictions between the interests of the state and the
interests of the collective on the one hand and the interests of the individual
on the other, between democracy and centralism, between the leadership and
the led, and the contradictions arising from the bureaucratic style of work
of some of the state personnel in their relations with the masses. All these
are also contradictions among the people. Generally speaking, the fundamental
identity of the people's interests underlies the contradictions among the
people.

In our country, the contradiction between the working class and the national
bourgeoisie comes under the category of contradictions among the people.
By and large, the class struggle between the two is a class struggle within
the ranks of the people, because the Chinese national bourgeoisie has a dual
character. In the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it had both
a revolutionary and a conciliationist side to its character. In the period
of the socialist revolution, exploitation of the working class for profit
constitutes one side of the character of the national bourgeoisie, while
its support of the Constitution and its willingness to accept socialist
transformation constitute the other. The national bourgeoisie differs from
the imperialists, the landlords and the bureaucrat-capitalists. The contradiction
between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter
and exploited, and is by nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions
of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two classes, if properly
handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by
peaceful methods. However, the contradiction between the working class and
the national bourgeoisie will change into a contradiction between ourselves
and the enemy if we do not handle it properly and do not follow the policy
of uniting with, criticizing and educating the national bourgeoisie, or if
the national bourgeoisie does not accept this policy of ours.

Since they are different in nature, the contradictions between ourselves
and the enemy and the contradictions among the people must be resolved by
different methods. To put it briefly, the former entail drawing a clear
distinction between ourselves and the enemy, and the latter entail drawing
a clear distinction between right and wrong. It is of course true that the
distinction between ourselves and the enemy is also one of right and wrong.
For example, the question of who is in the right, we or the domestic and
foreign reactionaries, the imperialists, the feudalists and
bureaucrat-capitalists, is also one of right and wrong, but it is in a different
category from questions of right and wrong among the people.

Our state is a people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class
and based on the worker-peasant alliance. What is this dictatorship for?
Its first function is internal, namely, to suppress the reactionary classes
and elements and those exploiters who resist the socialist revolution, to
suppress those who try to wreck our socialist construction, or in other words,
to resolve the contradictions between ourselves and the internal enemy. For
instance, to arrest, try and sentence certain counter-revolutionaries, and
to deprive landlords and bureaucrat-capitalists of their right to vote and
their freedom of speech for a certain period of time -- all this comes within
the scope of our dictatorship. To maintain public order and safeguard the
interests of the people, it is necessary to exercise dictatorship as well
over thieves, swindlers, murderers, arsonists, criminal gangs and other
scoundrels who seriously disrupt public order. The second function of this
dictatorship is to protect our country from subversion and possible aggression
by external enemies. In such contingencies, it is the task of this dictatorship
to resolve the contradiction between ourselves and the external enemy. The
aim of this dictatorship is to protect all our people so that they can devote
themselves to peaceful labour and make China a socialist country with modern
industry, modern agriculture, and modern science and culture. Who
is to exercise this dictatorship? Naturally, the working class and the entire
people under its leadership. Dictatorship does not apply within the ranks
of the people. The people cannot exercise dictatorship over themselves, nor
must one section of the people oppress another. Law-breakers among the people
will be punished according to law, but this is different in principle from
the exercise of dictatorship to suppress enemies of the people. What applies
among the people is democratic centralism. Our Constitution lays it down
that citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech,
the press, assembly, association, procession, demonstration, religious belief,
and so on. Our Constitution also provides that the organs of state must practice
democratic centralism, that they must rely on the masses and that their personnel
must serve the people. Our socialist democracy is the broadest kind of democracy,
such as is not to be found in any bourgeois state. Our dictatorship is the
people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the
worker-peasant alliance. That is to say, democracy operates within the ranks
of the people, while the working class, uniting with all others enjoying
civil rights, and in the first place with the peasantry, enforces dictatorship
over the reactionary classes and elements and all those who resist socialist
transformation and oppose socialist construction. By civil rights, we mean,
politically, the rights of freedom and democracy.

But this freedom is freedom with leadership and this democracy is democracy
under centralized guidance, not anarchy. Anarchy does not accord with the
interests or wishes of the people.

Certain people in our country were delighted by the Hungarian incident. They
hoped that something similar would happen in China, that thousands upon thousands
of people would take to the streets to demonstrate against the People's
Government. Their hopes ran counter to the interests of the masses and therefore
could not possibly win their support. Deceived by domestic and foreign
counter-revolutionaries, a section of the people in Hungary made the mistake
of resorting to violence against the people's government, with the result
that both the state and the people suffered. The damage done to the country's
economy in a few weeks of rioting will take a long time to repair. In our
country there were some others who wavered on the question of the
Hungarian incident because they were ignorant of the real state of affairs
in the world. They think that there is too little freedom under our people's
democracy and that there is more freedom under Western parliamentary democracy.
They ask for a two-party system as in the West, with one party in
office and the other in opposition. But this so-called two-party system is
nothing but a device for maintaining the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie; it can never guarantee freedoms to the working people. As a
matter of fact, freedom and democracy exist not in the abstract, but only
in the concrete. In a society where class struggle exists, if there is freedom
for the exploiting classes to exploit the working people, there is no freedom
for the working people not to be exploited. If there is democracy for the
bourgeoisie, there is no democracy for the proletariat and other working
people. The legal existence of the Communist Party is tolerated in some
capitalist countries, but only to the extent that it does not endanger the
fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie; it is not tolerated beyond that.
Those who demand freedom and democracy in the abstract regard democracy as
an end and not as a means. Democracy as such sometimes seems to be an end,
but it is in fact only a means. Marxism teaches us that democracy is part
of the superstructure and belongs to the realm of politics. That is to say,
in the last analysis, it serves the economic base. The same is true of freedom.
Both democracy and freedom are relative, not absolute, and they come
into being and develop in specific historical conditions. Within the ranks
of the people, democracy is correlative with centralism and freedom with
discipline. They are the two opposites of a single entity, contradictory
as well as united, and we should not one-sidedly emphasize one to the exclusion
of the other. Within the ranks of the people, we cannot do without freedom,
nor can we do without discipline; we cannot do without democracy, nor can
we do without centralism. This unity of democracy and centralism, of freedom
and discipline, constitutes our democratic centralism. Under this system,
the people enjoy broad democracy and freedom, but at the same time they have
to keep within the bounds of socialist discipline. All this is well understood
by the masses.

In advocating freedom with leadership and democracy under centralized guidance,
we in no way mean that coercive measures should be taken to settle ideological
questions or questions involving the distinction between right and wrong
among the people. All attempts to use administrative orders or coercive measures
to settle ideological questions or questions of right and wrong are not only
ineffective but harmful. We cannot abolish religion by administrative order
or force people not to believe in it. We cannot compel people to give up
idealism, any more than we can force them to embrace Marxism. The only way
to settle questions of an ideological nature or controversial issues among
the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, criticism,
persuasion and education, and not by the method of coercion or repression.
To be able to carry on their production and studies effectively and to lead
their lives in peace and order, the people want their government and those
in charge of production and of cultural and educational organizations to
issue appropriate administrative regulations of an obligatory nature. It
is common sense that without them the maintenance of public order would be
impossible. Administrative regulations and the method of persuasion and education
complement each other in resolving contradictions among the people. In fact,
administrative regulations for the maintenance of public order must be
accompanied by persuasion and education, for in many cases regulations alone
will not work.

