Speech at a CPC Cadres Meeting in Shanghai
(March 20, 1957)

Source: Wansui (n.d. 3), pp. 164-168.

For Mao’s other speeches on this trip to East-Central China, and the historical context of
this journey, see text Mar, 17, 1957(2), source note. Again, parts of this speech are very
similar to the speeches of March 17 and 18, as well as to a speech (text Mar. 20, 1957[1])
that Mao evidently made earlier the same day. The reader is left to do his or her own textual
comparisons.


half of last year, when the Party convened a [Party] Congress, that we were able to
speak on this point firmly. Now the situation has become even clearer, and therefore
there is a need to tell the whole Party in detail: Don’t use old methods to deal with
new problems; you must clearly distinguish between the contradictions between
the enemy and ourselves and the contradictions among the people.

society there would be contradictions between the relations of production and the
forces of production. Moreover, [he said,] if [the contradictions] are not properly
resolved, they can be transformed into antagonistic [contradictions]. Even so, Stalin
said very little about the contradictions internal to socialist society, or the contradictions among the people. I believe that we should, today, openly discuss this
problem, not only inside the Party, but we should also make this problem clear in
the newspapers, and draw appropriate conclusions; that would be better.

For example, there is the problem of the people making trouble. This, naturally,
will not be a general, widespread [phenomenon], and there are only some individual
[cases]. However, it will occur often enough, because this thing called bureaucratism will continue to exist. We must have a rectification, to resolve the problem of
bureaucratism. Nevertheless, no matter what [we do], with such a large Party, such
complicated work, and over such a broad scope of the whole country, it is inevitable
that there will be some bureaucratism. Wherever there is an occurrence of bureaucratism, it is possible that the people there will make trouble. When there is trouble
already made, how are we going to regard it? We should look upon it as something
quite common, and we should not make such a fuss about it. We should perceive
that this is a kind of method of regulating the social order under certain special
circumstances. If problems that have remained long unresolved by the correct
methods got resolved when the masses made trouble, why then would [we expect]
the masses not to make trouble? Naturally, here we are not advocating that [they
Whether it is about the contradictions between the enemy and ourselves or about
the contradictions among the people, there are different viewpoints in our Party.
There are those who [lean to the] Right, and those who [lean to the] “Left.” On the
problem of the contradictions between the enemy and ourselves, the Rightist
viewpoint would be not to see any enemy at all. Aren’t we now saying that
domestically the class contradiction has been basically resolved? Well, there are
some people who take [“]basically[”] resolved to mean completely resolved.
Therefore, they take no action against even the bad persons whom the people deeply
abhor, those who really are spies, and are truly bad people. This type of ideology
is of course wrong. It is also wrong, [on the other hand, ] to exaggerate. Exaggeration
is the viewpoint of the “Left.” While the class contradiction has basically been
resolved already, some people would insist that it has not, and that the class
contradiction is very big. With regard to the contradictions among the people, some
ignore this fact and believe [naively] that all is peaceful and calm. [They think:]

pe Ee eee oe kts

rs

oo eee eo

!

*
F |
F |
|

JANUARY ~- MARCH 1957 / 467

We the Communist Party are [the Party} that represented the people in struggling
against imperialism and the Kuomintang, and after that we took up the struggle
against the bourgeoisie. How could the people possibly turn around and oppose us?
In the past [they] didn’t imagine that the people would be dissatisfied, {they] did
not imagine that the masses could march in protests and demonstrations, with
workers’ strikes and students’ strikes. Even now they do not quite believe it. This
is one kind of sentiment. Another feeling is that of fear. Once there is a tiny bit of
trouble, [those people who have this feeling] get all worked up, [and think that]
there will be great disorder and chaos throughout the land, that the people’s
government would collapse. If there is a tornado, will we, the Communist Party,
be blown away? Will the People’s Government be blown away? Will Marxism be
blown away? We can, I believe, say with confidence that that will not happen. That
is why there is nothing to be afraid of. Not only that, but if, objectively, there is
indeed already a situation that makes troublemaking inevitable, it would be better
to let troublemaking exist than to suppress [things] and not let troublemaking exist.
Let our comrades give some thought to this, and see if you think that such a way
of looking at things is indeed more appropriate. This is one problem.

