On the Problem of Ideological Work
(March 20, 1957)

Source: Wansui (n.d. 3), pp. 153–163. Other Chinese Text: Wansui (n.d.), pp.
55–60 (excerpts).

According to the source, this is a speech made by Mao to a conference of CPC members
and cadres in Nanjing attended by members and cadres from the two provinces of Jiangsu
and Anhui and personnel in the armed forces (PLA) in Nanjing. For the context of this
conference, see text Mar. 17, 1957(2), source note. The present title appears as such in the
Wansui (n.d.) source, and appears as a subtitle in the Wansui (n.d. 3) source. Some passages
in the last few paragraphs here are quite similar to text Mar. 19, 1957.

The historical context of this speech is explained in text Mar. 17, 1957(2), source
note. Again there are many similarities between this speech and the ones of March
17 and 18, and more detailed textual comparison can be made by the reader. (Where
we have made some textual crossreferences in our annotations, we have generally
made them to Mao’s writings or speeches of a bit earlier time [e.g., the February
27, 1957 speech] but not to something as close as the March 17 and March 18
speeches.) What is of particular significance in this speech, however, is the specific
position that Mao takes on the notion that “violent, mass-based class struggle” is
over. It would appear that Mao goes further in this March 20 speech than he had in
the speeches of the previous few days. Also, it is here that he begins to tackle the
question of the ending of class struggle in terms of the implications it has for whether
the transformation of the relations of production is a primary contradiction of the
moment. In the first few paragraphs, he appears to almost come close to declaring
that while the nature of socialist transformation is that of class struggle, in terms of
focus and methodology, it is more of a material socioeconomic struggle. The final
sentences of paragraph 5 are of tremendous significance. One may indeed even find
here clues to the accusation made against Mao in early 1957 that he was a Right
deviationist. Paragraphs 5 and 6 also shed some light on Mao’s position in the first
part of 1957 on the primary contradiction in China’s society at the time. (For this
controversy, see text Oct. 7, 1957, note 16, and other annotations and commentaries
in that text as well as text Feb. 27, 1957, source note, and text Mar. 17, 1957[2],
source note.) Mao, it appears, was, as late as March 20, 1957, quite in line with the
position adopted by the Resolution of the Eighth CPC Congress in September 1956,
a position that he later criticized and ultimately repudiated, and one that subsequently
Maoists accused Liu Shaoqi and company of “sneaking into the Party resolutions.”
It has been a matter of much inconclusive speculation as to when precisely Mao
changed his mind about the resolution (the Maoists tend to put this at a much earlier
date) and about the Hundred Flowers Campaign and CPC rectification, and as to
what specific developments triggered that change of mind. Here, however, is a clear
enough suggestion that Mao’s mind had not changed much before March 20, 1957.


I have become a Mr. Itinerant Lobbyist.1 I have traveled quite a ways, and
everywhere I have been I have said some words.2 At this time there are some
questions that call for a reply, and so I have brought my itinerant lobbying to this
place of yours. This place [of yours] is called Nanjing; I have been here before.3
This place, Nanjing, is, I think, a good place. It has [the aura of] being encircled
by dragons and possessed by tigers.4 However, there is a [learned] gentleman by
the name of Zhang Taiyan5 who said that the phrase “encircled by dragons and
possessed by tigers” is an empty phrase made up by the ancients, a falsehood
fabricated by the people of the past. As we look at it now, this is indeed an empty
phrase as far as the Kuomintang is concerned. The Kuomintang did their thing here
for twenty years and then it was drummed away by the people.6 Now [Nanjing] is
in the hands of the people. I think, [therefore,] that Nanjing is still a very good
place.
The problems in all the different places are all more or less the same. We are
now in a period of transition. The type of struggle of the past—class struggle—is
basically concluded, basically at an end.7 The struggle against imperialism, against
feudalism, and against the Kuomintang,8 [the struggle to] Resist U.S. Aggression
and Aid Korea,9 and [the struggle to] suppress counterrevolutionaries10 are also
class struggles. After [these were finished], we engaged in a socialist movement
and a socialist transformation; they also have the nature of a class struggle.
Is cooperativization, then, also a class struggle? Naturally, cooperativization is
not [a case of] one class struggling against another class. And yet cooperativization
represents a transition from one system to another, from the system of the individual
[economy] to the system of a collective [economy]. Individual production belongs
to the category of capitalism. It is capitalism’s turf. Capitalism is generated in that
place, and it will constantly continue to be generated [in that place]. Cooperativization eliminates the turf11 on which capitalism is generated, or, [if you will,] it
eliminates the base in which capitalism is produced.
Therefore, in a general manner of speaking, in the past, over the last several
decades, we have conducted one class struggle and transformed a superstructure.
We have overthrown an old government, [namely,] Chiang Kai-shek’s government. We have established the people’s government and transformed the relations
of production,12 transformed the socioeconomic system. In terms of the economic
system and the political system, the complexion of our society has been transformed. Look, the people we have in this meeting hall, we are not [people of the]
Kuomintang; we are Communists. In the past, people like us were not able to come
to this place; we were not allowed to go to any of the large cities [in our country].13
From such a perspective, things have [indeed] been transformed, and, moreover,
have been transformed for quite a few years [already]. This is [referring to] the
superstructure, [to] the political system. As for the transformation of the economic
system into a socialist economic system, that has taken place in the last few years.
Now we can say that in that, too, we have been basically successful. This is the
result of our struggle over the last several decades. If we take the history of the
Communist Party [as our standard], there has been [a period of] thirty-some years.14
If we go back to start counting with the anti-imperialist [struggle] of the Opium



War, there has been [a period of] more than a century.15 All we did [in this time]
was one thing—we undertook a class struggle.
Comrades, [in having a] class struggle to transform the superstructure and the
socioeconomic system, that is merely to open up a path for the transformation of
other things. Today, we are faced with new problems. Domestically speaking, that
struggle of the past is now basically concluded; but internationally speaking, it has
not yet come to an end. Why do we still need the Liberation Army? Mainly it is for
the purpose of dealing with foreign imperialists; we fear that imperialists will come
here with aggressive [plans]; they do not harbor good intentions [toward us].
Domestically, too, there are still a small number of remnant counterrevolutionary
elements in our country who have not yet been found out. Some of them, who have
been suppressed in the past, such as the landlord class and the remnants of the
Kuomintang, would rear their heads again if we didn’t have the Liberation Army.
The landlords, the rich peasants,16 and the capitalists, now they are [more] law-abiding. The capitalists are still a bit different [from the rest]; we handle them as a
problem internal to the people [in any case].17 When the national bourgeoisie18
accepts [the rule of] socialism, it is [still] a different thing from the peasants
accepting cooperativization. Can they be said to be of the same type? [When it says
that it has been] coerced, that means that there is something of involuntary
compulsion here. Moreover, the [national bourgeoisie] has accepted transformation
under conditions that were quite to its advantage. Therefore, for the time being, we
are situated in a period of transition and transformation that can be described in the
following manner: from class struggle [we] have come to a struggle against nature.
If we are to improve our livelihoods, if we are to engage in construction, we must
struggle against nature. [We are making the transition] from revolution to construction, from the anti-imperialist and antifeudal revolution in which we [were engaged] in the past and the socialist revolution that came after, to a technological
revolution, a cultural revolution.
For our country to engage in construction we must have technology. We must
have machinery; we must have science. In this regard, in the past we used our
handicrafts; we used tools that we wielded in our hands to produce tables, chairs,
stools, and benches. We used our own hands to plant grain and cotton; everything
was done with our own hands. Now we must change to using machines. This
technology, of using machinery, is therefore itself a very great revolution. Without
such a revolution, our country will still be a poor country, an agrarian country, if
it is only the politics and the social system that have been changed. We would still
be a country of handicrafts, of handicraft technology. For this reason we must carry
out a cultural revolution. I think that all of us can understand and are aware of such
a transformation of circumstances. Yet it appears as if there are still some people
who are not quite clear about such a change, not quite aware of it.
Today, some new problems have cropped up; [some] problems of science and
technology, some cultural problems. From among the people some demands have
been proposed to us, and some disturbances among the people have occurred.
Where are these problems found? New problems have emerged among the workers
with short-term jobs,19 among households with [economic] difficulties in the


countryside, among the students, in the area of cooperativization. Within a small
portion of the workers there are strikes, and among the students, a small portion
have gone on strike [as well], or they have taken to parades and demonstrations
and petitions. Some rehabilitated servicemen, too, want to make trouble. This is
true also of some members of cooperatives, among the well-to-do middle peasants20—the number is not large, but they are dissatisfied, and they want to leave
the cooperative. There are also some other issues about which they are not satisfied,
and so they make trouble for us.
What is to be done? How should we handle trouble coming from the people?
We need to talk about this problem and clear it up.
Contradictions should be divided into two categories: The first category is called
contradictions between the enemy and ourselves; the second category is contradictions among the people.21 In the last several decades, we have resolved the first
[category of] contradictions; now we must resolve the second [category of]
contradictions. [Contradictions] herein are manifested in many areas; for example,
[our proposed transition] now from an agrarian country to an industrial country is
also a contradiction.
We are lacking in technology; we have no machinery, and we do not have
culture.22 Our lives are poor. Some people say: “We have arrived at socialism; I
suppose we are about to lead a good life.” Haven’t we said that socialism has
already been achieved? Last year, the Communist Party held a congress and
declared that socialism has been basically achieved.23 So [people] suppose that they
will begin to lead good lives. This is [a symptom of] not understanding what
socialism really means [a certain set of]
relations of production. We have established relations that are different from the
relations of the past. In the people’s carrying out of production, in the past it was
[governed by] a set of relations between the capitalists and the workers, or between
the landlords and the peasants. Now we have established a set of socialist relations,
and we carry out production under such a set of mutual relations. As for production,
we have only just begun. This new relationship has just been established and has
not yet been fully established; the cooperatives have not yet become consolidated.
People use this method to carry out production24 that is, [they use] a set of socialist
relationships to carry out production. This is because the old method of the past is
inappropriate and is not conducive to production or to development. It was poorer
then, and it made the people25 of China poor and illiterate to boot over a long period,
and despised by people all over the world. Right now this relationship is just
beginning to change, and [we have] not [developed] production yet. Without
production means without livelihood; without much production means without a
good livelihood. How many years will it take [before we can have a good life]? I
think about a hundred years. If it takes a hundred years, I will no longer be on this
earth [by that time], and therefore I will not be able to enjoy a good life. Naturally,
we will not take so long [to make some improvements, however]. We’ll take this
in several steps. [I think in] about a dozen years or so things will be a bit better,
then in twenty, thirty years, things will be even better, and when fifty years have
passed, things will be passable, will begin to look like something. Then, in a