This democratic method of resolving contradictions among the people was
epitomized in 1942 in the formula "unity -- criticism -- unity". To elaborate,
that means starting from the desire for unity, resolving contradictions through
criticism or struggle, and arriving at a new unity on a new basis. In our
experience this is the correct method of resolving contradictions among the
people. In 1942 we used it to resolve contradictions inside the Communist
Party, namely, the contradictions between the dogmatists and the great majority
of the membership, and between dogmatism and Marxism. The "Left" dogmatists
had resorted to the method of "ruthless struggle and merciless blows" in
inner-Party struggle. It was the wrong method. In criticizing "Left" dogmatism,
we did not use this old method but adopted a new one, that is, one of starting
from the desire for unity, distinguishing between right and wrong through
criticism or struggle, and arriving at a new unity on a new basis. This was
the method used in the rectification movement of 1942. Within a few years,
by the time the Chinese Communist Party held its Seventh National Congress
in 1945, unity was achieved throughout the Party as anticipated, and consequently
the people's revolution triumphed. Here, the essential thing is to start
from the desire for unity. For without this desire for unity, the struggle,
once begun, is certain to throw things into confusion and get out of hand.
Wouldn't this be the same as "ruthless struggle and merciless blows"? And
what Party unity would there be left? It was precisely this experience that
led us to the formula "unity -- criticism -- unity". Or, in other words,
"learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones and cure the sickness to save
the patient". We extended this method beyond our Party. We applied it with
great success in the anti-Japanese base areas in dealing with the relations
between the leadership and the masses, between the army and the people, between
officers and men, between the different units of the army, and between the
different groups of cadres. The use of this method can be traced back to
still earlier times in our Party's history. Ever since 1927 when we built
our revolutionary armed forces and base areas in the south, this method had
been used to deal with the relations between the Party and the masses, between
the army and the people, between officers and men, and with other relations
among the people. The only difference was that during the anti-Japanese war
we employed this method much more consciously. And since the liberation of
the whole country, we have employed this same method of "unity -- criticism
-- unity" in our relations with the democratic parties and with industrial
and commercial circles. Our task now is to continue to extend and make still
better use of this method throughout the ranks of the people; we want all
our factories, co-operatives, shops, schools, offices and people's organizations,
in a word, all our 600 million people, to use it in resolving contradictions
among themselves.

In ordinary circumstances, contradictions among the people are not antagonistic.
But if they are not handled properly, or if we relax our vigilance and lower
our guard, antagonism may arise. In a socialist country, a development of
this kind is usually only a localized and temporary phenomenon. The reason
is that the system of exploitation of man by man has been abolished and the
interests of the people are fundamentally identical. The antagonistic actions
which took place on a fairly wide scale during the Hungarian incident were
the result of the operations of both domestic and foreign counter-revolutionary
elements. This was a particular as well as a temporary phenomenon. It was
a case of the reactionaries inside a socialist country, in league with the
imperialists, attempting to achieve their conspiratorial aims by taking advantage
of contradictions among the people to foment dissension and stir up disorder.
The lesson of the Hungarian incident merits attention.

Date: 1957-02-27
Source: Mao Tse-tung, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1966).

Many people seem to think that the use of the democratic method to resolve
contradictions among the people is something new. Actually it is not. Marxists
have always held that the cause of the proletariat must depend on the masses
of the people and that Communists must use the democratic method of persuasion
and education when working among the labouring people and must on no account
resort to commandism or coercion. The Chinese Communist Party faithfully
adheres to this Marxist-Leninist principle. It has been our consistent view
that under the people's democratic dictatorship two different methods, one
dictatorial and the other democratic, should be used to resolve the two types
of contradictions which differ in nature -- those between ourselves and the
enemy and those among the people. This idea has been explained again and
again in many Party documents and in speeches by many leading comrades of


our Party. In my article "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship", written
in 1949, I said, "The combination of these two aspects, democracy for the

people and dictatorship over the reactionaries, is the people's democratic
dictatorship." I also pointed out that in order to settle problems within
the ranks of the people "the method we employ is democratic, the method of
persuasion, not of compulsion". Again, in addressing the Second Session of
the First National Committee of the Political Consultative Conference in
June two, I said:

The people's democratic dictatorship uses two methods. Towards the enemy,
it uses the method of dictatorship, that is, for as long a period of time
as is necessary it does not permit them to take part in political activity
and compels them to obey the law of the People's Government, to engage in
labour and, through such labour, be transformed into new men. Towards the
people, on the contrary, it uses the method of democracy and not of compulsion,
that is, it must necessarily let them take part in political activity and
does not compel them to do this or that but uses the method of democracy
to educate and persuade. Such education is self-education for the people,
and its basic method is criticism and self-criticism.

Thus, on many occasions we have discussed the use of the democratic method
for resolving contradictions among the people; furthermore, we have in the
main applied it in our work, and many cadres and many other people are familiar
with it in practice. Why then do some people now feel that it is a new issue?
Because, in the past, the struggle between ourselves and the enemy, both
internal and external, was most acute, and contradictions among the people
therefore did not attract as much attention as they do today.

Quite a few people fail to make a clear distinction between these two
different types of contradictions--those between ourselves and the enemy
and those among the people -- and are prone to confuse the two. It must
be admitted that it is sometimes quite easy to do so. We have had instances
of such confusion in our work in the past. In the course of cleaning out
counter-revolutionaries good people were sometimes mistaken for bad, and
such things still happen today. We are able to keep mistakes within bounds
because it has been our policy to draw a sharp line between ourselves
and the enemy and to rectify mistakes whenever discovered.

Marxist philosophy holds that the law of the unity of opposites is the
fundamental law of the universe. This law operates universally, whether in
the natural world, in human society, or in man's thinking. Between the opposites
in a contradiction there is at once unity and struggle, and it is this that
impels things to move and change. Contradictions exist everywhere, but their
nature differs in accordance with the different nature of different things.
In any given thing, the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and
transitory, and hence relative, whereas the struggle of opposites is absolute.
Lenin gave a very clear exposition of this law. It has come to be understood
by a growing number of people in our country. But for many people it is one
thing to accept this law and quite another to apply it in examining and dealing
with problems. Many dare not openly admit that contradictions still exist
among the people of our country, while it is precisely these contradictions
that are pushing our society forward. Many do not admit that contradictions
still exist in socialist society, with the result that they become irresolute
and passive when confronted with social contradictions; they do not understand
that socialist society grows more united and consolidated through the ceaseless
process of correctly handling and resolving contradictions. For this reason,
we need to explain things to our people, and to our cadres in the first place,
in order to help them understand the contradictions in socialist society
and learn to use correct methods for handling them.

Contradictions in socialist society are fundamentally different from those
in the old societies, such as capitalist society. In capitalist society
contradictions find expression in acute antagonisms and conflicts, in sharp
class struggle; they cannot be resolved by the capitalist system itself and
can only be resolved by socialist revolution. The case is quite different
with contradictions in socialist society; on the contrary, they are not
antagonistic and can be ceaselessly resolved by the socialist system itself.

In socialist society the basic contradictions are still those between the
relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure
and the economic base. However, they are fundamentally different in character
and have different features from the contradictions between the relations
of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and
the economic base in the old societies. The present social system of our
country is far superior to that of the old days. If it were not so, the old
system would not have been overthrown and the new system could not have been
established. In saying that the socialist relations of production correspond
better to the character of the productive forces than did the old relations
of production, we mean that they allow the productive forces to develop at
a speed unattainable in the old society, so that production can expand steadily
and increasingly meet the constantly growing needs of the people. Under the
rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism, the productive
forces of the old China grew very slowly. For more than fifty years before
liberation, China produced only a few tens of thousands of tons of steel
a year, not counting the output of the northeastern provinces. If these provinces
are included, the peak annual steel output only amounted to a little over
900,000 tons. In 1949, the national steel output was a little over 100,000
tons. Yet now, a mere seven years after the liberation of our country, steel
output already exceeds 4,000,000 tons. In the old China, there was hardly
any machine-building industry, to say nothing of the automobile and aircraft
industries; now we have all three. When the people overthrew the rule of
imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism, many were not clear as
to which way China should head -- towards capitalism or towards socialism.
Facts have now provided the answer: Only socialism can save China. The socialist
system has promoted the rapid development of the productive forces of our
country, a fact even our enemies abroad have had to acknowledge.