consider our Party as their party, as the majority of the workers and the poor and
lower-middle peasants do. We can also see from their relationship with the workers
and the peasants that their world view is by no means Marxist yet. When they go
to the factories and to the countryside to take a look at things, they cannot blend as
one with the workers and the peasants.!3 They go take a look, but there remains a
distance [between them and the peasants, or workers]; they could not become
friends with them. [Their relationship] remains a “we-you” relationship. They serve
the people also, but not wholeheartedly yet. They are not of the same mind as the
people,!4 they are not of two minds either; it’s just that they only have half of their
mind and heart on the side of the people. Our task is to win them over. We must
make the entire circle of intellectuals take a step forward, within, say, three


To some of the intellectuals today, there seems to be as yet a problem with regard
to the worker-peasant-soldier orientation in [the fields of] literature and the arts.
This, too, is an expression of how the intellectuals’ new view of life has not yet
been established. We must explain to them that in our country, there is no one else
except for the workers and the peasants. Besides these two types of people, the
third type would be the intellectuals. The intellectuals serve the workers and the
peasants. Their own character is changing right now [too]; they must gradually
change into the working class’ intellectuals. Therefore, in the area of literature and
art, naturally there is only the worker-peasant-soldier orientation; there is no other
orientation. You suppose you can promote a landlords’ orientation, or a
bourgeoisie’s orientation, or an imperialist’s orientation? Those forces have already withdrawn from the stage of politics and lost their social bases. As for the
several hundred million petty bourgeoisie, they, too, have already entered [the form
of] collectivization, and by now it no longer makes sense to call them petty
bourgeoisie. They have already become collectivized peasants and collectivized
Among some intellectuals there is, right now, a popular opinion that says: “The
Communist Party cannot lead in the area of science.”!9 Does this make sense? We
say that it makes sense, halfway. At this time there are indeed very few engineers,
professors, doctors, or other high-level technological personnel who are Party
members. In general, at this time we really do not understand science. Our people
not only do not have time, but they also do not have the money to go to universities
to study, or to go abroad to study. Furthermore, the imperialists and the Kuomintang
also did not allow us to stay in the cities to study science.20 Many intellectuals say
we cannot lead in science, but we are capable in promoting politics, and we are
also good in military matters. Actually, that is something that [they say] only now.

etal


In the past, before we had triumphed, when we were fighting guerrilla war, they
didn’t say that [of us]. At that time they thought that we were good at virtually
nothing; that we were, in any case, of no account. The people have to see the facts.
Therefore, before we have occupied the battlegrounds in science, it is impossible
to have them acknowledge that we can lead in the area of science. However, at this
time, their reasoning is also only half right. There is another half that they have
failed to see. Although now we do not understand science, we can still lead the
enterprise of science with state plans and with politics. China’s industry and science
have developed under the leadership of the Communist Party and the people’s
government; is this a fact or not? In this sense, [we can ask:] If the scientists are
not working under the leadership of the Communist Party and the people’s
government, then under whose leadership are they working? Furthermore, science,
like politics and economics, can be learned; if we have learned politics and military
matters, we can also learn science. If it took us, from 1921 to 1949, twenty-eight
years before we achieved victory in the political struggle and military struggle, we
don’t think it will take us as long a time to learn science [to the extent of] achieving
the general standards of experts. Five years in a university and ten years of work:
about fifteen years of effort would just about do.

Closely related to the problem of the intellectuals and the problem of science
and art is the question of the guidelines of “let a hundred flowers bloom, let a
hundred schools of thought contend” and “long-term coexistence and mutual
supervision.”2! With regard to these guidelines, we need as yet to do a great deal
of propaganda work and explaining within the Party. Some comrades feel that these
guidelines are too dangerous. Let a hundred flowers bloom—what if some ghosts
come out of the blooming? As for long-term coexistence and mutual supervision,
some people say: “What qualifications do the democratic parties? have to coexist
with us over the long term? Better just make it short-term coexistence!” and “I am
supervising you! How come I would need to have you come supervise me? When
did you, the democratic parties, win the [battle for control of the] country?” All
these opinions oppose “letting go” and instead advocate “pulling in the reins.” Are
these ways of thinking correctly?