hundred years, things will be really good. That would be very different from [the
way things are] now. One hundred years is a very short time. Even if it takes ten
thousand years, [we’ll do it, because] people will always have to go on living.
[Since we have] just had the revolution, and just started promoting socialism,
how can [we expect] this livelihood to have improved? How can grain have
increased? Has grain increased? It has. In 1949, the year the People’s Government
was established, we only had 220 billion catties of grain, and by last year we had
more than 360 billion catties of grain; [this meant] an increase of more than 140
billion catties.26 However, [we must also consider,] how many mouths does [this
grain have to] feed? With this country of ours, the good thing is that we have many
people; the shortcoming, too, is that we have [too] many people. With more people,
there are more mouths, and when there are many mouths, much grain will be
needed. So these 140 billion more catties of grain have disappeared; sometimes we
even feel as if there is no grain. In 1949, there was not [enough] grain; today there
is still not [enough] grain to eat, still not enough. We would like to lead a good life.
Right now we have promoted a twelve-year plan for production, a plan for scientific
[development], a plan for agriculture, a plan for industry27—we take work, and
production, a step at a time. Those among us who are older would find this problem
easier to understand. The young people find it not so easy to understand; [they
behave] as if as soon as they get to this earth everything should be in good shape.
That is why we have to carry out education among them; we have to carry out
education among the broad masses of the people, and particularly among the young
people. [We] must put into practice the education of carrying out an arduous
struggle and striving hard, and building things up from scratch.
Now we are building things up from scratch.28 Our ancestors gave us very little
[to work with]. Who are our ancestors? [They are] the imperialists, feudalism, and
Chiang Kai-shek; they were our predecessors, the government that came before us.
What they gave to us was to scrape the flesh off the body of the people.29 However,
they have left, and that is good. They left, and vacated a piece of territory. This
land of ours is 9.6 million square kilometers, starting in the east with the seacoast
and reaching the Kunlun Mountains and the Pamir Plateau in the west.30 To the
north, it reaches Heilongjiang, and to the south, Hainan Island. It is just such a piece
of land. Let us put our shoulders together with the people of the whole country,
with the state, and with the young people, and make a go at it for several decades.
Let’s not say too long; let’s get at it for fifty years. In this century, we have engaged
in revolution for the first half century; for the latter half, let’s get going in
construction. There are some forty years left in this century. So, the central task
[for us] at present is [that of] construction.
We must distinguish clearly between the two categories of contradictions. The
first category, of contradictions between the enemy and ourselves, cannot be
confused with the second category, of contradictions among the people. On the
subject of the socialist society, [we must recognize that] it does have contradictions,
and contradictions do exist [in it]. Lenin once made a directive on this point. He
recognized that there are contradictions in socialist society. In the beginning,
Stalin—in the period immediately after Lenin’s death—[allowed for] a relative


liveliness and activity in the domestic life in the Soviet Union. It was somewhat
like what we have now [in our country]. They had all sorts of [political] parties and
factions, even some well-known people like Trotsky. He had many people [with
him], but he was sort of like a democratic personage within the Communist Party.
Moreover, he played the role of a cheeky troublemaker and made trouble for us.
There were also quite some other people in the society who were allowed to say
all sorts of things, including criticizing the government. There was such a period.
Then later, things didn’t work. Furthermore, things became very dictatorial. [Stalin]
would not allow for criticism. He was afraid of people who wanted to criticize, of
letting a hundred flowers bloom.31 He would only allow for the blooming of
fragrant flowers.32 He was afraid also of letting a hundred schools contend. At the
slightest hint of suspicion,33 he would say that it was a counterrevolutionary
[incident] and would have people arrested or executed. This is to confuse the two
types of contradictions, to mistake the contradictions among the people for contradictions between the enemy and ourselves.34 Your Comrade Xu Jiatun35 of Nanjing
said many students came to submit petitions to him. Their ranks, [he said,] were
very orderly. [Your] provincial governor, Peng Chong,36 also said that they were
very well disciplined. Along the way they have been very good. When they got to
his place, as soon as they got in the door, they yelled “Down with bureaucratism”37
and wanted certain problems resolved. In regard to these problems, as I see it, if
these were brought in front of Stalin, I think a few people would have been arrested,
and a few heads would surely have rolled. You call for the downfall of bureaucratism; is that not counterrevolution? In fact there was not a single counterrevolutionary; [all of them] were very good students. Moreover, that problem [indeed]
ought to be resolved; there is indeed a bit of bureaucratism.38 This is because
without the disturbance created by those overseas Chinese students,39 the problem
was not well resolved. With this round of petitions by the students, they helped us,
and the students got educated. Many cadres, too, got educated, and the overseas-
Chinese students also got educated. Those who had made trouble and hit people
no longer did so. Why must we hit people day after day? Because in the past we
did not do a good job of educating them; we did not mobilize the masses to criticize
them. Some other problems of this type: there were also some so-called rehabilitated servicemen making trouble. Comrade Zeng Xisheng is in your neighboring
province of Anhui; in his place the rehabilitated servicemen made some trouble
and got to him.40 He made a forty-minute speech and the problem was resolved. In
the beginning there was a gust of [ill] spirit41; afterwards, this gust of [ill] spirit
disappeared; God knows where it went. In any case, there was no longer much of
a problem. The problems were resolved. One of them, through investigation, was
found to be a person who passed himself off as a soldier; he was very bad; he was
a leader [of the troublemakers].
With regard to the disturbances made by the people, we simply must not adopt
a method of doing things that we did vis-à-vis the landlord class, the Kuomintang,
and the imperialists. We must adopt, [instead,] an entirely new method. With the
exception of those who have violated the law—for example, if someone took a
knife and killed somebody or hurt somebody, or if he went to an office and smashed



the furniture to pieces, in which case this person should be dealt with according to
the processes of the law—other people, even if they had made a mistake, or if they
were leaders and led others in making trouble, we should [use the method of]
persuasion and education. We must not expel them from their factories. We mustn’t
expel them from one school, [because] they would just go to another school. We
mustn’t expel them from the [state] organs and organizations; isn’t that the same
principle? If you expelled [a person] from a factory, he would simply go into the
shop next door. [After all,] he has to alight in some place. You can’t expect him to
go live in Sun Yat-sen’s Tomb.42 There is no food in that place, nor a house [to
offer shelter]. He simply could not live in such a place. He cannot live in the
wilderness, and so he must have a place to alight, to settle down. For you to expel
him from your [unit] is simply to use your neighbor’s land as a garbage dump.43
You might feel a bit more comfortable; but I say that it is no good for you to be too
comfortable like that. There is nothing to be feared for a [government] organ, a
school, or a factory to have a few troublemakers.
Let us talk a bit once more about the first category of contradictions, i.e., the
contradictions between the enemy and ourselves, the contradictions between the
enemy and the people and the contradictions between the people and the enemy and
the counterrevolutionaries. Both of the existing viewpoints [on this] are improper.
One is a Right-deviationist viewpoint that thinks that there is peace and no trouble
any more in the world. With regard to some reactionaries and evil people who
should be dealt with in accordance with the [penalty stipulated by the] law, [people
with this viewpoint] fail to handle them according to the law. This is not good. This
is the viewpoint of Right-deviationist opportunism. Right now, this happens in
every province, and all provinces should pay attention. Among the democratic
personages44 and in the democratic parties45 there are some of our friends who have
[such a] Right-deviationist perspective on this matter. Sometimes they are even
more Rightist than those in our [Party] who [have a] Right-deviationist viewpoint.
This is because some counterrevolutionaries were their old friends. Now some of
them are incarcerated46 and some have been executed, so they are a bit sad, because
their relatives and their friends have been executed. There are these viewpoints that
we must explain clearly; it is not good at all for us to have such viewpoints in the
Party. Secondly, there are viewpoints that exaggerate—“Leftist” viewpoints. [People with this kind of a viewpoint] say that there are still, today, many counterrevolutionaries. This is not correct. We must affirm that there are still some
hidden counterrevolutionaries. [We must also affirm that] the [work of] eliminating
counterrevolutionaries in the past has been basically correct. Things would be
terrible if we had not eliminated counterrevolutionaries. A thing such as [that which
happened in] Hungary will not take place in our China.47 One reason for this is that
we have eliminated counterrevolutionaries, whereas that was not done in Hungary.
Therefore, to say that there are still many counterrevolutionaries today is to have
an exaggerated viewpoint that does not conform to the [actual] circumstances.
With regard to the contradictions of the second category, [namely,] contradictions among the people, because the class struggle has basically concluded, this
category is more clearly exposed; [indeed,] it is relatively out in the open. The


opinions among our comrades are not uniform on the problems of this category
either. There are all sorts of different opinions; we must, as yet, through explanation, discussion, and study, unify the opinions of our comrades on this problem.
We were mentally unprepared for the trouble that the people are making for us.
This is because in the past we were shoulder to shoulder with the people in opposing
the enemy. Now the enemy is gone, and we cannot see the enemy. That leaves just
ourselves and the people. When the people have problems, if they don’t come to
you, to whom should they go? In the past, it was making trouble against the enemy;
that was revolution. The thing now is not called revolution any longer. What
happens if you made revolution against me and got rid of me? Are you going to
invite Chiang Kai-shek back? Still, however, there are troubles that have to be
made. This is because there are things that you have not yet resolved properly. In
all cases where things have been resolved properly, there may be nine places out
of ten where things have been properly resolved, there may be nine out of ten
problems that have been resolved properly, [but] there still [can] be one place where
things have not been resolved properly, or one problem, and that place is going to
have trouble.48 This troublemaking is normal. You haven’t resolved things properly; why should he not make trouble? Permit me to ask you, if he is not to make
trouble for you, for whom would he make trouble? Should he make trouble for
“Generalissimo Chiang?”49 [But Chiang] has already gone to Taiwan. That is why
they have to make trouble for the directors of the factories, for the directors of the
cooperatives, for the xiang government, the municipal government, the people’s
government, and for the principals in the schools—this is because you have not
resolved things properly. We have bureaucratism, subjectivism, and sectarianism,
in our work. We have many people, and our opinions are not unanimous; that is
why there is bureaucratism. Here, too, there are “Leftist” and Rightist viewpoints.
With regard to the people making trouble, there are those, too, who advocate that
we should deal with it with the old methods. [They say:] “No matter what, we have
only one set of methods. We’ve been at this for several decades already. Do you
know how long I’ve51 been at this business of making revolution? Isn’t that so?
[I’ll] always have a method, and that is the method that we use in dealing with the
enemy.[”] Sometimes we’ll use [that method] for a bit too, to suppress things for
a while—call out the police. There are a few places where the police have been
summoned to make arrests. When the students strike, summon the police to arrest
some [of them]; that is the method of the Kuomintang; the Kuomintang would use
such a method. Then there are those who are completely at a loss as to what to do52
and have no method at all. In the past when they dealt with the imperialists they
were very proud, full of power and might, and positively dauntless. [They said:
We’ve got] millet plus rifles;53 we’re not afraid of you imperialists, you Chiang
Kai-shek, or your airplanes and cannons. They were not afraid of imperialists, but
[now] they are a bit afraid of the people making trouble. I say [to them]: You are
not afraid of the imperialists; how can you be afraid of the common people?54 But
things are just that strange; they are afraid of the common people. They might not
be afraid of the imperialists, but as soon as the common people make any trouble
for them, they are at a loss for methods [of dealing with the situation]. This is



because they have not learned this one thing; they have not yet learned it well. What
they learned in the past was the stuff with which to deal with the imperialists, and
with Chiang Kai-shek. If you talk of beating up the local tyrants and dividing up
the land,55 they would be good at it, but if you talk of handling the trouble that the
people make, they haven’t learned this well; they haven’t taken that lesson. That’s
why [all this is] very much worth studying. We should raise this problem openly
with [people both] inside and outside the Party and launch a discussion, and then
methods will come out.