But our socialist system has only just been set up; it is not yet fully
established or fully consolidated. In joint state-private industrial and
commercial enterprises, capitalists still get a fixed rate of interest on
their capital, that is to say, exploitation still exists. So far as ownership
is concerned, these enterprises are not yet completely socialist in nature.
A number of our agricultural and handicraft producers' co-operatives are
still semi-socialist, while even in the fully socialist co-operatives certain
specific problems of ownership remain to be solved. Relations between production
and exchange in accordance with socialist principles are being gradually
established within and between all branches of our economy, and more and
more appropriate forms are being sought. The problem of the proper relation
of accumulation to consumption within each of the two sectors of the socialist
economy -- the one where the means of production are owned by the whole people
and the other where the means of production are owned by the collective
-- and the problem of the proper relation of accumulation to consumption
between the two sectors themselves are complicated problems for which it
is not easy to work out a perfectly rational solution all at once. To sum
up, socialist relations of production have been established and are in
correspondence with the growth of the productive forces, but these relations
are still far from perfect, and this imperfection stands in contradiction
to the growth of the productive forces. Apart from correspondence as well
as contradiction between the relations of production and the growth of the
productive forces, there is correspondence as well as contradiction between
the superstructure and the economic base. The superstructure, comprising
the state system and laws of the people's democratic dictatorship and the
socialist ideology guided by Marxism-Leninism, plays a positive role in
facilitating the victory of socialist transformation and the socialist way
of organizing labour; it is in correspondence with the socialist economic
base, that is, with socialist relations of production. But the existence
of bourgeois ideology, a certain bureaucratic style of work in our state
organs and defects in some of the links in our state institutions are in
contradiction with the socialist economic base. We must continue to resolve
all such contradictions in the light of our specific conditions. Of course,
new problems will emerge as these contradictions are resolved. And further
efforts will be required to resolve the new contradictions. For instance,
a constant process of readjustment through state planning is needed to deal
with the contradiction between production and the needs of society, which
will long remain an objective reality. Every year our country draws up an
economic plan in order to establish a proper ratio between accumulation and
consumption and achieve an equilibrium between production and needs. Equilibrium
is nothing but a temporary, relative, unity of opposites. By the end of each
year, this equilibrium, taken as a whole, is upset by the struggle of opposites;
the unity undergoes a change, equilibrium becomes disequilibrium, unity becomes
disunity, and once again it is necessary to work out an equilibrium and unity
for the next year. Herein lies the superiority of our planned economy. As
a matter of fact, this equilibrium, this unity, is partially upset every
month or every quarter, and partial readjustments are called for. Sometimes,
contradictions arise and the equilibrium is upset because our subjective
arrangements do not conform to objective reality; this is what we call making
a mistake. The ceaseless emergence and ceaseless resolution of contradictions
constitute the dialectical law of the development of things.

Today, matters stand as follows. The large-scale, turbulent class struggles
of the masses characteristic of times of revolution have in the main come
to an end, but class struggle is by no means entirely over. While welcoming
the new system, the masses are not yet quite accustomed to it. Government
personnel are not sufficiently experienced and have to undertake further
study and investigation of specific policies. In other words, time is needed
for our socialist system to become established and consolidated, for the
masses to become accustomed to the new system, and for government personnel
to learn and acquire experience. It is therefore imperative for us at this
juncture to raise the question of distinguishing contradictions among the
people from those between ourselves and the enemy, as well as the question
of the correct handling of contradictions among the people, in order to unite
the people of all nationalities in our country for the new battle, the battle
against nature, develop our economy and culture, help the whole nation to
traverse this period of transition relatively smoothly, consolidate our new
system and build up our new state.

II. THE QUESTION OF ELIMINATING COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES

The elimination of counter-revolutionaries is a struggle of opposites as
between ourselves and the enemy. Among the people, there are some who see
this question in a somewhat different light. Two kinds of people hold views
differing from ours. Those with a Right deviation in their thinking make
no distinction between ourselves and the enemy and take the enemy for our
own people. They regard as friends the very persons whom the masses regard
as enemies. Those with a "Left" deviation in their thinking magnify
contradictions between ourselves and the enemy to such an extent that they
take certain contradictions among the people for contradictions with the
enemy and regard as counter-revolutionaries persons who are actually not.
Both these views are wrong. Neither makes possible the correct handling
of the problem of eliminating counter-revolutionaries or a correct assessment
of this work.

To form a correct evaluation of our work in eliminating counter-revolutionaries,
let us see what repercussions the Hungarian incident has had in China. After
its occurrence there was some unrest among a section of our intellectuals,
but there were no squalls. Why? One reason, it must be said, was our success
in eliminating counter-revolutionaries fairly thoroughly.

Of course, the consolidation of our state is not due primarily to the elimination
of counter-revolutionaries. It is due primarily to the fact that we have
a Communist Party and a Liberation Army both tempered in decades of revolutionary
struggle, and a working people likewise so tempered. Our Party and our armed
forces are rooted in the masses, have been tempered in the flames of a protracted
revolution and have the capacity to fight. Our People's Republic was not
built overnight, but developed step by step out of the revolutionary base
areas. A number of democratic personages have also been tempered in the struggle
in varying degrees, and they have gone through troubled times together with
us. Some intellectuals were tempered in the struggles against imperialism
and reaction; since liberation many have gone through a process of ideological
remoulding aimed at enabling them to distinguish clearly between ourselves
and the enemy. In addition, the consolidation of our state is due to the
fact that our economic measures are basically sound, that the people's life
is secure and steadily improving, that our policies towards the national
bourgeoisie and other classes are correct, and so on. Nevertheless, our success
in eliminating counter-revolutionaries is undoubtedly an important reason
for the consolidation of our state. For all these reasons, with few exceptions
our college students are patriotic and support socialism and did not give
way to unrest during the Hungarian incident, even though many of them come
from families of non-working people. The same was true of the national
bourgeoisie, to say nothing of the basic masses -- the workers and peasants.

After liberation, we rooted out a number of counter-revolutionaries. Some
were sentenced to death for major crimes. This was absolutely necessary,
it was the demand of the masses, and it was done to free them from long years
of oppression by the counter-revolutionaries and all kinds of local tyrants,
in other words, to liberate the productive forces. If we had not done so,
the masses would not have been able to lift their heads. Since 1956, however,
there has been a radical change in the situation. In the country as a whole,
the bulk of the counter-revolutionaries have been cleared out. Our basic
task has changed from unfettering the productive forces to protecting and
expanding them in the context of the new relations of production. Because
of failure to understand that our present policy fits the present situation
and our past policy fitted the past situation, some people want to make use
of the present policy to reverse past decisions and to negate the tremendous
success we achieved in eliminating counter-revolutionaries. This is completely
wrong, and the masses will not permit it.

In our work of eliminating counter-revolutionaries successes were the main
thing, but there were also mistakes. In some cases there were excesses and
in others counter-revolutionaries slipped through our net. Our policy is:
"Counter-revolutionaries must be eliminated wherever found, mistakes must
be corrected whenever discovered." Our line in the work of eliminating
counter-revolutionaries is the mass line. Of course, even with the mass line
mistakes may still occur, but they will be fewer and easier to correct. The
masses gain experience through struggle. From the things done correctly they
gain the experience of how things are done correctly. From the mistakes made
they gain the experience of how mistakes are made.

Wherever mistakes have been discovered in the work of eliminating
counter-revolutionaries, steps have been or are being taken to correct them.
Those not yet discovered will be corrected as soon as they come to light.
Exoneration or rehabilitation should be made known as widely as were the
original wrong decisions. I propose that a comprehensive review of the work
of eliminating counter-revolutionaries be made this year or next to sum up
experience, promote justice and counter unjust attacks. Nationally, this
review should be in the charge of the Standing Committees of the National
People's Congress and of the National Committee of the Political Consultative
Conference and, locally, in the charge of the people's councils and the
committees of the Political Consultative Conference in the provinces and
municipalities. In this review, we must help the large numbers of cadres
and activists involved in the work, and do not pour cold water on them. It would
not be right to dampen their spirits. Nonetheless, wrongs must be righted
when discovered. This must be the attitude of all the public security organs,
the procurators' offices and the judicial departments, prisons and agencies
charged with the reform of criminals through labour. We hope that wherever
possible members of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress,
members of the National Committee of the Political Consultative Conference
and people's deputies will take part in this review. This will be of help
in perfecting our legal system and in dealing correctly with
counter-revolutionaries and other criminals.