The [Party] Center believes that the opinions of “pulling in the reins” are
incorrect. With regard to developing science and art, the guideline of letting a
hundred flowers bloom and letting a hundred schools of thought contend is a
fundamental guideline, not a temporary one. In today’s transitional period, this
guideline has a special significance for uniting with and educating the intellectuals.
That is, not only in the matters purely of science and art, but also on the questions
that have to do with what is right and what is wrong in a political sense, as long as
someone does not belong to the category of counterrevolutionaries, we should let
him speak his piece. How, then, should we deal with those who have said something
wrong? Shall we use the methods of suppression or the methods of persuasion?23
The [Party] Center believes that the methods of suppression are no good. When
you suppress into submission, it is really “suppressed” but “no submission”; there
cannot be [real] suppression into submission. With regard to problems among the
people,*4 problems of ideology, problems of the world of the spirit, we can only


470 {/ MAO ZEDONG

use the method of persuasion, not the method of suppression. The dictatorship
carried out by the proletariat can be used only against an enemy class or hostile
elements, that is, against imperialists abroad and the remnant hostile elements at
home. In general when the people say something wrong, or even when they make
some trouble, we cannot adopt a dictatorial method in dealing with them; we can
only use a democratic method. There is a very major line of demarcation here. Some
of our comrades now think of using a “military solution” to deal with problems
among the people at the drop of a hat.2° This is very dangerous and must, absolutely,
be corrected resolutely. If we don’t know how to persuade [people] into submission,
what shall we do? This means that we’ll have to learn how. We absolutely must
learn to reason and argue; that is something that can be learned. What if people still
make trouble after we have used the method of persuasion? Will there be great
general disorder in the country? I say no. As long as we insist on arguing reasonably,
and reason fully, things will not fall into disorder. Furthermore, we need not always
be afraid of trouble. There is some good in having a bit of trouble; we can gain
experience [from that]. With regard to the essays and articles that contain poison,
and other things that contain poison, we must criticize, and struggle [with them, ]
but we need not be afraid. When we struggle with these things that contain poison,
we may ourselves develop, and Marxism may develop. Marxism has always
developed in the course of struggling with antagonistic ideologies.76

[If] we are to struggle against antagonistic ideologies, we must first rectify our
own shortcomings. We have great accomplishments. This Party of ours is a great
Party, a glorious Party, an accurate Party—this is something that has to be affirmed.
However, we also have quite a few shortcomings; this fact must also be affirmed.
We should not affirm everything we have done; we should affirm the most
significant and correct things. At the same time we certainly should not negate
everything about ourselves; we should only negate some mistakes and shortcomings. To negate everything would be opportunist; to affirm everything would be
dogmatist. Dogmatism is also [a kind of] metaphysics; it affirms everything without
analyzing. If we analyzed our work, we would know that in our work, achievements
are primary; but there are shortcomings; that is why we must carry out a rectification.

With regard to the rectification, the [Party] Center has not yet made a formal
decision.2? [However, we are] prepared to do things [in the following way]: This
year we prepare; next year and the year after that—two years—are for implementation. We will adopt the method [that we used at] the time of Yanan,?28 [i.e.,]
leisurely, and with the spirit of self-criticism, study and learn Marxism once, and,
with the appropriate method, criticize the shortcomings of subjectivism, sectarianism, and bureaucratism2? in [our] work style. The criticism will be within the scope
of small meetings; we do not intend to hold large conferences. Whatever faults and
problems we have, [we say so and acknowledge them] as faults and problems; we
will neither understate [the situation] nor exaggerate it. Let us reflect for a bit on
our own, with help from our comrades. In any case, we will use the method of
“unity-criticism-unity.’29 That is to say, starting on the premise of a wish for unity,
going through criticism to arrive [once more] at unity. [Also,} learning from past


SANUARY ~ MARCH 1957 / 471

mistakes to avoid future ones, and curing the illness to save the patient.3! [Let’s]
use such an attitude to carry out the rectification and to raise [our] standards of
Marxist thought. Since the Yanan rectification, there has in fact been a period of
more than a dozen years when we have not carried out a systematic rectification
throughout the Party. We estimate that the results of this rectification will let our
Party achieve considerable progress. We would be criticizing our bureaucratism,
our subjectivism, and our sectarianism ourselves; would that make us lose our
prestige? I don’t think so; in fact, I believe our prestige would increase. That
rectification at Yanan is itself evidence [of this]. [It] increased the Party’s presti ge,
and increased the comrades’ prestige, [in particular,] that of the veteran cadres.
New cadres also received an education [from it]. On the one hand you have the
Communist Party; on the other you have the Kuomintang. Between the two, who
is more afraid of criticism? The Kuomintang is afraid of criticism, and it [therefore]
banned it, [but] in the end it did not [help to] save [the Kuomintang] itself. The
Communist Party is not afraid of criticism because we are Marxists, and truth is on
our side; the basic masses of the workers and the peasants are on our side. When
we have completed the rectification, we will have greater initiative in our work,
and our talents will increase. At the same time, we would [have learned to] be more
modest, and those who did not originally know how to persuade people will
gradually [experience an] increase in their ability to persuade people. [As for] the
personages outside the Party, let them participate on a voluntary basis.?2 Let us get
rectified first; then they’1l come next. It would be very good if we can get 60 to 70
per cent of the intellectuals to take part in the rectification.