Comrades, after all, is it easier to handle the imperialists, or is it easier to handle
the common people? Is it harder to deal with the enemy, or is it harder to deal with
the people? With the enemy, for how long have you been trying to throw him out?
And he just won’t go. He is slippery as an eel. [His] spies and special agents have
wormed their way into the [government] organs, the schools, the factories, and to
the countryside, and they just won’t leave. No matter what, the common people are
not spies; they are not imperialists, or landlords, or capitalists. They are the common
people. They are the laboring people, and [it should be] very easy to explain things
to them reasonably. That is why, in the case of our Comrade Xu XX and Comrade
Peng X, when the overseas-Chinese students beat people and many students were
unhappy and made a petition to them, they used [the method of] persuasion, and
in the end they resolved the problem very nicely.

I say that with regard to the country as a whole, our policy is to “make
comprehensive planning with due consideration to all sectors so that proper
arrangements may be made,”56 and to strengthen ideological education. This, we
may say, is a strategic guideline, because this is “making comprehensive planning
with due consideration to all sectors, and making proper arrangements” for 600
million people. This includes the landlords, the rich peasants, the national bourgeoisie,57 as well as the counterrevolutionaries who have not been executed—you
have to make arrangements for them too. With regard to all types of people who
have lost their jobs, you’ll have to make appropriate arrangements for them; you
have to make it possible for them to go on with their lives, and have something to
do. Of this, there are about five million intellectuals.58 As a country, China has too
few intellectuals, but there is this batch, about five million of them. Among them,
less than one million have joined the Communist Party; there are still four million
outside the Party. What work do they do? They work in our government system;
there are also some in the armed forces. In the educational system there are two
million [of them] counting [those in the] universities, the middle schools, and the
primary schools. In the financial and economic systems there are a million [of
them,] and then there are people working in the sciences, in literature, and in the
arts. There are writers, poets, artists, painters, opera singers; and then there are also
journalists, people who run newspapers, and so on. There are many in Shanghai.

Such a big heap of intellectuals. Some have become workers and peasants,59
accepted Marxism and joined the Communist Party. Some have not joined but are
very close to us. Those who actively and enthusiastically support Marxism and
approve of Marxism make up a small portion, perhaps 10 per cent or a little bit
more. According to [reports from] Jiangsu [Province], they make up 17 per cent


[there]. People on the other end have hostile feelings [toward us,] but they are not
spies. They oppose us and do not approve of Marxism. They reluctantly accept the
socialist system because they can't do anything about it—that's the general trend.
There are people like that, perhaps a few per cent. There are, in the middle, then,
80 per cent [of the intellectuals]; maybe not quite as much; 70 to 80 per cent. They
are the middle-of-the-roaders, the vacillators. They have a little bit of approbation
for Marxism, and they have read a few [Marxist] books, but it's just that they didn't
sink in—they did the reading on the surface here (gesture: touches his forehead)
but didn't [let things] sink inside.60
There is a method for testing the intellectuals. People say that we must draw a
bit of a distinction—are these, after all, petty-bourgeois intellectuals, or are they
bourgeois intellectuals? That is to say, it is a bit more comfortable to wear a
petty-bourgeois hat than to wear a bourgeois one.61 However, I say that is not so.
I, for one, was a bourgeois intellectual. I entered a bourgeois school, and the
atmosphere of the society I was in was a bourgeois atmosphere. The stuff they
promoted then were things of idealism. I believed in Kant's idealist [teachings].62
Can you say that is petty bourgeois? What you read is bourgeois; what you believe
in is bourgeois; can you call yourself a petty bourgeoisie? Sometimes it is possible
to draw [such] a distinction, and indeed the distinction ought to be drawn. However,
when it comes to [the question of] world views, the distinction cannot be easily
drawn. What would you say the world view of the petty bourgeoisie is? Is it
semimaterialism? As for me, Marxism was something that penetrated [my mind]
only later; it was learned later. Moreover, it was only after a very long time, through
struggling with the enemy, that [I] became reformed gradually. There is one thing
that can be taken as a test for the intellectuals, and that is, put them together with
the workers and the peasants, and see who [among them] blend in with the laboring
people.63 Some of the intellectuals can do that [—can] blend in with the laboring
people, but] the vast majority of the intellectuals are still far from that. [Even if
they] wanted to blend in, they couldn't. They have no congenial feelings for the
workers and the peasants. [They are] not [their] friends. When the workers and the
peasants have things [to say], they do not unburden themselves to [these intellectuals], and they, [in their turn,] have only contempt for the workers and the peasants.
The intellectuals have a tail;64 it needs to be doused with a bucket of cold water.
When you douse a dog with a bucket of cold water, it grips its tail [between its
legs]. Under any other set of circumstances, it will cock [its tail] very high; it will
look proud. Because [these intellectuals] have read a few books,65 they are indeed
a bit proud. When the laboring people see that proud air of yours, when they see
your face, they feel uneasy.
Our task is to win over 70 to 80 per cent of those vacillating middle-of-theroaders. They in general have approved of the socialist system, but when it comes
to adopting Marxism as the world view, they have not yet completely accepted that.
I say that they are not serving the people wholeheartedly, but halfheartedly. They
have put half of their heart to serving the people, and that is good, but there is the
other half of their heart which is put goodness knows where. If you say they support
Taiwan [that is not true]—they do not support Taiwan. However, whenever they



talk of any foreign country, they’d say that the United States is better. [They’d say:]
“See, the United States has so much steel; American science is very well-developed.” I say, the foreign countries are good, the capitalist countries and the Western
countries are good. Are they good? They are good. They have so many pieces of
machinery, so much steel and iron, and we don’t have anything. However, if they
are good it is their business, not yours. If the United States has so much steel, that
is the American people’s steel, not our Chinese people’s steel. What good does it
do us to toot their horn everyday? [The United States may] produce 100 million
tons of steel a year [but so what for us?] We don’t [produce that]. If we could
produce several tens of thousands of tons of steel a year we would be very glad.
Right now we have only four million tons of steel. According to the First Five-Year
Plan,66 we may complete [the production of] 4.12 million tons of steel, and we may
surpass that and produce a bit more. We might have several hundred thousand tons
over four million tons of steel. In 1949 we had only something between 100,000
and 200,000 tons of steel. The highest annual output was in 1934. The major part
of that was [produced by] the Japanese. And even then there were only 900,000
tons. Chiang Kai-shek promoted [that] for twenty years. There is sense when I say
Chiang Kai-shek ought to be toppled; it is not that we just happened to send him
packing. He’d been promoting [steel production] for twenty years, and he had only
several tens of thousands of tons of steel, and some of that was produced at the end
of the Qing dynasty by Zhang Zhidong and so on.67 We’ve been promoting this for
several years, and if you count this year, eight years; and we can produce more than
four million tons of steel. That’s why, if we add [even just] one ton of steel it is our
business, and we are glad. It doesn’t make us glad even if you, the United States,
increased [production] by several million tons of steel. The more you have, the less
happy we’ll be. Why are you increasing steel [production] by so much? What for?
When you increase that much steel [production] you’ll be very dangerous [because
you’ll] want to fight us. And there are some of our own intellectuals who are sitting
there blowing [the horn for] the United States’s steel production; steel, steel! That
much! This is [a point on which we] must persuade them; we must persuade the
intellectuals.

Some intellectuals are serving as teachers. Scientists are all teachers; university
professors are all teachers, and middle school and primary school teachers are all
teachers; they are educating the people. The journalists and those who run newspapers [also] educate the people. The broadcaster, the writer, and the artist are all
teachers for the people. Technicians and engineers are indispensable in our factories. If we looked down on these several million intellectuals and thought that we
could dispense with them, that viewpoint would not be right. We can’t get away
from them; if we separated ourselves from these several million intellectuals, we
would not be able to act. We can very well say that we can’t leave them, not for a
single step. [If we separated ourselves from them,] we wouldn’t be able to run the
schools. And many of our newspapers would not be published. [In] our literature
and art, the Communist Party did not produce a Mei Lanfang,68 or a Zhou XX;
recently a Yuan XX joined the Party,69 but the Party still has no Mei Lanfang, or
Zhou XX, or Cheng Yanqiu.70 We don’t have university professors, for one thing.


We are beginning to have some engineers, but only very few. Some technical
personnel are also beginning to join the Communist Party, [but] a very large batch
are still people outside the Party.
Therefore, no matter how they vacillate, the several million intellectuals we
have71 are useful people. They are our people’s assets72 and our people’s teachers.
At present only they are serving as teachers; we have no other teachers. This is
because they are left behind by past generations; they are left to us by the society.
In terms of their social backgrounds, they are all of the landlord class, the rich
peasant class, and the bourgeoisie. But they can be educated and pulled over [to
our side]. We should not involve ourselves with a theory of the unique importance
of class origin.73 [If we did,] then Lu Xun would belong to the class of landlords,74
rich peasants, and the bourgeoisie. Marx, [too,] would belong to the [class of] the
landlords, the rich peasants, and the bourgeoisie. Lenin, too. Good gracious! What
should we do? So, [you see,] we simply cannot dwell on the theory of the unique
importance of class origin. This is because now they—the landlords, the rich
peasants, the bourgeoisie—no longer have their social roots. We have dug up their
social roots, their social base. Now they are in midair; that is why they are ready
to be transformed.75 We must not be afraid of them.
Some comrades who come from worker and peasant backgrounds and [some
who are] worker and peasant cadres get a bit angry when they see intellectuals;
they are afraid that they are [the type of people who are] too hard to swallow and
too tough to chew.76 It is true that the intellectuals are a bit troublesome. This is
because intellectuals are intellectuals; their troublesomeness is that they have read
a few books, and we have not read a few books. Because you have read fewer
books, his tail cocks up and struts in the air.77 Then things become difficult to handle
and some are just outright impossible. That’s why it is true when some people say
things [with the intellectuals] are hard to handle; they are difficult to handle. And
yet, if you choose instead to say things are easy to handle, that could be true also.
In these last seven years, these several million intellectuals have made some
progress, isn’t that the case? After all, [I think they have] made some progress.
What are the democratic parties? The democratic parties—they are [made up
of] intellectuals. There are very few worker and peasant cadres in the democratic
parties. What worker and peasant cadres are there [in the parties]? The democratic
parties—the Revolutionary Committee of the KMT, the Democratic League, the
Democratic Association for National Construction, the September Third Study
Society, the Peasant-Worker Democratic Party—all are [made up of] intellectuals.78 That’s why our Party proposed [the slogans] “Let a hundred flowers bloom,
let a hundred schools contend,” and “Long-term coexistence and mutual supervision.”79 Comrade Jiang XX wanted me to say something about this problem.80
We have reasons for proposing these guidelines. [We say:] “Let a hundred
flowers bloom; let a hundred schools contend.” [The question is,] do we want to
“bloom,” or do we want to “retrench”?81 Right now people outside the Party are
precisely saying that we have not let things “bloom” enough, and they are deeply
afraid that we would retrench. And as for our comrades [within the Party]? [It seems
that] they are looking at what has been going on and it doesn’t seem quite right, so