The present situation with regard to counter-revolutionaries can be
described in these words: There still are counter-revolutionaries, but not
many. In the first place, there still are counter-revolutionaries. Some people
say that there aren't any more left and all is well and that we can therefore
lay our heads on our pillows and just drop off to sleep. But this is not
the way things are. The fact is, there still are counter-revolutionaries
(of course, that is not to say you'll find them everywhere and in every
organization), and we must continue to fight them. It must be understood
that the hidden counter-revolutionaries still at large will not take things
lying down, but will certainly seize every opportunity to make trouble. The
U.S. imperialists and the Chiang Kai-shek clique are constantly sending in
secret agents to carry on disruptive activities. Even after all the existing
counter-revolutionaries have been combed out, new ones are likely to emerge.
If we drop our guard, we shall be badly fooled and shall suffer severely.
Counter-revolutionaries must be rooted out with a firm hand wherever they
are found making trouble. But, taking the country as a whole, there are certainly
not many counter-revolutionaries. It would be wrong to say that there are
still large numbers of counter-revolutionaries in China Acceptance of that
view would likewise result in a mess.

III. THE QUESTION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE TRANSFORMATION OF
AGRICULTURE

We have a rural population of over 500 million, so how our peasants fare
has a most important bearing on the development of our economy and
the consolidation of our state power. In my view, the situation is basically
sound. The co-operative transformation of agriculture has been successfully
accomplished, and this has resolved the great contradiction in our country
between socialist industrialization and the individual peasant economy. As

the co-operative transformation of agriculture was completed so rapidly,
some people were worried and wondered whether something untoward might occur.

There are indeed some faults, but fortunately they are not serious and on
the whole the movement is healthy. The peasants are working with a will,
and last year there was an increase in the country's grain output despite
the worst floods, droughts and gales in years. Now there are people who are
stirring up a miniature typhoon, they are saying that co-operation is no
good, that there is nothing superior about it. Is co-operation superior or
not? Among the documents distributed at today's meeting there is one about
the Wang Kuo-fan Co-operative in Tsunhua County, Hopei Province, which I
suggest you read. This co-operative is situated in a hilly region which was
very poor in the past and which for a number of years depended on relief
grain from the People's Government. When the co-operative was first set up
in 1953, people called it the "paupers' co-op". But it has become better
off year by year, and now, after four years of hard struggle, most of its
households have reserves of grain. What was possible for this co-operative
should also be possible for others to achieve under normal conditions in
the same length of time or a little longer. Clearly there are no grounds
for saying that something has gone wrong with agricultural co-operation.

It is also clear that it takes hard struggle to build co-operatives. New
things always have to experience difficulties and setbacks as they grow.
It is sheer fantasy to imagine that the cause of socialism is all plain
sailing and easy success, with no difficulties and setbacks, or without the
exertion of tremendous efforts.

Who are the active supporters of the co-operatives? The overwhelming majority
of the poor and lower-middle peasants who constitute more than 70 per cent
of the rural population. Most of the other peasants are also placing their
hopes on the co-operatives. Only a very small minority are really dissatisfied.
Quite a number of persons have failed to analyse this situation and to make
an over-all examination of the achievements and shortcomings of the co-operatives
and the causes of these shortcomings; instead they have taken part of the
picture or one side of the matter for the whole, and consequently a miniature
typhoon has been stirred up among some people, who are saying that the
co-operatives are not superior.

How long will it take to consolidate the co-operatives and for this talk
about their not being superior to wind up? Judging from the experience of
the growth of many co-operatives, it will probably take five years or a little
longer. As most of our co-operatives are only a little over a year old, it
would be unreasonable to ask too much of them. In my view, we will be doing
well enough if the co-operatives can be consolidated during the Second Five-Year
Plan after being established in the First.

The co-operatives are now in the process of gradual consolidation. There
are certain contradictions that remain to be resolved, such as those between
the state and the co-operatives and those in and between the co-operatives
themselves.

To resolve these contradictions we must pay constant attention to the problems
of production and distribution. On the question of production, the co-operative
economy must be subject to the unified economic planning of the state, while
retaining a certain flexibility and independence that do not run counter
to the state's unified plan or its policies, laws and regulations. At the
same time, every household in a co-operative must comply with the over-all
plan of the co-operative or production team to which it belongs, though it
may make its own appropriate plans in regard to land allotted for personal
needs and to other individually operated economic undertakings. On the question
of distribution, we must take the interests of the state, the collective
and the individual into account. We must properly handle the three-way
relationship between the state agricultural tax, the co-operative's accumulation
fund and the peasants' personal income, and take constant care to make
readjustments so as to resolve contradictions between them. Accumulation
is essential for both the state and the co-operative, but in neither case
should it be excessive. We should do everything possible to enable the peasants
in normal years to raise their personal incomes annually through increased
production.

Many people say that the peasants lead a hard life. Is this true? In one
sense it is. That is to say, because the imperialists and their agents oppressed
and exploited us for over a century, ours is an impoverished country and
the standard of living not only of our peasants but of our workers and
intellectuals is still low. We will need several decades of strenuous effort
gradually to raise the standard of living of our people as a whole. In this
context, it is right to say that the peasants lead a "hard life". But in
another sense it is not true. We refer to the allegation that in the seven
years since liberation it is only the life of the workers that has been improved
and not that of the peasants. As a matter of fact, with very few exceptions,
there has been some improvement in the life of both the peasants and the
workers. Since liberation, the peasants have been free from landlord exploitation
and their production has increased annually. Take grain crops. In 1949, the
country's output was only something over 210,000 million catties. By 1956,
it had risen to more than 360,000 million catties, an increase of nearly
150,000 million catties. The state agricultural tax is not heavy, only amounting
to something over 30,000 million catties a year. State purchases of grain
from the peasants at standard prices only amount to a little over 50,000
million catties a year. These two items together total over 80,000 million
catties. Furthermore, more than half this grain is sold back to the villages
and nearby towns. Obviously, no one can say that there has been no improvement
in the life of the peasants. In order to help agriculture to develop and
the co-operatives to become consolidated, we are planning to stabilize the
total annual amount of the grain tax plus the grain purchased by the state
at somewhat more than 80,000 million catties within a few years. In this
way, the small number of grain-deficient households still found in the
countryside will stop being short, all peasant households, except some raising
industrial crops, will either have grain reserves or at least become
self-sufficient, there will no longer be poor peasants in the countryside,
and the standard of living of the entire peasantry will reach or surpass
the middle peasants' level. It is not right simply to compare a peasant's
average annual income with a worker's and jump to the conclusion that one
is too low and the other too high. Since the labour productivity of the workers
is much higher than that of the peasants and the latter's cost of living
is much lower than that of workers in the cities, the workers cannot be said
to have received special favors from the state. The wages of a small
number of workers and some state personnel are in fact a little too high,
the peasants have reason to be dissatisfied with this, and it is necessary
to make certain appropriate adjustments according to specific circumstances.

IV. THE QUESTION OF THE INDUSTRIALISTS AND BUSINESSMEN

With regard to the transformation of our social system, the year 1956 saw
the conversion of privately owned industrial and commercial enterprises into
joint state-private enterprises as well as the co-operative transformation
of agriculture and handicrafts. The speed and smoothness of this conversion
were closely bound up with our treating the contradiction between the working
class and the national bourgeoisie as a contradiction among the people. Has
this class contradiction been completely resolved? No, not yet. That will
take a considerable period of time. However, some people say the capitalists
have been so remoulded that they are now not very different from the workers
and that further remoulding is unnecessary. Others go so far as to say that
the capitalists are even better than the workers. Still others ask, if remoulding
is necessary, why do not it necessary for the working class? Are these opinions
correct? Of course not.

In the building of a socialist society, everybody needs remoulding -- the
exploiters and also the working people. Who says it is not necessary for the
working class? Of course, the remoulding of the exploiters is essentially
different from that of the working people, and the two must not be confused.
The working class remoulds the whole of society in class struggle and in
the struggle against nature, and in the process it remoulds itself. It must
ceaselessly learn in the course of work, gradually overcome its shortcomings
and never stop doing so. Take for example those of us present here. Many
of us make some progress each year, that is to say, we are remoulding ourselves
each year. For myself, I used to have all sorts of non-Marxist ideas, and
it was only later that I embraced Marxism. I learned a little Marxism from
books and took the first steps in remoulding my ideology, but it was mainly
through taking part in class struggle over the years that I came to be remoulded.
And if I am to make further progress, I must continue to learn, otherwise
I shall lag behind. Can the capitalists be so good that they need no more
remoulding?