One of the missions of the rectification is to give play to and develop the tradition
of arduous and hard struggle.33 Some comrades’ revolutionary will has deteriorated
somewhat because the revolution has triumphed. Their warmth and enthusiasm for
revolution is not quite up to measure; more and more people pay attention to their
salaries, and to enjoyment and luxuries. We must rejuvenate these comrades once
again through rectification. After such a long, protracted revolutionary struggle, it
is understandable that [some comrades] are a bit tired and need some rest. [They]
go to the theaters for a bit, or they go dancing for a bit, or wear some color-patterned
clothes—there is no need to oppose that sort of thing. What we do oppose is
pursuing status, hankering for special privileges, extravagance and waste, and
separating oneself from the masses. In our work and our lives, whatever can be
economized should be economized, and has to be economized. The class struggle—several decades of revolution—all of it is to pave the way for construction,
and if [we are to promote] construction, we must cherish [every bit of] human
resource and material resource. The period of construction will be very very long;
this would be another war. We hope that in not too long a time, China will be better
than it now is—richer, and stronger, than it now is. The revolution is for this goal.
That battle was fought for [the sake of] this one, and that war was fought for this
one. This war will be even more arduous and protracted. For instance, we will say
at least ten thousand years. In order that construction can be better, and even better,
we must uphold the work style of arduous struggle, uphold having a close and
Intimate connection with the masses, oppose extravagance and waste, [oppose] the


472 {| MAO ZEDONG

pursuit of special privileges, and [oppose] all other kinds of bad customs and
practices such as putting on airs.*4

The relationship [that we have] with [people] outside the Party should see some
progress on [the way it was] in the past. This, too, will be one of the missions of
the rectification. It is necessary that there be a bit of a distinction between [people
in the] Party and [people who are] not in the Party. It would not be good to have
no distinction [at all]. There should be some distinction; that is number one.
Number two, [however,] is that we must not have a deep chasm. The current
situation is that in many places the gap between [those in the] Party and [those who
are] outside the Party has become too deep. We ought to fill up the gap. We must
speak wholeheartedly with them about things that really touch the heart. We should
not just say half, and leave the remaining half for discussion ["Jat home.|”’] In this
way they will make progress even faster.

Will our adopting the aforementioned guidelines harm the Party's leadership?
In the article “Once More on the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat,” there are these words: “However, the criticism of these shortcomings
may only be for the sake of consolidating the system of democratic centralism, and
consolidating the Party’s leadership; by no means can it, as the enemy hopes, create
the dissipation and chaos of the ranks of the proletariat.”35 The things that I said
just now, that it is all right to have a bit of trouble and that it is permissible to have
some erroneous essays published, that we shall slowly criticize and educate and
argue with reason—is there any contradiction between these two proposals? [No. ]
What we said in that essay was a matter of principle; what I am saying here is a
matter of flexibility. What we must do is to apply principles flexibly. Otherwise,
when there is a workers’ strike in one place, [let us say,] we’d go there and yell:
“Hey! You are undermining the Party’s leadership!” [Or,] if the intellectuals
criticized us, we’d scold them, saying: “Are you planning on dissipating the ranks
of the proletariat? Are you planning on undermining the Party’s leadership and
undermining the system of democratic centralism?3° You only want democracy,
don’t you? And you don’t want centralization, right?” Can we use this essay as a
shield everywhere? We can’t. In principle we do not promote workers’ strikes and
students’ strikes, and we do not play advocate for essays that are wrong or drama
that contains poison, and so on. However, when in fact some individual cases of
workers’ strikes and students’ strikes have occurred, and when some individual
erroneous essays have been published in the newspapers, or when some individual
pieces of bad drama have been put on stage, there would be no great harm—1in fact
there would be advantage-—in our [simply] adopting a policy of opening up and
letting go with regard to such phenomena, and adopting a policy of persuasion and
education. On the contrary, it would be to our disadvantage to adopt a method of
suppression. The policy [of opening up and persuasion] makes it easier to regulate
the social order and to adjust the relationships between the leaders and the led,
between the government and the people, and between the Party and the people. The
result of such an adjustment would precisely be to consolidate the Party[’s leadership] and the democratic-centralist system.