they have a bit of the idea of retrenching. They have a bit of the idea of calling back
the troops.82 How about us? The opinion of the Central [Committee] has been
discussed with the comrades from all provinces. Last year in November, the Second
Plenum [of the Central Committee] was held, and this year in January we held a
conference of provincial [Party] committee secretaries,83 and we obtained a consensus, which held that the guidelines of “let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred
schools contend” should be upheld and continued. [This opinion is that] we should
[continue to] “let go,” and not to “hold things back.” What is wrong ought to be
criticized. An erroneous opinion, a wrong piece of work, or, in an essay or article
or a piece of writing, where there is a part that is in error, then that part must be
criticized. However, we must use the method of persuasion.84 Therefore, [there are
the questions of] whether we use “winning over by persuasion” or “putting down
by suppression.” We must adopt one of the two methods. Should we “let go” or
should we “hold back”? Between these two we must pick one. We think that we
should still be “letting go,” not “holding back.” Then, when we “let go,” that would
let a lot of things out. Many of these things will not be what we like; what then
should we do? Should we then “suppress”? Or should we employ another method,
[namely,] to persuade them? Some comrades’ hands are a bit itchy; they would like
to “suppress,” and trot out the stuff that was employed in dealing with the class
struggle. [They would like] to handle things according to the law of the military,85
and to use a simplistic method. Or, they don’t want to call in the troops, but want
to use administrative decrees; where they see something not quite to their liking,
they would like to “suppress” it a bit. The Central [Committee] believes that this
is not good. Suppression will never [really] bring people to [honest] submission.
Since time immemorial, there has never been a case where people were brought to
[real] submission by pressure.86 When we dealt with the enemy, we did use
pressure, [but] after the suppression, we still engaged in “persuasion.” For example,
with people who were captured [in battle], once their arms were laid down, we
persuaded them.87 As for the counterrevolutionaries, as long as they are those who
are to be executed, we still would want to win them over, to educate them and
reform them. The policy of heavy pressure88 is not conducive to the resolving of
problems. [In handling the] problems among the people [we] cannot adopt a policy
of heavy pressure. Then, with this “letting go,” we also use [the method of]
“persuasion”; [and we say] we don’t want to use administrative decrees to exert
heavy pressure; would there be chaos all over the country? We say that there will
not be chaos. Would there be criticism conducted from all sides? [That people will]
criticize our shortcomings in the newspapers, magazines, and meetings? Would it
be possible that we might be so severely criticized that we would not be able to
come down? Would there be criticism to topple the people’s government, like it
did in Hungary? Would things be like that? I say that things would not. Conditions
in China are different from the way they were in Hungary. [Our] Communist Party
enjoys a tremendous prestige, and the people’s government is held greatly in
respect. Marxism is truth; that cannot be toppled by criticism.89 [Our] old cadres
also cannot be toppled by criticism. Therefore [our] old cadres need not fear
criticism. It is very good for our old cadres to be subjected to a little bit of criticism.


If we have [the smell of] bureaucratism on us, if we have shortcomings, let us first
allow for a criticism within the Party, and then let [people] outside the Party
criticize. [Let them] criticize our shortcomings, and [help to] change our bureaucratism around a bit, to change around [our] shortcomings. Won’t that be good
then? Will [we] be toppled? No! We won’t. How can the people’s government be
blown away and toppled? Last year there was a tornado in Shanghai. Something
big was swept up in the gale; some house [I think], and something containing
petroleum. They were swept up to the sky. There was such a gust of wind, but the
Shanghai people’s government was not blown away. No matter how big the
typhoon,90 as I see it, the people’s government, the Communist Party, Marxism,
old cadres, new cadres, as long as you are wholeheartedly in the service of the
people, you will not be blown away or toppled [by the wind]. As for those who are
halfheartedly serving the people, half of them will be blown away and toppled.
Those who don’t have a single idea [of serving the people but, instead,] are opposed
to the people should be blown away and toppled.
What should we do about the poison? With “a hundred flowers blooming,” many
poisonous things will come out.91 [As they say:] “From the mouth of the serpent
comes a flower.” I say, with regard to the things that carry poison, [let us refer to]
the essay titled “Once More on the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat.”92 All of you, comrades, I think, have read this. In it there are a few
sentences that read like this: If there are shortcomings with the system of democratic centralism, it should be criticized. Without a doubt, the centralism of
democratic centralism must be built on a base of widespread democracy; and the
Party’s leadership must be a leadership that is closely connected to the people’s
masses. If in these areas there are shortcomings, then we must resolutely criticize
and overcome them. However, the criticism of these shortcomings can only be for
the purpose of consolidating the leadership of the Party, and not by any means, as
the enemy hopes for, to create the “dissipation and chaos” of the proletariat.93
[Now,] is this correct or not? It is very good that [you recognize that] this is correct.
You can take this thing and go discuss it with the democratic personages, and let
the university students go discuss [it]. What this essay said is: Criticism is all right.
But the consequence and purpose of criticism is for the consolidation of the system
of democratic centralism and of the Party’s leadership, not by any means to create
dissipation and confusion among the ranks of the proletariat, as the enemy hopes for.
This is a matter of principle. The principle must be such. However, we must also
pay attention to a matter of flexibility. When we allow people to speak up [we must
expect] that some very unpleasant-to-the-ear things will come out of their mouths;
and when a hundred flowers are blooming, some quite unsightly flowers may be
in the blooming also. There will be something like workers’ strikes, students’
strikes, petitions, parades, demonstrations, and in the midst of that there could be
some disturbance. The purposes of these things may not necessarily conform to
[the original purpose of criticism]. When the masses make trouble, [you can’t
expect the intellectuals to understand them, after all,] 80 per cent of the intellectuals
are people who have not learned Marxism and still harbor a bourgeois world view;
how could they understand this? When they have meetings and when they criticize,



there are likely to be some disturbances. It won't do if, at such times, and
everywhere, we just trotted out some [dogma] to put things down: “Look here! I
have a book here; have you read it?” You must [instead] learn the way in which
our Comrade Peng Chong and Comrade Xu Jiatun resolved the problem.94 If at
such times they had merely trotted out that line to recite, and just recited it over
and over and said nothing else, you can bet that he would not be able to keep on
being mayor. Since they have to resolve concrete problems, it is inevitable that
sometimes they may do things a bit overboard.
Among literary works there are things that are not in tune. In Shanghai, there is
the performance of an opera “Exchanging a Leopard Cat for a Crown Prince.”95 I
have not seen this opera, [but I know that it describes a situation in which] all sorts
of demons and freaks and monsters come onto the stage.96 I say it’s all right for
some of them to come up. Many people simply have never seen demons, or
monsters, or freaks; I myself have seen all too little of them. [In fact,] I would very
much like to see “Exchanging a Leopard Cat for a Crown Prince.” In order to
become well-versed in the things of the world, we have to see it.9


are you going to do about it?” “No! That won’t do! You say that I am halfhearted.
I won’t stand for that!” [You say:] I won’t stand for that; I want to fight. Well, we
are not afraid even of fighting. You are halfhearted, and I say you are halfhearted;
and you are uneasy about it? You have half a heart that is good. You still have half
a heart. This is talking of world views; I am not talking about your [attitude] toward
the socialist system. You support the socialist system, but not necessarily in every
[aspect of it] either. For example, on the system of the cooperatives, some of you
have doubts. However, on socialism in general, on the five-year plans, if you asked
them if they approved of them or not, they’ll say that they approve. Do they approve
of the Constitution or not?102 Yes, they do. In general they support the Communist
Party, but when you touch on the world view [issue] and the [issue of] dialectical
materialism, on these things they would not approve, or only approve partially.
That is why we speak of them [being] halfhearted. Therefore, you have yet one
more task to perform: you must undergo transformation. There is a duality about
you; one aspect is that you approve of socialism, [but] the other aspect is that your
approval is not thoroughgoing. That’s why you are halfhearted. You wish to draw
close to the people, but then again you just can’t come close completely; you can’t
blend into one piece with them. Even after you have gone to the village for a casual
stroll and you come back, things have not changed that much.
I hear that something [of interest] once took place here in this Nanjing of yours.
This is something that came up during the time of the “Three-Anti’s.”103 A writer,
some general secretary in the Federation of Writers, went down [to the countryside]
to get a [firsthand] experience of [how] life [is]. He brought the rice from the city
down to the countryside to eat. When he was returning, he sent letters to Nanjing
ahead of time, and after the Nanjing Writers’ Federation had received the letters,
[the members] lined up to greet him, standing in two rows to either side [of the
street]. And this writer of ours, who had [supposedly gone down to the countryside]
to experience life [firsthand], walked [between the two rows of greeters] in the
middle of the street. In any case, he was quite proud and self-important about that.
Then there was another: during the “Three-Anti’s” he got married, and he insisted
that on his wedding night he must sleep in the bed Chiang Kai-shek had slept in in
the president’s residence. He insisted on going there to sleep for the night, one
night. In any case, there are all sorts of weird things in this world of ours. With the
“Three-Anti’s” and “Five-Anti’s” these strange things have all been exposed. The
authorities in Nanjing sent these materials to Beijing, and we got to see them. The
state of mind of people like them [is quite strange, but] he must have his interest
about it—this is, after all, the bed in which the president had once slept. This
president’s name is Chiang; he is Chiang Kai-shek. As I get married today, I must,
simply must, sleep there for this one night.
We must use the democratic parties and the democratic personages. Just now
we spoke of the intellectuals. The democratic parties are [made up of] some
intellectuals. We have to use them. Some people [might] say: It’ll be good to use
them. However, they are not useful; they are old trash. [Well,] even [if they were]
trash we must utilize [them]; even trash has its good points.104 We ought to use
them, and we ought to hold meetings. This time, a political consultative confer-