Some people contend that the Chinese bourgeoisie no longer has two sides
to its character, but only one side. Is this true? No. While members of the
bourgeoisie have become administrative personnel in joint state-private
enterprises and are being transformed from exploiters into working people
living by their own labour, they still get a fixed rate of interest on their
capital in the joint enterprises, that is, they have not yet cut themselves
loose from the roots of exploitation. Between them and the working class
there is still a considerable gap in ideology, sentiments and habits of life.
How can it be said that they no longer have two sides to their character?
Even when they stop receiving their fixed interest payments and the "bourgeois"
label is removed, they will still need ideological remoulding for quite some
time. If, as is alleged, the bourgeoisie no longer has a dual character,
then the capitalists will no longer have the task of studying and of remoulding
themselves.

It must be said that this view does not tally either with the actual situation
of our industrialists and businessmen or with what most of them want. During
the past few years, most of them have been willing to study and have made
marked progress. As their thorough remoulding can be achieved only in the
course of work, they should engage in labour together with the staff and
workers in the enterprises and regard these enterprises as the chief places
in which to remould themselves. But it is also important for them to change
some of their old views through study. Such study should be on a voluntary
basis. When they return to the enterprises after being in study groups for
some weeks, many industrialists and businessmen find that they have more
of a common language with the workers and the representatives of state ownership,
and so there are better possibilities for working together. They know from
personal experience that it is good for them to keep on studying and remoulding
themselves. The idea mentioned above that study and remoulding are not necessary
reflects the views not of the majority of industrialists and businessmen
but only of a small number.

V. THE QUESTION OF THE INTELLECTUALS

The contradictions within the ranks of the people in our country also find
expression among the intellectuals. The several million intellectuals who
worked for the old society have come to serve the new society, and the question
that now arises is how they can fit in with the needs of the new society
and how we can help them to do so. This, too, is a contradiction among the
people.

Most of our intellectuals have made marked progress during the last seven
years. They have shown they are in favor of the socialist system. Many are
diligently studying Marxism, and some have become communists. The latter,
though at present small in number, are steadily increasing. Of course, there
are still some intellectuals who are skeptical about socialism or do not
approve of it, but they are a minority.

China needs the services of as many intellectuals as possible for the colossal
task of building socialism. We should trust those who are really willing
to serve the cause of socialism and should radically improve our relations
with them and help them solve the problems requiring solution, so that they
can give full play to their talents. Many of our comrades are not good at
uniting with intellectuals. They are stiff in their attitude towards them,
lack respect for their work and interfere in certain scientific and cultural
matters where interference is unwarranted. We must do away with all such
shortcomings.

Although large numbers of intellectuals have made progress, they should not
be complacent. They must continue to remould themselves, gradually shed their
bourgeois world outlook and acquire the proletarian, communist world outlook
so that they can fully fit in with the needs of the new society and unite
with the workers and peasants. The change in world outlook is fundamental,
and up to now most of our intellectuals cannot be said to have accomplished
it. We hope that they will continue to make progress and that in the course
of work and study they will gradually acquire the communist world outlook,
grasp Marxism-Leninism and become integrated with the workers and peasants.
We hope they will not stop halfway, or, what is worse, slide back, for there
will be no future for them in going backwards. Since our country's social
system has changed and the economic base of bourgeois ideology has in the
main been destroyed, not only is it imperative for large numbers of our
intellectuals to change their world outlook, but it is also possible for
them to do so. But a thorough change in world outlook takes a very long time,
and we should spare no pains in helping them and must not be impatient. Actually,
there are bound to be some who ideologically will always be reluctant to
accept Marxism-Leninism and communism. We should not be too exacting in what
we demand of them; as long as they comply with the requirements laid down
by the state and engage in legitimate pursuits, we should let them have
opportunities for suitable work.

Among students and intellectuals there has recently been a falling off in
ideological and political work, and some unhealthy tendencies have appeared.
Some people seem to think that there is no longer any need to concern themselves
with politics or with the future of the motherland and the ideals of mankind.
It seems as if Marxism, once all the rage, is currently not so much in fashion.
To counter these tendencies, we must strengthen our ideological and political
work. Both students and intellectuals should study hard. In addition to the
study of their specialized subjects, they must make progress ideologically
and politically, which means they should study Marxism, current events and
politics. Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having
a soul. The ideological remoulding in the past was necessary and has
yielded positive results. But it was carried on in a somewhat rough-and-ready
fashion and the feelings of some people were hurt -- this was not good. We
must avoid such shortcomings in future. All departments and organizations
should shoulder their responsibilities for ideological and political work.
This applies to the Communist Party, the Youth League, government departments
in charge of this work, and especially to heads of educational institutions
and teachers. Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an
education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a
worker with both socialist consciousness and culture. We must spread the
idea of building our country through diligence and thrift. We must help all
our young people to understand that ours is still a very poor country, that
we cannot change this situation radically in a short time, and that only
through decades of united effort by our younger generation and all our people,
working with their own hands, can China be made prosperous and strong. The
establishment of our socialist system has opened the road leading to the
ideal society of the future, but to translate this ideal into reality needs
hard work. Some of our young people think that everything ought to be perfect
once a socialist society is established and that they should be able to enjoy
a happy life ready-made, without working for it. This is unrealistic.

VI. THE QUESTION OF THE MINORITY NATIONALITIES

The minority nationalities in our country number more than thirty million.
Although they constitute only 6 per cent of the total population, they inhabit
extensive regions which comprise 50 to 60 per cent of China's total area.
It is thus imperative to foster good relations between the Han people and
the minority nationalities. The key to this question lies in overcoming Han
chauvinism. At the same time, efforts should also be made to overcome
local-nationality chauvinism, wherever it exists among the minority
nationalities. Both Han chauvinism and local-nationality chauvinism are harmful
to the unity of the nationalities; they represent one kind of contradiction
among the people which should be resolved. We have already done some work
to this end. In most of the areas inhabited by minority nationalities there
has been considerable improvement in the relations between the nationalities,
but a number of problems remain to be solved. In some areas, both Han chauvinism
and local-nationality chauvinism still exist to a serious degree, and this
demands full attention. As a result of the efforts of the people of all
nationalities over the last few years democratic reforms and socialist
transformation have in the main been completed in most of the minority
nationality areas. Democratic reforms have not yet been carried out in Tibet
because conditions are not ripe. According to the seventeen-article agreement
reached between the Central People's Government and the local government
of Tibet the reform of the social system must be carried out, but the timing
can only be decided when the great majority of the people of Tibet and the
local leading public figures consider it opportune, and one should not be
impatient. It has now been decided not to proceed with democratic reforms
in Tibet during the period of the Second Five-Year Plan. Whether to proceed
with them in the period of the Third Five-Year Plan can only be decided in
the light of the situation at the time.

VII. OVER-ALL CONSIDERATION AND PROPER ARRANGEMENT

By over-all consideration we mean consideration that embraces the 600 million
people of our country. In drawing up plans, handling affairs or thinking
over problems, we must proceed from the fact that China has a population
of 600 million, and we must never forget this fact. Why do we make a point
of this? Is it possible that there are people who are still unaware that
we have a population of 600 million? Of course, everyone knows this, but
when it comes to actual practice, some people forget all about it and act
as though the fewer the people, the smaller the circle, the better. Those
who have this "small circle" mentality abhor the idea of bringing every positive
factor into play, of uniting with everyone who can be united with, and of
doing everything possible to turn negative factors into positive ones so
as to serve the great cause of building a socialist society. I hope these
people will take a wider view and fully recognize that we have a population
of 600 million, that this is an objective fact, and that it is an asset for


us. Our large population is a good thing, but of course it also involves
certain difficulties. Construction is going ahead vigorously on all fronts
and very successfully too, but in the present transition period of tremendous
social change there are still many difficult problems. Progress and at the
same time difficulties -- this is a contradiction. However, not only should
all such contradictions be resolved, but they definitely can be. Our guiding
principle is over-all consideration and proper arrangement. Whatever the
problem -- whether it concerns food, natural calamities, employment, education,
the intellectuals, the united front of all patriotic forces, the minority
nationalities, or anything else -- we must always proceed from the standpoint
of over-all consideration, which embraces the whole people, and must make
the proper arrangement, after consultation with all the circles concerned,
in the light of what is feasible at a particular time and place. On no account
should we complain that there are too many people, that others are backward,
that things are troublesome and hard to handle, and close the door on them.
Do I mean to say that the government alone must take care of everyone and
everything? Of course not. In many cases, they can be left to the direct
care of the public organizations or the masses -- both are quite capable
of devising many good ways of handling them. This also comes within the scope
of the principle of over-all consideration and proper arrangement. We should
give guidance on this to the public organizations and the people everywhere.