We hope that we will make our country a lively country where people dare to


criticize and speak up; where when someone has an opinion, he or she will dare to
speak up. We must not make people afraid of speaking up. People like us must correct
whatever mistakes and shortcomings we may have; it won't do for us not to correct
them, because that would be unreasonable. No matter whether it is in the Party or
outside the Party, we cannot carry out bureaucratism; we cannot coerce people into
doing those things that are unreasonable. If we adopt such a guideline [of openness and
letting go], I believe the political conditions among the people [will improve, and] the
relationship between the people and the government, between leaders and the people
they lead, and among the people themselves, will be a reasonable and lively relationship. In that case, our culture, our science, our economy, our politics, and [indeed] our
country as a whole will most certainly prosper and develop more rapidly.

Notes

t. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 13, and text Dec. 26, 1953, vol. I, source note.

?. See text Feb. 27, 1957, source note; text Mar. 17, 1957(2), source note; text Mar.
20, 1957(1), source note and note I.

3. See text Aug. 30, 1956, note I.

4, This refers to Liu Shaogqi’s “Political Report of the Central Committee of the CPC
to the Eighth National Congress of the CPC,” a text of which can be found in RMSC (1957),
pp. 9-26. On the Resolution of the Eighth Congress of the CPC, see text Nov. 15, 1936,
note 52, and text Oct. 7, 1957, note 3. See text Mar. 20, 1957(1), note 23.

6. See text April 25, 1956. In fact, however, the occasion on which Mao had made his
speech on the Ten Major Relationships was an enlarged meeting of the Political Bureau, not
a conference of provincial and municipal Party committee secretaries. These people were
invited to the Political Bureau meeting, however, where Mao addressed them.

7. See text Aug. 24, 1956(2), note 8.

8. See text Mar. 18, 1957(2), note 44.

9, For Mao’s later critique (“reading notes”) on this piece of writing by Stalin, and for
more information on this subject, see text Mar. 22, 1958, note 11, and text Nov. 1958(2).

10. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 80. See also text July 8, 1957, note 35, and text Oct.
9, 1957.

11. See text Feb. 27, 1957, note 22.

12. See text Mar. 12, 1957, paragraph 4, and text Mar. 20, 1957(1), note 41.

13. See text Mar. 18, 1957, note 59.

14. The expression Mao uses here is w tiao xin.

15. See text Mar. 17, 1957, paragraph 8.

16. On the meaning of “drag a tail,” see text Dec. 8, 1956, note 37.

17. See text Mar. 20, 1957(1), note 20.

24. See text Feb. 27, 1957, note 3.

--- Notes

Just now Comrade Ke Qingshi! spoke of this being a period of change and
transition. In the past we had been engaged for a long period of time in revolutionary
war, in class struggle, and this struggle, in domestic terms, has now basically drawn
to a close.2 The regime of the class enemy has been overthrown, and the reform of
the socialist system has basically taken the place of the old system of the past. The
new task that confronts us is [the task of] construction. Construction is also a kind
of revolution; it is a technological revolution and a cultural revolution. {We must]
unite the members of the entire society and the people of the entire nation to struggle
against nature. Naturally, in the process of construction, we still will not get away
from the struggle between one person and another. In this current period of
transition, the struggle between one person and another will include class struggle.
[When] we say the class struggle has basically drawn to a close, we mean that there
is still some [of it} that has not yet drawn to a close. Particularly in the area of
ideology, the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will still
extend for a considerable time. This is the kind of situation that we in our Party

have discerned. During the Party’s Eighth National Congress,* Comrade XXX's
report and the Congress’s resolution? both stated that the large-scale, mass-[ based]
class struggle has already basically drawn to a close. Following the basic resolution
of the contradictions between the enemy and ourselves in the domestic sphere, the
contradictions among the people have begun to be more salient than they were in
the past.5 However, even now there are still many comrades who are not quite clear
about this situation, and they are still using some of the old methods of the past to
deal with new problems. We should say that for a certain period in the past the
Central Committee did not make any detailed explanation of this problem. This is
because this transformation had not ripened until only a little while ago. For
example, in April last year at the Conference of Provincial and Municipal Party
Committee Secretaries, [I} spoke of ten relationships;® of these, one had to do with
[the relationship] between the enemy and ourselves, and another had to do with the
[relationship between] right and wrong. At that time we had not yet had a chance
to say that the class struggle has basically drawn to a close. It was not until the latter