ence105 was convened in Beijing, and I spoke once to [the conference]. We don’t
want that each year, when there is a meeting, we just take care of things for a
bit—we just take care of things perfunctorily, and that’s it. Rather, we must utilize
the [method of] meetings. Let each province hold one or two meetings each year,
and we will make use of these meetings to do work among them, [i.e., among the
intellectuals] to persuade them so that they will work in our interests. This is [also]
because they are connected to some [other] people, and through them we can
persuade those [others as well]. This would be a positive attitude, not a negative
attitude of [simply] making use of them. This is [what is meant by] “use,” “restrict,”
and “reform.”106 Our comrades like the latter two items; one is called “restrict” and
the other is called “reform.” But they don’t like the first item, which is called “use.”
[They say: “I am going to ‘reform’ you; and I am going to ‘restrict’ you.”]
Naturally those were [appropriate] words to be used for the capitalists. Now, with
regard to the democratic personages, it would not be appropriate to use these words:
“utilize,” “restrict,” and “reform.” However, our comrades, in reality, are using that
“restriction,” but not “reforming” and not “utilizing” them. They can do work that
we are not capable of. We must be honest and sincere with them. In many things
we should not have two ways of handling affairs, one for within the Party and
another for [dealing with people] outside the Party. For example, whatever I have
just said to you comrades here, I can say to them just as well. Of course, every party
has certain things that it will not tell [people] outside the Party. The democratic
parties have things that they do not tell us, and we have certain things that we do
not tell them. Nonetheless, we can share all the things that relate to policy. What
is said in the Party, the same will be said [to people] outside the Party; the
[documentary] material is entirely [open to] viewing. Some documents, such as
those describing workers’ strikes and student strikes, protests and demonstrations,
documents that expose our bureaucratism, and so on, can be reprinted and circulated to them for their viewing. Normally-they don’t get to see these things, and
this way, [I think,] things would in fact be better. Sometimes two parties can hold
joint meetings, so that people from [our] Party and people outside the Party can
take part at the same time. Recently, a propaganda conference was held in Beijing,
and that meeting went quite well.107 It was attended by 150 to 160 personages
outside our Party, making up one-fifth [of the attendance]. If you hold [such a
meeting here], you can let that percentage be higher; let them make up two-fifths.
On such matters as [these] policies, we do not promote two sets of methods; let
them see the material.
Arduous and heroic struggle.108 Comrade Jiang XX also spoke about that for a
bit, and so did I earlier. It will take such and such number of years before our
people’s lives can be improved. Right now we must promote [the will to undertake]
arduous and heroic struggle. However, this doesn’t mean that our women comrades
can’t wear color-patterned dresses. Color-patterned dresses can still be worn.
According to some studies that people have made, color-patterned clothing is
cheaper [to manufacture]. Right now people make two sets: they wear color-patterned clothes underneath, covered on top by a blue-cotton jacket. That is spending
too much money. We have to economize. To wear color-patterned clothes is a way


to economize. In all sorts of things we have to do a great deal of work on the point
of economizing and on the point of arduous and heroic struggle.
Even now we can see that some comrades have not stirred themselves up in
spirit. They only do a little bit of work, and when there is no work to do they just
play poker and _majong_.109 I hear that playing poker has become quite a fad, and
that sometimes people play through the whole night. You must cultivate the habit
of reading. I am not opposed to playing poker, or to dancing, or to going to the
opera; just that [I] don’t [want you to] do too much of these things. We would not
be able to make use of our strong points [if we steep ourselves in these things]. Our
strong points are in class struggle, in politics, and in military matters. Our shortcoming today is in the fact that we lack education,110 and lack [knowledge in]
science and technology. We must learn in these areas. These are words that I said
in the essay “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship” in 1949.111 I said then that
the things in which we were strong in the past, the things that we knew well, and
the things we understood would soon be set aside, not to be used; whereas the things
that we didn’t understand were placed in front of us. Therefore, [I said,] we have
a task; a task to study. Seven years have now gone by, and I feel even more strongly
that we must promote and advocate studying. We must form a habit of reading, let
reading occupy our spare time from work, and let us use all our spare energy on
this. Then the taste for playing poker would not be so great. The taste would have
crept into the books, into studying.
Some comrades show that their revolutionary will has receded and lack the spirit
of “placing one’s life on the line.” What is meant by “placing one’s life on the
line”? In _Shuihu [zhuan]_ there is a character called “Shi Xiu the Death-Defying
Third Brother.”112 And that is what we mean by “placing one’s life on the line.” In
the past, when we were making revolution, we had a spirit of putting our lives on
the line; we had that burst of energy. In these last few years, gradually, some
comrades no longer have that energy. Some make trouble; another thing is [when]
grades are assessed.113 Some make so much of a fuss that it is quite unbecoming;
for instance, they won’t eat for three days. I say it is all right [if you didn’t eat for]
four days. You don’t eat for three, four days, someone sends food to you. I say:
That’s too early. Let him starve for four, five days, for a week, and then you’ll have
problems. What’s so serious about going three days without food? Why are you so
anxious to send over milk and eggs? Some people weep bitterly. They compare
their own ranking with others’, compare salaries, and compare how pretty their
dresses are.114
I’m afraid that we might have to make some adjustments in wages. The Central
Committee has not yet made a decision on this. Didn’t we propose a wage reform
last year, and didn’t wages get raised? There ought to have been a raise in the wages,
but in some cases, there has been a bit too much of a raise, for instance, in the
administrative system, and perhaps in the educational system as well. This is not
in reference to the workers, not to the factories, but to the administrative system.
We have 1.7 million administrative personnel (including the _xiang_ cadres, but not
including the cooperatives,) and two million people in the educational system. In
addition, there is the commercial system and the business system outside the


factories. Also, there are X [personnel in the] Liberation Army.¹¹⁵ Altogether, a bit
over ten million people. This is the number of people who make up our state. In
the past there were several million industrial workers, and now that figure has
increased to twelve million. Because our country is large, we have a bit more
[administrative] personnel. There’s no problem with that. However, more than ten
million is a bit too many. That’s why, when the conditions are ripe, that is, when
we can see enough ways out,¹¹⁶ we are prepared to send some people back to the
factories, back to the cooperatives. In the main, production is in two sectors. One
is industry and the other is agriculture. We rely on these two departments for
production. Right now it appears as if there are some improprieties in wages, and
that has made some people dissatisfied. With regard to this problem, I think, if there
is more talk in the society, it would be better to handle, because when there is more
talk, we would have the basis upon which to bring about an adjustment. We must
maintain the spirit that we had in the past when we were making revolution and
making class struggle, that gust of energy, that surge of zeal and enthusiasm.
Revolutionary zeal is to carry out this work to the end. Every person has one life—it
depends on how long you live. Some sixty, some seventy, eighty, or even ninety.
There is an artist by the name of Qi Baishi.¹¹⁷ He is ninety-eight. It depends on how
long you live. There comes a time when you really can’t work anymore, then you
don’t work, but as long as you can still work, you’ve got to do some work, more
or less. And when you do work, you’ve got to have enthusiasm. To lack enthusiasm,
to stall and go stagnant, some [such] phenomena are no good, and we ought to
conduct education. In some cases [the problem] is that the organization is too big,
[too] many people all huddled together in a heap, without work to do. If they don’t
play poker, they have no way out at all. You pile them in such a big heap, and with
only a few things to handle; what do you expect—wouldn’t they play poker?
We must strengthen ideological and political work. How are things in the armed
forces? Today there are many comrades in the armed forces [attending this meeting.
Let me ask you:] Isn’t there some difference between political work in normal times
and political work during wartime? In the war, we have to draw close to the masses.
The officers and the soldiers must be forged into one.¹¹⁸ The army and the people
must be forged into one. That is because, in wartime, [even] if we had some
shortcomings, people would understand and forgive us. Now it is a [“normal”]
time. We have no enemy in front of us, and we are not fighting battles. We are in
training. At such times, if we had a shortcoming, people naturally would not be so
easy to forgive us. Just as with comrades in government work and in local Party
work, at this time, at a time when class struggle is over,¹¹⁹ people will find it even
harder to forgive us [for shortcomings we may have]. At present we have implemented a system of military ranks and other sorts of systems. While we carry
out these systems on the one hand, however, we must, on the other hand, still have
[the officers of] higher ranks forge as one with [the officers of] lower ranks, and
[both] forge as one with the soldiers. Moreover, we must permit [the people of the
lower ranks] to criticize. For example, when we hold a Party delegates’ conference
we must give them a chance to raise criticism. Comrade Chen Yi said it well [once].
During the time of the “Three-Anti’s,” he was in the East China military region.


He said: “We have already exercised dictatorship for several years; can we now
allow people to exercise dictatorship over us for a week? It was all right for us to
give the commands for lo, these many years. Is it now all right for the [people of
the] lower ranks to say some things to us, to criticize us for a bit, for a week—just
one week?” His idea was that it should be all right. I agree with this. [Let’s] toughen
our scalps120 and let the [people in the] lower ranks criticize us for a week. Before
they criticize, let’s do some preparations; make some reports. [Let’s examine] what
shortcomings we have. It’s no more than one, two, three, or four . . . those three or
four items. Then let comrades speak. Let them supplement [our reports] and do
some criticism. [We have] achievements to [our] credit; the people will not simply
throw away our history. Give the soldiers a chance at the company and platoon
commanders. [I think] it would be best if we can have such a thing once a year,
have a few days of a criticism meeting. We’ve done that before, and the results
were beneficial. [We must have] democracy in military affairs, in the armed forces.
This way, we will not harm the close relationship between the higher ranks and the
lower ranks, between



can't make a living, because the things you are engaged in may not be correct; you
may not be correct in resolving a problem. Even though you may have status, people
cannot forgive you. That's why, let's just simply not rely on status at all. [Let's
make as if] we have not become any kind of an official at all, and [let's] not put on
an air of a master.121 The air of a master we should not display, but should pack it
up. Let's meet the people face to face, meet the [people in the] lower levels face to
face. Let's not strike a bureaucrat's pose and not rely on old veteran status for a
living. This is something to which veteran cadres must pay particular attention. The
new cadres don't have this baggage; they are freer. They say: "Old doesn't
[necessarily] mean that you are better. You may have engaged in revolution for
several decades, but at that time, when you were engaged in revolution, I was still
crawling on the floor!" On this, [to be sure,] they can't argue with us. That's why
they don't have this baggage.
With regard to those new cadres, we have to treat them on an equal footing [with
ourselves]. In many things we are not as good as they are. For instance, in terms of
knowledge, we must learn from them. The generation of today are the only people
who can educate the working class and the peasants in terms of knowledge. That's
because, what intellectuals do we have now? None! Right now, about 80 per cent
of the university [students] are children of landlords, rich peasants, and capitalists.
In the middle schools—according to statistics from Jiangsu, 60 per cent of upper
middle school [students] are children of landlords, rich peasants, and capitalists,
and even in the lower middle schools, 40 per cent [of the students] are children of
landlords, rich peasants, and capitalists. Only in the primary schools is the situation
reversed. [There,] the children of landlords, rich peasants, and capitalists make up
approximately 20 to 30 per cent, and there may be 70 or 80 [per cent] who are
workers' and peasants' children. It will take a very long time, probably ten or
twenty years, before this situation can be changed. That is why the intellectual today
is a bourgeois intellectual. That is why we must patiently win them over. On the
one hand, we must persuade them and make them progressive, let them accept
Marxism—that is to say, educate them. If they are to be teachers, they must
[themselves] learn. On the other hand, we must learn from them, learn from today's
bourgeois intellectuals, because there are no other intellectuals but them.
The proletariat must have its own intellectuals. Our country is led by the
proletariat; only it has a future; all other classes are making transitions toward it.
For example, the peasants must in the future transform into agricultural workers.
After several decades, the cooperatives will become state farms,122 and the
cooperatives' members will become agricultural workers. The capitalists are
undergoing transformation right now, and in a number of years they will also have
transformed into workers. The whole society will be one of workers, and that is
why only the worker has a future, and all others are transitional classes. The
proletariat must have its own intellectuals; it must have intellectuals who will serve
it wholeheartedly, not halfheartedly. Our rough estimate is that by the completion
of three five-year plans,123 we may, out of the five million intellectuals,124 expand
the number that we have won over from the dozen or so per cent, or the 15 per cent,
or 17 per cent of the present time, to about one-third. (These figures [of 15 or 17