VIII. ON "LET A HUNDRED FLOWERS BLOSSOM LET A HUNDRED SCHOOLS OF
THOUGHT CONTEND" AND "LONG-TERM COEXISTENCE AND MUTUAL SUPERVISION"

"Let a hundred flowers blossom, let a hundred schools of thought contend"
and "long-term coexistence and mutual supervision"--how did these slogans
come to be put forward? They were put forward in the light of China's specific
conditions, in recognition of the continued existence of various kinds of
contradictions in socialist society and in response to the country's urgent
need to speed up its economic and cultural development. Letting a hundred
flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for
promoting progress in the arts and sciences and a flourishing socialist culture
in our land. Different forms and styles in art should develop freely and
different schools in science should contend freely. We think that it is harmful
to the growth of art and science if administrative measures are used to impose
one particular style of art or school of thought and to ban another. Questions
of right and wrong in the arts and science should be settled through free
discussion in artistic and scientific circles and through practical work
in these fields. They should not be settled in an over-simple manner. A period
of trial is often needed to determine whether something is right or wrong.
Throughout history at the outset new and correct things often failed to win
recognition from the majority of people and had to develop by twists and
turns through struggle. Often, correct and good things were first regarded
not as fragrant flowers but as poisonous weeds. Copernicus' theory of the
solar system and Darwin's theory of evolution were once dismissed as erroneous
and had to win out over bitter opposition. Chinese history offers many similar
examples. In a socialist society, the conditions for the growth of the new
are radically different from and far superior to those in the old society.
Nevertheless, it often happens that new, rising forces are held back and
sound ideas stifled. Besides even in the absence of their deliberate suppression,
the growth of new things may be hindered simply through lack of discernment.
It is therefore necessary to be careful about questions of right and wrong
in the arts and sciences, to encourage free discussion and avoid hasty
conclusions We believe that such an attitude will help ensure a relatively
smooth development of the arts and sciences.

Marxism, too, has developed through struggle. At the beginning, Marxism was
subjected to all kinds of attack and regarded as a poisonous weed. This is
still the case in many parts of the world. In the socialist countries, it
enjoys a different position. But non-Marxist and, what is more, anti-Marxist
ideologies exist even in these countries. In China, although socialist
transformation has in the main been completed as regards the system of ownership,
and although the large-scale, turbulent class struggles of the masses
characteristic of times of revolution have in the main come to an end, there
are still remnants of the overthrown landlord and comprador classes, there
is still a bourgeoisie, and the remoulding of the petty bourgeoisie has only
just started. Class struggle is by no means over. The class struggle between
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the various
political forces, and the class struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie in the ideological field will still be protracted and tortuous
and at times even very sharp. The proletariat seeks to transform the world
according to its own world outlook, and so does the bourgeoisie. In this
respect, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is
not really settled yet. Marxists remain a minority among the entire population
as well as among the intellectuals. Therefore, Marxism must continue to develop
through struggle. Marxism can develop only through struggle, and this is
not only true of the past and the present, it is necessarily true of the
future as well. What is correct invariably develops in the course of struggle
with what is wrong. The true, the good and the beautiful always exist by
contrast with the false, the evil and the ugly, and grow in struggle with
them. As soon as something erroneous is rejected and a particular truth accepted
by mankind, new truths begin to struggle with new errors. Such struggles
will never end. This is the law of development of truth and, naturally, of
Marxism.

It will take a fairly long period of time to decide the issue in the
ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism in our country.
The reason is that the influence of the bourgeoisie and of the intellectuals
who come from the old society, the very influence which constitutes their
class ideology, will persist in our country for a long time. If this is not
understood at all or is insufficiently understood, the gravest of mistakes
will be made and the necessity of waging struggle in the ideological field
will be ignored. Ideological struggle differs from other forms of struggle,
since the only method used is painstaking reasoning, and not crude coercion.
Today, socialism is in an advantageous position in the ideological struggle.
The basic power of the state is in the hands of the working people led by
the proletariat. The Communist Party is strong and its prestige high. Although
there are defects and mistakes in our work, every fair-minded person can
see that we are loyal to the people, that we are both determined and able
to build up our motherland together with them, and that we have already achieved
great successes and will achieve still greater ones. The vast majority of
the bourgeoisie and the intellectuals who come from the old society are patriotic
and are willing to serve their flourishing socialist motherland; they know
they will have nothing to fall back on and their future cannot possibly be
bright if they turn away from the socialist cause and from the working people
led by the Communist Party.

People may ask, since Marxism is accepted as the guiding ideology by the
majority of the people in our country, can it be criticized? Certainly it
can. Marxism is scientific truth and fears no criticism. If it did, and if
it could be overthrown by criticism, it would be worthless. In fact, aren't
the idealists criticizing Marxism every day and in every way? And those who
harbour bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas and do not wish to change --
aren't they also criticizing Marxism in every way? Marxists should not be
afraid of criticism from any quarter. Quite the contrary, they need to temper
and develop themselves and win new positions in the teeth of criticism and
in the storm and stress of struggle. Fighting against wrong ideas is like
being vaccinated -- a man develops greater immunity from disease as a result
of vaccination. Plants raised in hothouses are unlikely to be hardy. Carrying
out the policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools
of thought contend will not weaken, but strengthen, the leading position
of Marxism in the ideological field.

What should our policy be towards non-Marxist ideas? As far as unmistakable
counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause are concerned,
the matter is easy, we simply deprive them of their freedom of speech. But
incorrect ideas among the people are quite a different matter. Will it do
to ban such ideas and deny them any opportunity for expression? Certainly
not. It is not only futile but very harmful to use crude methods in dealing
with ideological questions among the people, with questions about man's mental
world. You may ban the expression of wrong ideas, but the ideas will still
be there. On the other hand, if correct ideas are pampered in hothouses and
never exposed to the elements and immunized against disease, they will not
win out against erroneous ones. Therefore, it is only by employing the method
of discussion, criticism and reasoning that we can really foster correct
ideas and overcome wrong ones, and that we can really settle issues.

It is inevitable that the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will give expression
to their own ideologies. It is inevitable that they will stubbornly assert
themselves on political and ideological questions by every possible means.
You cannot expect them to do otherwise. We should not use the method of
suppression and prevent them from expressing themselves, but should allow
them to do so and at the same time argue with them and direct appropriate
criticism at them. Undoubtedly, we must criticize wrong ideas of every
description. It certainly would not be right to refrain from criticism, look
on while wrong ideas spread unchecked and allow them to dominate the field.
Mistakes must be criticized and poisonous weeds fought wherever they crop
up. However, such criticism should not be dogmatic, and the metaphysical
method should not be used, but instead the effort should be made to apply
the dialectical method. What is needed is scientific analysis and convincing
argument. Dogmatic criticism settles nothing. We are against poisonous weeds
of whatever kind, but we must carefully distinguish between what is really
a poisonous weed and what is really a fragrant flower. Together with the
masses of the people, we must learn to differentiate carefully between the
two and use correct methods to fight the poisonous weeds.

At the same time as we criticize dogmatism, we must direct our attention
to criticizing revisionism. Revisionism, or Right opportunism, is a bourgeois
trend of thought that is even more dangerous than dogmatism. The revisionists,
the Right opportunists, pay lip-service to Marxism; they too attack "dogmatism".
But what they are really attacking is the quintessence of Marxism. They oppose
or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try to weaken the people's
democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the Communist Party, and
oppose or try to weaken socialist transformation and socialist construction.
Even after the basic victory of our socialist revolution, there will still
be a number of people in our society who vainly hope to restore the capitalist
system and are sure to fight the working class on every front, including
the ideological one. And their right-hand men in this struggle are the
revisionists.