Are there contradictions in socialist society? Lenin once spoke on such a
problem, and his opinion was that contradictions would exist [in a socialist
society].? Stalin, however, over a long period of time, in fact did not acknowledge
that there would be contradictions in a socialist society. In Stalin’s later stages,
people were not allowed to say bad things, or to criticize the Party or the government. In fact, what Stalin did was to confuse the contradictions among the people
with the contradictions between the enemy and ourselves.® He considered everyone
who said bad things [about the Party] and gossiped [about the Party] as an enemy,
and therefore [he] unjustly wronged many people. In the book ‘Economic Problems
of Socialism in the USSR.” written in 1952, Stalin himself said that in socialist


should] go and make trouble. Rather, we advocate that problems be resolved
without troublemaking, but through the system of democratic centralism,!? and
according to the formula “unity-criticism-unity.”!! [However,] to carry out this
thing that we advocate would require us to oppose bureaucratism. If in a certain
unit the leaders have too bad a case of bureaucratism and are very stubborn, so that
the masses are unable to raise their opinions, and yet [the people at] a higher level
have not discovered [the situation] in time or corrected it, or if they simply have
failed to replace that leadership, then it is quite likely that the masses there would
make trouble. Under such peculiar conditions, what harm would it be for there to
be a bit of trouble?


Second, I'd like to speak a bit about the problem of the intellectuals. There are
about five million intellectuals throughout the country.!¢ In terms of their background, the education they have received, and their services in the past, they can
be described as bourgeois intellectuals. Of them, about one-tenth, or a bit more,
have joined the Communist Party. Through the years, some have become proletarijanized and have accepted Marxism-Leninism but have not yet joined the Party.
These make up about [an additional] several per cent. According to the estimate
made by some comrades, these two parts put together make up about 15 to 17 per
cent. On the other hand, there are also a handful that harbor antagonistic sentiments
toward us. They are not counterrevolutionaries, and indeed, on certain problems,
such as on the matter of opposing imperialism, they can in fact cooperate with us
fairly well. However, they have doubts about Marxist thought and about the
socialist system. They also make up several per cent. The remainder, some 70, 80
per cent [of the intellectuals], are in the middle. They understand a little bit, but not
much at all, about Marxism. They may approve of socialism, but they may also
waver easily. When it comes to accepting a Marxist world view, they will have
some difficulty yet. They often put it as: “We, you.” [That means that] they do not

five-year plans (there are eleven more years left),!° in the areas of learning
Marxism, and of integrating with the workers and peasants. [By the same token we
must have] about one-third of the intellectuals either in the Party or turned into
enthusiastic elements outside the Party [by that time]. And then [we must] take
another step forward to win over the remainder of the intellectuals. We must thus
transform the conditions of the intellectual circle gradually and methodically;
change [the intellectuals’ } world view.


handicraft workers. Of course. in their ideology, they still drag a little tail of the
petty bourgeoisie!6—especially in the cases of the well-to-do middle peasants and
the upper-middle peasants,!7 their bourgeois and petty-bourgeois thought is still
very heavy. Right now, where the intellectuals have doubts about the worker-peasant-soldier orientation, it is precisely a reflection of the thought within the well-todo stratum in the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. Right now, no matter what,
both the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie are down to just a tail, and no matter
how long a tail may drag, it is bound to become extinct one day. Therefore, we do
have the means by which to unite with the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intellectuals and win them over, but it will take time; it will take as long as ten or twenty
years——we cannot be hasty; things cannot be rushed. With Marxism-Leninism we
can only convince people by persuasion; we cannot force-feed it into [people], and
force-feeding is not going to resolve any problems.!8


18. The paragraph here suggests the same kind of foreshadowing of Mao’s later-expressed idea of “skin and hair.” See text Mar. 20, 1957(1), note 75.

19. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), paragraph 35.

20. See text Mar. 20, 1957(1), note 13.

71. See text Autumn 1956, note 3, and text Feb. 27, 1957, note 82.

22. See text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 1. See also text Mar. 20, 1957(1), note 78.

23. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), note 61.

5. See text Feb. 27, 1957, note 3.

25. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), paragraph 9.

26. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), paragraph 18, and text Feb. 27, 1957, paragraph 2 of
section 8.