per cent] do not include some who have joined the Communist Party and are not
counted here. Joining the Communist Party does not necessarily mean that the
person has completely accepted a Marxist world view. Some people who have not
joined the Communist Party, on the other hand, have in fact accepted a Marxist
world view. For example, Lu Xun was such a person. Was Lu Xun better, or was
Chen Duxiu better? Or was Zhang Guotao better? Or was Gao Gang better?125 I
think Lu Xun was better. One was a Communist; the other was a personage without
party affiliations. On an individual basis, joining the Communist Party does not
necessarily make a person better than those outside the Party; some personages
outside the Party are better than Communist Party members.) [We'll win over
one-third of the intellectuals;] they may join the Party, or they may accept a Marxist
world view outside the Party and draw close to the workers and peasants. Then
there will still be the other two-thirds. In these dozen or so years, they, too, will
undergo some change. From being halfhearted, [they may] become a bit more [full
hearted]. [There may] be a thirty-seventy split.126 [They may] drop off some more
of their [bourgeois] tail and make some progress. We must strive for this future.
Because I am talking of the problem of ideology, I got connected to the problems
of the intellectuals.
As for the many problems of cooperativization,127 I'll not speak [of them today].
Cooperativization is a good thing; we can affirm that it has superiority. This is
because many of our cooperatives have proven this point; of that there can be no
doubt. But some comrades have doubts, and among the personages outside the
Party there is some difference of opinion. On this point we must make explanations
to them.

Notes
1. The words that Mao uses here are youshuo xiansheng. The term youshuo refers to the
historical practice, especially common in the classical period of the Warring States (i.e., the
times of Confucius, Mencius, and other classical philosophers), when teachers of schools of
thought and strategies for organizing society and running governments took their ideas
around to “sell” to the courts of many of the “warring states,” hoping that these ideas would
be adopted by some ruler. We recognize that the translation here, “lobbyist,” is somewhat
anachronistic. There is a subtle echo between Mao’s self-description and his admonition to
cadres in the CPC at this time (which he repeats later in this speech) that they must adopt
the method of shuo (persuasion) rather than coercion in dealing with people who offer
criticism.
2. See texts Mar. 17, 1957(2), Mar. 18, 1957, and Mar. 19, 1957. We have no knowledge
of the full extent of Mao’s itinerary.
3. Mao is probably referring, a bit facetiously, to the period of negotiations with the
KMT which were held in Nanjing in late 1946. See text Sept. 16–18, 1953, vol. I, note 5.
4. The term is long pan hu ju. It originally referred to conditions that make a place
strategically (primarily in the military sense) important. In time, with the reference to the
dragon here, the political significance took over, and the term became relevant particularly
to places that are or have been imperial capitals. The phrase eventually also came to be used
in the jargon of geomancy. Mao uses this description for Nanjing because it had been the
site (under different names) of several imperial capitals of older times. This is also a reference
to a passage in the book Liu chao shiji (The Exploits of the Six Dynasties) in which Zhuge


Liang was supposed to have used this phrase to comment on the geographical features of
Jinling (as Nanjing was once known). The same idea about Jinling has also been conveyed
in a line in the poem “Yong wang dong xun ge” (Ballad on the Eastern Inspection tour of
Prince Yong), written by the famous Tang-dynasty poet Li Bai (Li Bo).
5. Zhang Taiyan (a.k.a. Zhang Binglin) (1868–1936) was a prominent philologist, as
well as a late Qing-dynasty republican revolutionary. Zhang fostered the ideas of democratic
revolution in the 1890s through his work as correspondent for _Shiwu bao_ (Current Affairs)
and _Changyan bao_ (Advocate For Free Speech). To avoid prosecution by the Qing government, he was forced to go to Taiwan, and subsequently Japan, where he met Sun Yat-sen.
On returning to China, he organized, with Cai Yuanpei, the Aiguo xueshe (Patriotic Study
Society) and became an editor of _Su bao_ (Jiangsu journal), which became a chief mouthpiece
for the radical anti-Qing revolutionaries at the turn of the century. For publishing Zou Rong’s
essay “Geming jun” (The Revolutionary Army), Zhang and others on the _Su bao_ staff were
persecuted and arrested in June 1903. Released from prison in 1906, he went to Japan and
continued to participate in revolutionary activities, joining Sun Yat-sen’s revolutionary
organization, the Tongmenghui. Zhang later became editor of the organ of that association,
the _Min bao_ (People’s journal). After the Republic of China was formed in 1911–1912,
Zhang for a time served as a political counselor for Yuan Shikai, but he opposed Yuan’s
monarchy-restoration scheme and was placed under house arrest until Yuan’s death in
1916. After that, Zhang spent most of his time in scholarly pursuits. Although he held radical
political ideas, he was quite conservative on cultural and literary matters, and throughout his
life, he promoted classical learning. For more biographical information on Zhang, see H.
Boorman et al., eds. (1967), pp. 92–98.
6. Chiang Kai-shek established a government of his wing of the Kuomintang in Nanjing in
April 1927. Subsequently, with the success of Chiang’s Second Northern Expedition in 1928,
and as the northern warlords were quelled, the Nanjing government was established as the central
government. Thus there were twenty years from 1928 to 1949 when Chiang Kai-shek, defeated
in the civil war, fled from Nanjing when the PRC was founded. In a sense it was not entirely
correct on Mao’s part to think of the KMT as having been in power in Nanjing for all these twenty
years. The period was interrupted by the period of the War of Resistance Against Japan
(1937–1945), during much of which the KMT wartime government was in Chongqing.
7. See text Feb. 27, 1957, text surrounding note 43. See also text Mar. 17, 1957(2),
paragraph 8, and text Mar. 18, 1957, paragraph 2. However, we should pay particular
attention to the qualifications that Mao made in the middle part of paragraph 7 of the March
17 speech, and, even more elaborately and specifically, toward the end of paragraph 2 of the
March 18 speech.
8. See text Mar. 12, 1957, note 5.
9. See text Oct. 8, 1950, vol. I, note 1, and text Oct. 23, 1951, vol. I.
10. See text Dec. 19, 1950, vol. I, and text Jan. 17, 1951, vol. I.
11. The term Mao uses here is _dipan_; see text Feb. 27, 1957, note 97.
12. As we mentioned briefly in the source note, the question of the transformation of the
relations of production is a critical theoretical issue of contention between Mao’s viewpoint
and that of others in the CPC, e.g., Liu Shaoqi. Mao seems to suggest here that he (at this
time) saw the relations of production as part of the superstructure. This would be inconsistent
with what seemed to be his prevailing idea in these years. See text Jan. 20, 1956, note 5; text
Feb. 27, 1957, note 42; and text July 8, 1957(2), note 38. See also text Oct. 7, 1957, note 16.
13. Mao seems to be alluding tangentially to the contest of strategies within the CPC
from the late 1920s to the mid-1930s, over the question of whether the Party should attempt
to rebuild the Communist revolutionary movement in the cities or focus on the revolution
in the countryside. From 1927 (and especially after Mao’s victory in the intra-Party contest
of strategies in 1934–1935) to practically 1949, the Communist revolutionary movement
had been organized primarily in the rural areas, and not in the cities, much less the large
cities in China, which were controlled by either the KMT or the Japanese. See also text Aug.
12, 1953(1), vol. I, note 30.


14. The Communist Party of China was formed with the convening of its first congress
in July 1921. See text Mar. 18, 1957, note 39.
15. The Opium War (Yapian zhanzheng) refers to the First Anglo-Chinese War in
1839–1841, triggered by Lin Zexu’s burning of British-owned opium sold to Chinese people.
Often the Second Anglo-Chinese War of 1856–1860 is also known as the Opium War, or
part of the Opium Wars. See also text Feb. 14, 1957, note 1. See also text Mar. 17, 1957(2),
paragraph 5.
16. See text Mar. 12, 1950, vol. I, source note, notes 1 and 2.
17. See text Feb. 27, 1957, notes 3 and 4.
18. See text Mar. 12, 1950, vol. I, note 3.
19. The term is lin shi gong, which translates as “temporary employment.” This refers,
we believe, to people with no steady employment in the urban industrial sector.
20. The term fuyu zhongnong (well-to-do middle peasants) refers to the economically
upper layer of the general peasant stratum known as “middle peasants.” (See text Mar. 12,
1950, vol. I, note 1.) By the terms of Mao’s October 1933 essay on class distinctions in the
countryside (see SW I, p. 139), this layer was described as “practicing exploitation to a small
extent.” This was affirmed by the Central People’s Government resolutions on class
distinctions published in 1950 (RMRB [Aug. 21, 1950], 1). By definition in the latter, the
term applied to those within the “middle peasant” stratum that derived not more than 15 per
cent of total annual family income from exploitative means. This layer is distinguished from
the other two layers of middle peasants, namely, the average middle peasant (zhong
zhongnong) and the lower-middle peasant (xia zhongnong). In the early 1960s, they became
known as shang zhongnong (upper-middle peasant) or lao shang zhongnong (old uppermiddle peasant).
21. See text Feb. 27, 1957, note 3.
22. The term Mao uses here is wenhua, which also often has the more specific connotation of “literacy.” (See text May 1955, vol. I, note 1.) Here we think Mao means primarily
“book learning.”
23. See text Sept. 15, 1956, source note. Mao is referring to both the political report
made by Liu Shaoqi to the Eighth Congress and the Resolution of the Central Committee in
response to that report. See RMSC (1957), pp. 9–26, for the report itself, and pp. 55–58, for
the resolutions on the report. See also R. Bowie and J. Fairbank, eds. (1962), pp. 164–203,
for an English translation of the report. On the controversy that developed later in 1957 on
the interpretations in this political report and in the resolutions, and especially on the point
that Mao speaks of here, see text Oct. 7, 1957, and text Oct. 9, 1957(1).
24. These last few sentences, starting with “As for production,” appear only in the
Wansui (n.d. 3) text.
25. The remainder of this paragraph, starting with “the people,” and also the entire next
paragraph, do not appear in the Wansui (n.d.) source, and are found only in the Wansui (n.d.
3) text. In the Wansui (n.d.) source the words bu qing (not clear) appear in parentheses.
26. The official release on grain production in the PRC in 1956 was made by the National
Bureau of Statistics (Guojia tongji ju) on August 1, 1957, and published in RMRB (Aug. 2,
1957). The amount cited in this report is 365 billion catties (not including soybeans). See
RMSC (1958), p. 457. Note also that, according to RMSC (1957), p. 422, the grain output
of 1955 already reached 368 billion catties.
27. Mao is referring to the Forty-Article National Program for Agricultural Develop-ment. See text Dec. 6, 1955, vol. I, note 3; text Oct. 11, 1955(1), vol. I, note 56. Mao,
however, is extending this to other areas of production and development as well, and so far,
we do not know of specific twelve-year plans formulated for production in these other areas
(besides agriculture) at this time. See, however, text Oct. 13, 1957, and text Dec. 1, 1958,
note 3.
28. The aphorism here, whose classical source we have not been able to trace, is bai
shou qi jia, which refers to people making their own (family) fortunes without any bequest
or assistance from their ancestors. Literally, it means “raising a family with empty hands.”