Literally the two slogans -- let a hundred flowers blossom and let a hundred
schools of thought contend -- have no class character; the proletariat can
turn them to as account, and so can the bourgeoisie or others. Different classes,
strata and social groups each have their own views on what are fragrant flowers
and what are poisonous weeds. Then, from the point of view of the masses,
what should be the criteria today for distinguishing fragrant flowers from
poisonous weeds? In their political activities, how should our people judge
whether a person's words and deeds are right or wrong? On the basis of the
principles of our Constitution, the will of the overwhelming majority of
our people and the common political positions which have been proclaimed
on various occasions by our political parties, we consider that, broadly
speaking, the criteria should be as follows:

(1) Words and deeds should help to unite, and not divide, the people of all
our nationalities.

(2) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to socialist transformation
and socialist construction.

(3) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, the people's
democratic dictatorship.

(4) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, democratic
centralism.

(5) They should help to strengthen, and not shake off or weaken, the leadership
of the Communist Party.

(6) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to international socialist
unity and the unity of the peace-loving people of the world.

Of these six criteria, the most important are the two about the socialist
path and the leadership of the Party. These criteria are put forward not
to hinder but to foster the free discussion of questions among the people.
Those who disapprove these criteria can still state their own views and argue
their case. However, so long as the majority of the people have clear-cut
criteria to go by, criticism and self-criticism can be conducted along proper
lines, and these criteria can be applied to people's words and deeds to determine
whether they are right or wrong, whether they are fragrant flowers or poisonous
weeds. These are political criteria. Naturally, to judge the validity of
scientific theories or assess the aesthetic value of works of art, other
relevant criteria are needed. But these six political criteria are applicable
to all activities in the arts and sciences. In a socialist country like ours,
can there possibly be any useful scientific or artistic activity which runs
counter to these political criteria?

The views set out above are based on China's specific historical conditions.
Conditions vary in different socialist countries and with different Communist
Parties. Therefore, we do not maintain that they should or must adopt the
Chinese way.

The slogan "long-term coexistence and mutual supervision" is also a product
of China's specific historical conditions. It was not put forward all of
a sudden, but had been in the making for several years. The idea of long-term
coexistence had been there for a long time. When the socialist system was
in the main established last year, the slogan was formulated in explicit
terms. Why should the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democratic parties be
allowed to exist side by side with the party of the working class over a
long period of time? Because we have no reason for not adopting the policy
of long-term coexistence with all those political parties which are truly
devoted to the task of uniting the people for the cause of socialism and
which enjoy the trust of the people. As early as June 1950, at the Second
Session of the First National Committee of the Political Consultative Conference,
I put the matter in this way:

The people and their government have no reason to reject anyone or deny him
the opportunity of making a living and rendering service to the country,
provided he is really willing to serve the people and provided he really
helped and did a good turn when the people were faced with difficulties and
keeps on doing good without giving up halfway.


What I was discussing here was the political basis for the long-term coexistence
of the various parties. It is the desire as well as the policy of the Communist
Party to exist side by side with the democratic parties for a long time to
come. But whether the democratic parties can long remain in existence depends
not merely on the desire of the Communist Party but on how well they acquit
themselves and on whether they enjoy the trust of the people. Mutual supervision
among the various parties is also a long-established fact, in the sense that
they have long been advising and criticizing each other. Mutual supervision
is obviously not a one-sided matter; it means that the Communist Party can
exercise supervision over the democratic parties, and vice versa. Why should
the democratic parties be allowed to exercise supervision over the Communist
Party? Because a party as much as an individual has great need to hear opinions
different from its own. We all know that supervision over the Communist Party
is mainly exercised by the working people and the Party membership. But it
augments the benefit to us to have supervision by the democratic parties
too. Of course, the advice and criticism exchanged by the Communist Party
and the democratic parties will play a positive supervisory role only when
they conform to the six political criteria given above. Thus, we hope that
in order to fit in with the needs of the new society, all the democratic
parties will pay attention to ideological remoulding and strive for long-term
coexistence with the Communist Party and mutual supervision.

IX. ON THE QUESTION OF DISTURBANCES CREATED BY SMALL NUMBERS OF
PEOPLE

In 1956, small numbers of workers or students in certain places went on strike.
The immediate cause of these disturbances was the failure to satisfy some
of their demands for material benefits, of which some should and could have
been met, while others were out of place or excessive and therefore could
not be met for the time being. But a more important cause was bureaucracy
on the part of the leadership. In some cases, the responsibility for such
bureaucratic mistakes fell on the higher authorities, and those at the lower
levels were not to blame. Another cause of these disturbances was lack of
ideological and political education among the workers and students. The same
year, in some agricultural co-operatives there were also disturbances created
by a few of their members, and here too the main causes were bureaucracy
on the part of the leadership and lack of educational work among the masses.

It should be admitted that among the masses some are prone to pay attention
to immediate, partial and personal interests and do not understand, or do
not sufficiently understand, long-range, national and collective interests.
Because of lack of political and social experience, quite a number of young
people cannot readily see the contrast between the old China and the new,
and it is not easy for them thoroughly to comprehend the hardships our people
went through in the struggle to free themselves from the oppression of the
imperialists and Kuomintang reactionaries, or the long years of hard work
needed before a fine socialist society can be established. That is why we
must constantly carry on lively and effective political education among the
masses and should always tell them the truth about the difficulties that
crop up and discuss with them how to surmount these difficulties.

We do not approve of disturbances, because contradictions among the people
can be resolved through the method of "unity -- criticism -- unity", while
disturbances are bound to cause some losses and are not conducive to the
advance of socialism. We believe that the masses of the people support socialism,
conscientiously observe discipline and are reasonable, and will certainly
do not take part in disturbances without cause. But this does not mean that

the possibility of disturbances by the masses no longer exists in our country.
On this question, we should pay attention to the following. (1) In order
to root out the causes of disturbances, we must resolutely overcome bureaucracy,
greatly improve ideological and political education, and deal with all
contradictions properly. If this is done, generally speaking there will be
no disturbances. (2) When disturbances do occur as a result of poor work
on our part, then we should guide those involved onto the correct path, use
the disturbances as a special means for improving our work and educating
the cadres and the masses, and find solutions to those problems which were
previously left unsolved. In handling any disturbance, we should take pains
and not use over-simple methods, or hastily declare the matter closed. The
ringleaders in disturbances should not be summarily expelled, except for
those who have committed criminal offences or are active counter-revolutionaries
and have to be punished by law. In a large country like ours, there is nothing
to get alarmed about if small numbers of people create disturbances; on the
contrary, such disturbances will help us get rid of bureaucracy.

There are also a small number of individuals in our society who, flouting
the public interest, wilfully break the law and commit crimes. They are apt
to take advantage of our policies and distort them, and deliberately put
forward unreasonable demands in order to incite the masses, or deliberately
spread rumours to create trouble and disrupt public order. We do not propose
to let these individuals have their way. On the contrary, proper legal action
must be taken against them. Punishing them is the demand of the masses, and
it would run counter to the popular will if they were not punished.

X. CAN BAD THINGS BE TURNED INTO GOOD THINGS?

In our society, as I have said, disturbances by the masses are bad, and we
do not approve of them. But when disturbances do occur, they enable us to
learn lessons, to overcome bureaucracy and to educate the cadres and the
masses. In this sense, bad things can be turned into good things. Disturbances
thus have a dual character. Every disturbance can be regarded in this way.

Everybody knows that the Hungarian incident was not a good thing. But it
too had a dual character. Because our Hungarian comrades took proper action
in the course of the incident, what was a bad thing has eventually turned
into a good one. Hungary is now more consolidated than ever, and all other
countries in the socialist camp have also learned a lesson.

Similarly, the world-wide campaign against communism and the people which
took place in the latter half of 1956 was of course a bad thing. But it served
to educate and temper the Communist Parties and the working class in all
countries, and thus it has turned into a good thing. In the storm and stress
of this period, a number of people in many countries withdrew from the Communist
Party. Withdrawal from the Party reduces its membership and is, of course,
a bad thing, But there is a good side to it, too. Vacillating elements who
are unwilling to carry on have withdrawn, and the vast majority who are staunch
Party members can be the better united for struggle. Why isn't this a good
thing?