29. The Chinese here is different in the two texts. The Wansui (n.d. 3) source has jiu shi
ba renmin shenshang de rou guaxue liao, whereas the Wansui (n.d.) source has dang instead
of rou. We have translated from the Wansui (n.d. 3) source, which, we believe, conveys a
clearer, more sensible meaning.
30. The Pamir Plateau is located where China’s and Afghanistan’s borders meet. The
term Kunlun Mountains here refers to the mountain range north of the Himalayas, which is
separated from the Himalayas by the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. It is the largest mountain
range in China and originates in the Pamir Plateau. There are also other mountains and small
ranges (e.g., one in Guangxi Province, and another in Fujian Province) that are called Kunlun,
but these are not what Mao is referring to here.
31. See text Autumn 1956, note 3.
32. See text Jan. 18, 1957, note 38.
33. The words Mao uses here are feng cui cao dong; see text April 1957, note 10.
34. See text Mar. 18, 1957, note 44.
35. Xu Jiatun (b. 1915) became the secretary of the CPC Party Committee of Nanjing
Municipality in November 1954, and the Party secretary of Jiangsu Province in July
1956. On April 20, 1957, shortly after this speech, Xu attended the Third Plenary Session
of the First Committee of the CPPCC of Jiangsu Province, at which he made a speech on
Mao’s viewpoint on the Hundred Flowers Campaign. For more biographical information on
Xu, see Zhonggong renmin lu, p. 636, and W. Bartke (1981), p. 439.
36. Peng Chong (b. 1915) was a veteran CPC member who joined the Youth League in
1933 and the CPC in 1934. In the early 1930s he was engaged in underground organization
work for the CPC, and he made his mark as a political organizer in the military during the
War of Resistance Against Japan. In 1938 he became a regimental commissar in the New
Fourth Army. After the establishment of the PRC, Peng served primarily in the Fujian area
(his native province) for a few years. In August 1954, he became second Party secretary of
Nanjing Municipality and deputy mayor. In July 1955, he became mayor of Nanjing. Peng’s
highest political post, subsequently, was as member of the Political Bureau of the CPC’s
Eleventh Central Committee and member of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee,
starting in August 1977. For more biographical information on Peng, see Zhonggong
renmin lu, pp. 721–722, and W. Bartke (1981), p. 285.
37. Bureaucratism was one of the three major targets of the CPC rectification campaign
at this time, the others being sectarianism and subjectivism. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), note
77.
38. The Chinese text here differs in the two sources. We have translated from the Wansui
(n.d. 3) source. The Wansui (n.d.) source would translate as: “[We should] resolve the
problem of bureaucratism a bit.”
39. The term here is huaqiao xuesheng (see text Oct. 23, 1951, vol. I, note 3), by which,
we think, Mao meant Chinese students who have returned from abroad, or students studying
in China who came from overseas–Chinese family backgrounds (which tend to be more
affluent than the average Chinese rural household). This is the first indication that the
petitions and disturbances of early 1957 (in the Nanjing area anyway) involved primarily
huaqiao students.
40. Zeng Xisheng (b. 1905) was first secretary of the Anhui Provincial Party Committee
from 1956 to 1962. Zeng joined the CPC in 1926 and was an active CPC special agent in
Shanghai in the critical years 1927–1931. In 1931, he went to the Jiangxi Soviet area, and
throughout the periods of the First and Second Revolutionary Civil Wars and the War of
Resistance Against Japan he was a key intelligence officer of the CPC.
From 1952 to 1955, Zeng was chairman of the Anhui People’s Government. During
1957–1958, Zeng was very active in the anti-Rightist campaign and in the promotion of the
Great Leap Forward policies. He was a key figure in the ousting of Li Shinong as
vice-chairman of the Anhui People’s Government and as secretary of the Anhui Provincial
Committee of the CPC (see text May 17, 1958, note 63). In 1962, when Li’s case was
reviewed, Zeng was transferred to the post of second secretary of the East China Bureau of

the CPC Central Committee. After 1962, he was more in the background, although in 1966
he was appointed secretary of the Southwestern Bureau of the CPC Central Committee. In
August 1967, in the Cultural Revolution, Zeng was purged as a “capitalist roader.” For more
biographical information on Zeng, see D. Klein and A. Clark, eds. (1971), II, pp. 860–862;
and Zhonggong renmin lu, p. 713.
41. The term here is yi gu qi, in which qi can be “spirit” or “air.” The more common
expression for this would be yi gu feng (gust of wind). See text Feb. 27, 1957, note 51.
42. Although Sun Yat-sen (see text Aug. 4, 1952, vol. I, note 7, and text Nov. 12, 1956,
source note) died in Beijing in April 1925, he was ultimately interred in a state burial
ceremony in June 1929 in Nanjing, where a large tomb was built for him. (At that time
Nanjing was the capital of the republic and seat of the KMT government of Chiang Kai-shek.)
This tomb is located on the slopes of Zijinshan, which is east of Nanjing city proper.
43. The aphorism is yi lin wei ao. The word ao originally means an empty moat or ditch,
and the adage refers to the practice of people allowing their dirty water to flow over into a
neighbor’s low ground, thus forming an undesired ditch. It is derived from the chapter “Gao
zi” in the book Meng zi (Mencius).
44. See text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 1, and text Winter 1949, vol. I, source note and text.
45. See text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 1.
46. The term here, ban fang, refers originally to the “squadroom” or the holding cell in
police precincts.
47. See text Nov. 15, 1956, note 27.
48. The remainder of this paragraph and the next six paragraphs do not appear in the
Wansui (n.d.) version. There the omission is indicated by the words, in parentheses, bu qing
(not clear).
49. See text Mar. 1, 1957, note 19.
50. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), note 77.
51. The term Mao uses here is lao zi. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), note 33.
52. The aphorism here is shu shou wu ce (literally: “with their hands tied up, and without
a single strategy”). The expression shu shou is derived from the “Chunshen jun zhuan”
(Biography of Prince Chunshen) in the Shiji (Historical Record) and from “Guangwu di ji”
(Chronicle of Emperor Guangwu di) in the Hou Han shu (History of the Later Han Dynasty).
The full expression can be found in the classical novels Pai an jingqi (Thumping the Desk
in Astonishment) and Jinghua yuan (Romance of the Mirror and the Flower).
53. See text Jan. 28, 1955(2), vol. I, note 5.
54. The term here is lao baixing, which refers to the common people, or common folk
in imperial times. The word lao (literally, “old”) has the connotation of “honest,” whereas
the term baixing (literally, “a hundred names”—or families) has both the connotation of
“people” and “subjects”—that is, subjects of the ruler, whose “name” is above all the others.
55. Mao is obviously referring here to the struggle in the countryside during the land
reform period from 1949 to 1951. See text Feb. 18, 1951, vol. I, note 2, and text Jan. 17,
1951, vol. I, note 1.
56. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 6, for the first half of this “slogan.”
57. On the “rich peasant” category, see text Mar. 12, 1950, vol. I, source note and note
1, and text Oct. 11, 1955(1), vol. I, note 2. On the “national bourgeoisie,” see text Mar. 12,
1950, vol. I, note 3.
58. See text Mar. 12, 1957, paragraph 4, and text Mar. 18, 1957.
59. The expression that Mao uses here is gong nong hua, which is very difficult to
translate directly. It does not necessarily mean that the intellectuals have actually become
workers and peasants, but more likely that they have come to be identified with workers and
peasants.
60. We have taken some liberty with the translation here. Mao’s words are Dan shi,
meiyou du jinqu, jiushi du zai zhege shangmian, meiyou jin dao litou qu. (In both cases, du
literally means “read.” Thus the literal meaning of this is “However, they did not read [the
stuff] inside; they only read on this [the forehead], but not inside.”



61. See text Dec. 8, 1956, note 33.
62. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 45.
63. See text Mar. 18, 1957, note 59.
64. See text Jan. 14, 1954, vol. I, note 13.
65. Mao’s words here are ji ju shu (literally, “A few sentences in the books”).
66. See text Feb. 10, 1953, vol. I, note 2. See also text Feb. 27, 1957, note 37 and
surrounding text on the steel output problem.
67. See text Aug. 24, 1956(1), note 2.
68. See text Sept. 16–18, 1953, vol. I, note 18; text Mar. 18, 1957, note 61.
69. We believe that Zhou XX refers to Zhou Xinfang, and Yuan XX to Yuan Xuefen.
We do not have much information on Zhou. Yuan (b. 1922), was a prominent performer of
the of the Yue opera genre, and was particularly well known for her performance of the play
Xianglin sao (Sister-in-law Xiang Lin) adopted from Lu Xun’s original work Zhufu (Bene-diction). She and most of the other people mentioned here based their acting careers mainly
in Shanghai, where they founded and ran acting schools. For more biographical information
on Yuan, see Zhonggong renming lu, pp. 478–479.
70. Cheng Yanqiu (1904–1958) was another popular Beijing opera actor, having made
his reputation, as Mei Lanfang did, in the pre–World War II era. Cheng was vice-president
of the Chinese Drama Research Institute. For more biographical information on Cheng, see
text May 17, 1958, note 6, and H. Boorman, et al., eds. (1967), I, pp. 292–293.
71. The Wansui (n.d.) source has jiu bai wan zhishi fenzi (nine million intellectuals). We
dismiss this as a typographical error. Mao had been estimating the number of intellectuals
in China to be about five million (in texts Mar. 12, 1957; Mar. 17, 1957; Mar. 18, 1957; and
here in this speech). See text Mar. 12, 1957, especially paragraph 4. The simplified character
for ji (several) is similar to the character for jiu (nine).
72. The term Mao uses here is caichan, which translates more literally as “property.”
See, however, text Feb. 27, 1957, note 80.
73. The term here is wei chengfen lun. Here the expression chengfen refers to jieji
chengfen (class composition). The theory is one in which a person’s class background (or a
thing’s class composition) is all-important and determines or even predetermines his or her
behavior (and/or its nature), in such a way that things cannot be changed and cannot be
expected to change in terms of class character. While Mao has always emphasized the need
to do a class analysis of any situation, he appears here to refute this particular theory which
is an inflexible, dogmatic, extremist application of the class analysis idea.
74. For Lu Xun, see text April 25, 1956, note 15.
75. This appears to forecast Mao’s theory of the need for people to adhere, like hair, to
skin. See text April 1957(2), note 14, and text July 1957(2), paragraph 11.
76. The words Mao used here are chi bu xiao, yao bu lan (literally, “If eaten, cannot be
digested; if chewed, cannot break into pieces”).
77. See text June 14, 1954, vol. I, note 13.
78. See text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 1. The term Mao uses here for the Revolutionary
Committee of the KMT is Min ge; see text June 8, 1957(3), note 2, for this organization. For
the Democratic League, Mao has Min meng; see text July 1, 1957, note 10, on this
organization. For what Mao here refers to as Min jian (namely, the Democratic Association
for National Construction), see text Nov. 1951–Mar. 1952, vol. I, note 7, and text Jan. 27,
1957(2), note 59. For the Peasant-Worker Democratic Party, see text April 1957(2), note
37. The Jiusan xueshe (September Third Study Society), like the others in the list here, is
one of the democratic parties represented in the CPPCC. It was formed out of discussion
group meetings of democratic people in scientific and educational circles in Chongqing
during the last part of the War of Resistance Against Japan, and was established as the
Minzhu kexue she (Democratic Society of Scientists) in November 1944. On September 3,
1945, to commemorate the victory over Fascism, it changed its name to the current one. By
that time, it had become more of a political association, and in the period after the victory
over Japan, it continued to speak out on opposing a KMT dictatorship. Thus it played an


important role in propagandizing the cause of “socialist democracy” among the intellectuals,
particularly among scientists and people in the medical professions. In June 1946, it resolved
to join the CPPCC as a democratic party. For more information on the society, see *RMSC*
(1957), p. 256.
79. See text Feb. 27, 1957, section 8, and note 82.
80. This sentence does not appear in the *Wansui* (n.d.) source. Instead, this source has
ellipses. Mao was quite possibly referring to Jiang Weiqing, who was first secretary of the
Jiangsu Provincial Party Committee at this time. A native of Yancheng, Jiangsu, Jiang (b.
1907) was at first active in the Communist armed units and became deputy political
commissar of the Nanjing garrison in 1949. From 1952 onward, he became involved with
the Jiangsu People’s Government. He later opposed the Cultural Revolution and was
criticized as a capitalist roader. In 1973 he was rehabilitated, and from 1975 onward he was
reactivated in political positions in Jiangxi province. For more biographical information on
Jiang, see *Zhonggong renming lu*, pp. 144–145, and D. Klein and A. Clark, eds. (1971), pp.
178–179.
81. The terms here are *fang* and *shou*, each of which has various meanings and, therefore,
various translations. The primary one here, however, is “bloom” for *fang*, since that is derived
directly from the “hundred flowers bloom” slogan. The others are derivatives of that. *Shou*,
as opposed to *fang* in that primary sense, would have the connotation of “wither.” However,
here Mao’s usages for *shou* are more active, and therefore call for the translations of
“retrench,” “curtail,” “holding back,” etc. See text April 1957(2), notes 4 and 17, and text
April 10, 1957, note 1; text Mar. 12, 1957, paragraph 14; and text Oct. 9, 1957(1), note 3.
82. See text Feb. 27, 1957, section 9, paragraph 3.
83. The Second Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee of the CPC was held November
10–15, 1956; see text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 4. The other reference is to the conference at
which Mao made two major speeches. See text Jan. 18, 1957, source note.
84. See text Feb. 27, 1957, section 1. See also note 1 here.
85. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), paragraph 9.
86. Mao’s remarks here echo the classical adage: “The way of the true king is to bring
people to submission by his virtue; the way of the hegemon is to bring people to submission
by his might.” If there is any intended connection here, Mao would be invoking the
traditionally honored and respected sense of *wang zheng* (kingly politics) for the policies of
the CPC.
87. Mao was probably referring in his mind to important former KMT generals who had
been won over to the side of the CPC. See, for instance, text May 5, 1951, vol. I, source note,
and text Mar. 17, 1955, vol. I, source note.
88. The term here is *gao ya*, which literally would have been translated as “high
pressure,” which does not make sense in the idiomatic usage of the term in English.
89. See text Feb. 27, 1957, section 8, paragraph 2.
90. See text Jan. 18, 1957, paragraphs 5, 11, and 12. See also text Feb. 27, 1957, section
3, paragraph 3, and text May 15, 1957, note 21.
91. See text Jan. 18, 1957, note 38.
92. This article appears as an editorial in *RMRB* (Dec. 29, 1956). It is described as an
article completed by the Editorial Department of *RMRB* “based on discussions of an enlarged
meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPC.” It is also carried in *RMSC*
(1957), pp. 151–159. An English translation can be found in R. Bowie and J. Fairbank, eds.
(1962), pp. 257–272.
93. This passage is found in the penultimate paragraph of section 3 of the article. See
*RMSC* (1957), p. 157, and R. Bowie and J. Fairbank, eds. (1962), p. 268.
94. Here the *Wansui* (n.d. 3) source has Peng X and Xu XX.
95. The opera’s Chinese title is *Limao huan taizi*. This is a popularized and vulgarized
Beijing opera version of the Yuan-dynasty opera *Limao huan zhu*, which involves the story
of Emperor Renzong of the Song dynasty who was born of an imperial concubine Li Shen
fei, and yet, through a sequence of mistakes and happenstances, believed himself to be the



son of the queen consort Zhang Xian hou. He does not discover the real identity of his mother
until after many years. The operatic and dramatic versions of this story incorporate a large
number of supernatural and superstitious references.
96. The terms used here are yao mo gui guai, which is more elaborate than the term
that we often translate as demons and ogres. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 45.
97. The term Mao uses here, jian shimian, also has the connotation of “enrich one’s
experience.” The Wansui (n.d.) text is garbled here. It reads: wei liao zai shi, ren ke bu kan,
which does not make sense in the context.
98. This is an operatic or dramatic rendition based on the story of the Monkey King’s
(Sun Wukong) disruption of the order of the heavenly palace at the birthday gathering for
Xi Wang Mu (Queen Mother of the West); a story derived from the novel Xi you ji (Journey
to the West). See also text July 8, 1957(2), note 9. The Wansui (n.d.) source here mistakenly
puts the character kong for the character gong in the title.
99. These are all popular operas in the common repertoire, but each also involves a
fairy tale of some sort. The first, Pi shan jiu mu, is derived from the Buddhist story of a
Buddhist novice, Mu Lian, who strives to save his mother from the clutches of hungry
demons. The second, Shui man jinshan, is derived from the popular romance Story of the
White Serpent (Baishe zhuan) in which a white snake transforms herself into a beautiful
woman and falls in love with a young man. The marriage is broken up by the monk of
Jinshansi (Golden Mountain Temple), who exposes the White Snake Lady for what she
really is and suppresses her beneath the pagoda of the temple. She is ultimately saved by a
torrent that overwhelms the temple.
Mao’s comments here foreshadow the controversy in 1961 over whether it is all right to
have characterizations of supernatural things, such as ghosts and deities and spirits, in drama.
The opera Li Huiniang, a kunju production written by Meng Chao based on the Ming
novelette Hongmei ji (Tale of the Red Plum) by Zhou Yiyu, was performed in 1961 and
gained popularity. There was also, however, criticism against it for portraying supernatural
subjects, and it was branded as an “opera of ghosts” (gui xi). To defend the drama, Liao
Mosha (a.k.a. Fan Xing) wrote an essay in Beijing wan bao (Aug. 31, 1961) entitled
“It’s-All-Right-To-Have-Ghosts Theory” (You gui wu hai lun). In it he claims that the reason
there are portrayals of such things as ghosts in dramatic performances is that such things did
enter people’s thoughts in the past, and the existence of these things in the literature of past
ages was an objective existence that could not be helped. Instead of worrying about their
presence, the socialist should be concerned about the social messages implicit in the portrayal
and the idea of struggling against the oppression of superstition. In a way, then, we can see
Mao’s viewpoint here as in general agreement with that advanced by Liao Mosha. However,
after a period of criticism in late 1961 and early 1962, Liao, together with Deng Tuo and Ma
Nancun, was heavily criticized for his literary views. The opera Li Huiniang was also
discredited, and the theory of “it’s all right to have ghosts” came under severe criticism and
was repudiated. See also text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 62.
100. The Wansui (n.d.) source here has a blank space for the number of years.
101. The remainder of this speech does not appear in the Wansui (n.d.) source and is
found only in the Wansui (n.d. 3) source. As indicated in the source note, a few paragraphs
here are very similar to text Mar. 19, 1957.
102. See text June 14, 1954, vol. I, note 1.
103. See text Nov. 1951–Mar. 1952, vol. I, source note and text.
104. See text Jan. 18, 1957, paragraph 11.
105. Mao is referring to the Third Session of the National Committee of the Second
CPPCC, which was held March 5–20, 1957, in Beijing. We have no other record that Mao
made a speech to the conference, however. For more on this conference, see K. Lieberthal
(1976), pp. 93–94.
106. The slogan of “utilization, restriction, and transformation” (liyong, xianzhi, gaizao)
of private capital was proposed in the movement of the socialist transformation of the
capitalist enterprises in 1953. See text Aug. 12, 1953(1), vol. I, note 14.


107. See text Mar. 12, 1957, source note.
108. See text Mar. 18, 1957, source note. This slogan was put into the title of the March
18 speech by the editors of Xuanji; therefore it can be considered one of Mao’s major themes
in this cluster of speeches.
109. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), paragraph 8.
110. See text Mar. 18, 1957, note 56.
111. See SW, IV, pp. 411–424. The essay was written on June 30, 1949, in commemoration of the twenty-eighth anniversary of the founding of the CPC. See particularly pp.
422–423.
112. See text Mar. 19, 1957, note 1.
113. See text Jan. 18, 1957, Version I, note 1, and text Mar. 18, 1957, note 76.
114. See, in general, text Mar. 18, 1957, paragraph 14.
115. The text here has XXX. Since the number of Xs does not actually give any real
clues to the original figure which is omitted, but only tells how many characters are omitted,
we have, as is our custom, reduced it to one X.
116. The term that Mao uses here, chu lu, refers in this context more specifically to job
arrangements and assignments. See text Jan. 1957, note 40.
117. See text Oct. 5, 1952, vol. I, source note, and text Sept. 5, 1956, note 1.
118. See text Mar. 18, 1957, note 59.
119. See text Feb. 27, 1957, source note, and text Mar. 17, 1957(2), source note, and
many passages in texts Mar. 12, 1957, Mar. 17, 1957(2), and Mar. 18, 1957.
120. See text July 8, 1957(2), note 2.
121. The term Mao uses here is lao ye, which has the connotation of the master of a
household, or master over domestic servants and tenant peasants who are little better than
serfs. The expression is certainly representative of the old, feudalistic traditional society of
China. Mao also uses the expression bai jiazi, which we have translated here as “put on an
air” and elsewhere as “strike a pose.” See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), note 38.
122. See text Mar. 19, 1953, vol. I, note 4.
123. See text Mar. 17, 1957, paragraph 8. See also text Nov. 11, 1956, note 4.
124. See note 71.
125. On Chen, see text Aug. 12, 1953, vol. I, note 23, and text Aug. 30, 1956, note 16;
on Zhang, see also text Aug. 12, 1953, vol. I, note 23. On Gao, see text Mar. 31, 1955, vol.
I, source note, and note 7.
126. See, text Aug. 30, 1956, note 12.
127. See texts Jan. 18, 1957 (both versions), and Jan. 27, 1957(1) and (2). See
also text Mar. 17, 1957, paragraph 11.