To sum up, we must learn to look at problems from all sides, seeing the
reverse as well as the obverse side of things. In given conditions, a bad
thing can lead to good results and a good thing to bad results. More than
two thousand years ago Lao Tzu said: "Good fortune lieth within bad, bad
fortune lurketh within good."[1] When the Japanese
shot their way into China, they called this a victory. Huge parts of China's
territory were seized, and the Chinese called this a defeat. But victory
was conceived in China's defeat, while defeat was conceived in Japan's
victory. Hasn't history proved this true?

People all over the world are now discussing whether or not a third world
war will break out. On this question, too, we must be mentally prepared and
do some analysis. We stand firmly for peace and against war. But if the
imperialists insist on unleashing another war, we should not be afraid of
it. Our attitude on this question is the same as our attitude towards any
disturbance: first, we are against it; second, we are not afraid of it. The
First World War was followed by the birth of the Soviet Union with a population
of 200 million. The Second World War was followed by the emergence of the
socialist camp with a combined population of 900 million. If the imperialists
insist on launching a third world war, it is certain that several hundred
million more will turn to socialism, and then there will not be much room
left on earth for the imperialists; it is also likely that the whole structure
of imperialism will completely collapse.

In given conditions, each of the two opposing aspects of a contradiction
invariably transforms itself into its opposite as a result of the struggle
between them. Here, it is the conditions which are essential. Without the
given conditions, neither of the two contradictory aspects can transform
itself into its opposite. Of all the classes in the world the proletariat
is the one which is most eager to change its position, and next comes the
semi-proletariat, for the former possesses nothing at all while the latter
is hardly any better off. The United States now controls a majority in the
United Nations and dominates many parts of the world -- this state of affairs
is temporary and will be changed one of these days. China's position as a
poor country denied its rights in international affairs will also be changed
-- the poor country will change into a rich one, the country denied its rights
into one enjoying them -- a transformation of things into their opposites.
Here, the decisive conditions are the socialist system and the concerted
efforts of a united people.

XI. ON PRACTISING ECONOMY

Here I wish to speak briefly on practicing economy. We want to carry on
large-scale construction, but our country is still very poor -- herein lies
a contradiction. One way of resolving it is to make a sustained effort to
practice strict economy in every field.

During the movement against the "three evils" in 1952, we fought against
corruption, waste and bureaucracy, with the emphasis on combating corruption.
In 1955 we advocated the practice of economy with great success, our emphasis
then being on combating the unduly high standards for non-productive projects
in capital construction and economizing on raw materials in industrial
production. But at that time economy was not yet applied in earnest as a
guiding principle in all branches of the national economy, or in government
offices, army units, schools and people's organizations in general. This
year we are calling for economy and the elimination of waste in every sphere
throughout the country. We still lack experience in the work of construction.
During the last few years, great successes have been achieved, but there
has also been waste. We must build up a number of large-scale modern enterprises
step by step to form the mainstay of our industry, without which we shall
not be able to turn China into a powerful modern industrial country within
the coming decades. But the majority of our enterprises should not be built
on such a scale; we should set up more small and medium enterprises and make
full use of the industrial base inherited from the old society, so as to
effect the greatest economy and do more with less money. Good results have
begun to appear in the few months since the principle of practicing strict
economy and combating waste was put forward, in more emphatic terms than
before, by the Second Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of
the Communist Party of China in November 1956. The present campaign for economy
must be conducted in a thorough and sustained way. Like the criticism of
any other fault or mistake, the fight against waste may be compared to washing
one's face. Don't people wash their faces every day? The Chinese Communist
Party, the democratic parties, the democrats with no party affiliation, the
intellectuals, industrialists and businessmen, workers, peasants and
handicraftsmen -- in short, all our 600 million people -- must strive for
increased production and economy, and against extravagance and waste. This
is of prime importance not only economically, but politically as well. A
dangerous tendency has shown itself of late among many of our personnel --
an unwillingness to share weal and woe with the masses, a concern for personal
fame and gain. This is very bad. One way of overcoming it is to streamline
our organizations in the course of our campaign to increase production and
practice economy, and to transfer cadres to lower levels so that a considerable
number will return to productive work. We must see to it that all our cadres
and all our people constantly bear in mind that ours is a large socialist
country but an economically backward and poor one, and that this is a very
big contradiction. To make China prosperous and strong needs several decades
of hard struggle, which means, among other things, pursuing the policy of
building up our country through diligence and thrift, that is, practicing
strict economy and fighting waste.

XII. CHINA'S PATH TO INDUSTRIALIZATION

In discussing our path to industrialization, we are here concerned principally
with the relationship between the growth of heavy industry, light industry
and agriculture. It must be affirmed that heavy industry is the core of China's
economic construction. At the same time, full attention must be paid to the
development of agriculture and light industry.

As China is a large agricultural country, with over 80 per cent of its population
in the rural areas, agriculture must develop along with industry, for only
thus can industry secure raw materials and a market, and only thus is it
possible to accumulate more funds for building a powerful heavy industry.
Everyone knows that light industry is closely tied up with agriculture. Without
agriculture there can be no light industry. But it is not yet so clearly
understood that agriculture provides heavy industry with an important market.
This fact, however, will be more readily appreciated as gradual progress
in the technical transformation and modernization of agriculture calls for
more and more machinery, fertilizer, water conservancy and electric power
projects and transport facilities for the farms, as well as fuel and building
materials for the rural consumers. During the period of the Second and Third
Five-Year Plans, the entire national economy will benefit if we can achieve
an even greater growth in our agriculture and thus induce a correspondingly
greater development of light industry. As agriculture and light industry
develop, heavy industry, assured of its market and funds, will grow faster.
Hence what may seem to be a slower pace of industrialization will actually
not be so slow, and indeed may even be faster. In three five-year plans or
perhaps a little longer, China's annual steel output can be raised to 20,000,000
tons or more, as compared with the peak pre-liberation output of something
over 900,000 tons in 1943. This will gladden the people in both town and
country.

I do not propose to dwell on economic questions today. With barely seven
years of economic construction behind us, we still lack experience and need
to accumulate it. Neither had we any experience in revolution when we first
started, and it was only after we had taken a number of tumbles and acquired
experience that we won nation-wide victory. What we must now demand of ourselves
is to gain experience in economic construction in a shorter period of time
than it took us to gain experience in revolution, and not to pay as high
a price for it. Some price we will have to pay, but we hope it will not be
as high as that paid during the period of revolution. We must realize that
there is a contradiction here -- the contradiction between the objective
laws of economic development of a socialist society and our subjective cognition
of them -- which needs to be resolved in the course of practice. This
contradiction also manifests itself as a contradiction between different
people, that is, a contradiction between those in whom the reflection of
these objective laws is relatively accurate and those in whom the reflection
is relatively inaccurate; this, too, is a contradiction among the people.
Every contradiction is an objective reality, and it is our task to reflect
it and resolve it in as nearly correct a fashion as we can.

In order to turn China into an industrial country, we must learn conscientiously
from the advanced experience of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has been
building socialism for forty years, and its experience is very valuable to
us. Let us ask: Who designed and equipped so many important factories for
us? Was it the United States? Or Britain? No, neither the one nor the other.
Only the Soviet Union was willing to do so, because it is a socialist country
and our ally. In addition to the Soviet Union, the fraternal countries in
East Europe have also given us some assistance. It is perfectly true that
we should learn from the good experience of all countries, socialist or
capitalist, about this there is no argument. But the main thing is still
to learn from the Soviet Union. Now there are two different attitudes towards
learning from others. One is the dogmatic attitude of transplanting everything,
whether or not it is suited to our conditions. This is no good. The other
attitude is to use our heads and learn those things which suit our conditions,
that is, to absorb whatever experience is useful to us. That is the attitude
we should adopt.

To strengthen our solidarity with the Soviet Union, to strengthen our solidarity
with all the socialist countries--this is our fundamental policy, this is
where our basic interests lie. Then there are the Asian and African countries
and all the peace-loving countries and peoples --we must strengthen and develop
our solidarity with them. United with these two forces, we shall not stand
alone. As for the imperialist countries, we should unite with their people
and strive to coexist peacefully with those countries, do business with them
and prevent a possible war, but under no circumstances should we harbour
any unrealistic notions about them.
NOTES

1. Lao Tzu, Chapter LVIII.

Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.