**Annotations on the "Collection of Some Issues Concerning Ideological Work" Printed and Distributed by the Central Propaganda Department¹ (March 1957)**

**One,** Quite a number of scientists (especially natural scientists) believe that half of the Party cannot lead scientific work. They also think that Party leadership is not beneficial to the development of science. "In the United States, no one controls science, scientists are very free, so there are achievements like those of Li Zhengdao and Yang Zhenning, which cannot be achieved here." They demand that the Party "govern by non-interference." Some scientists want to choose work that makes it easier to achieve personal success and are unwilling to earnestly serve the needs of the country. How the Party should lead scientific work is a question worth studying.

**Two,** There are still obstacles to implementing the "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend" policy. On the one hand, some Party member cadres in charge blame all the recent manifestations of bourgeois thinking among scientists on "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend" and "Marching Toward Science." (Our work has not been sufficient, and many ideological problems have not been properly resolved, which is also a reason. For example, the "Associate Doctor" issue has been causing a stir for nearly a year, but the relevant departments have not yet seriously studied it. Under the conditions of our country, how exactly should the academic degree system be established, especially in the social sciences? The prevalence of things like the required reading lists for Associate Doctors and prescribed formats for dissertations has further fueled a dogmatic atmosphere.) On the other hand, sectarianism among non-Party scientists has not yet been thoroughly resolved.

**Three,** Many scientists believe that if working conditions are not properly addressed, they cannot produce scientific results; therefore, "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend" offers little practical benefit to them. This view exists among social scientists (especially economists who feel they cannot obtain survey and statistical data and thus cannot conduct substantive research), and is even more prominent among natural scientists. Their interest in "working conditions" is higher than their interest in "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend." After paper supplies became tight, more people became concerned about whether scientific results could be published. Currently, we lack a sound system for publishing and evaluating scientific results, which is also a significant obstacle to implementing "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend." This relationship should be clarified.

**Four,** People often ask: What is the relationship between "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend" and "Marxism-Leninism is the guiding ideology of the state"? At the same time, there are various discussions regarding which types of articles are allowed to contend and which are not. Some believe that matters on which a definitive conclusion has already been reached in the scientific community should no longer be allowed for contention. Some believe that articles which are not based on a realistic study of problems but are instead arrogantly boastful and full of empty talk should not be allowed to contend. Some believe that articles with a poor attitude in discussing problems should not be allowed to contend. There are too many rules. Some summarize these issues as the problem of "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend" and "academic style."

**Five,** Philosophers have raised the issue of evaluating idealism and the issue of the inheritance of philosophical heritage. This issue has universal significance, and is being discussed in literary and legal circles. The question of whether or not to study aspects of bourgeois sociology that are useful to us has also been raised. Currently, the question of how to conduct research in several of the most theoretically intensive areas of the social sciences (such as dialectical materialism and historical materialism, political economy, etc.) also remains unresolved. For the time being, do not look for the primary danger, but handle specific problems according to their circumstances.

**Six,** Currently, in literary and art circles, on the one hand, "Leftist" dogmatism and sectarian tendencies are still very serious; on the other hand, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois thinking has indeed somewhat raised its head. Which side represents the primary danger? Opinions differ among some comrades. How should this situation be assessed?

**Seven,** How should contradictions among the people be reflected in literary works? What principles should be observed, and how should the appropriate measure be grasped when exposing and criticizing shortcomings in life? Incorrect. But a few people can be allowed to do so.

**Eight,** Currently, some writers believe that the purpose of literature is to write about truth, therefore, "write whatever you see," "felt truth is truth." As for what educational effect the work has on the people, writers need not consider it. How should we view the relationship between truthfulness and ideological content in literature?

**Nine,** Regarding the issue of socialist realism, views are not unanimous in literary and art circles. Some people believe that since literature reflects reality, realism alone is sufficient; when realism reaches the era of the socialist revolution, it naturally becomes the realism of the socialist revolutionary era, and there is no such thing as socialist realism. Same as above. Some people believe that when a writer reflects reality, he cannot separate himself from his standpoint and viewpoint; the realism of a writer with socialist thinking is different from the realism of the past. Therefore, socialist realism is qualitatively different from old realism, and it should not be negated. How should this issue be viewed?

**Ten,** How should literary and art criticism work be carried out correctly? This issue is worth studying.

**Eleven,** Are newspapers and periodicals allowed to publish propositions that differ from the Party's? That is to say, can Party policies and the working principles of the Party and government be subject to "contention" in newspapers and periodicals? Last August, in the Central Committee's instructions on the plan for improving the work of the *People's Daily*, there was this directive: "Except for articles by a few responsible central comrades and a few editorials, they generally may not represent the views of the Party Central Committee, and some authors may be allowed to publish articles in the *People's Daily* that are contrary to the views of us Communists." Especially since the "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend" policy was proposed, understanding of this issue in practical work has varied in different localities, accompanied by some misunderstandings, encountering problems that are difficult to resolve. Party committees in some places advocate publishing fewer opinions inconsistent with Party policy, or not publishing them at all, and exercising control. Meanwhile, newspapers and periodicals face considerable pressure from readers and authors, advocating for publishing more such opinions. Some newspapers and periodicals have published articles discussing certain national work tasks, which also caused some adverse side effects. For example: a certain newspaper published an article discussing the "Labor and Defense System," debating whether the "Labor and Defense System" was suitable for China. Many students were influenced by the discussion and became unwilling to participate in the "Labor and Defense System." The Central Physical Culture and Sports Commission did not approve of such discussions in the press. There are many problems of this kind. Same as above.

**Twelve,** Another issue related to the above: If certain measures adopted by central government ministries are inappropriate, can local newspapers criticize them before the central and local governments have reached consensus through consultation?

**Thirteen,** Some people say: "Newspapers are tools of propaganda, but they are also commodities." "If they are not treated as commodities, newspapers will inevitably fail to be welcomed by readers." This kind of statement has drawn the attention of newspaper circles. During discussions, some people deny that newspapers are tools for the Party to educate the people and deny Party leadership. For example, some editors say: "Newspapers should have authority and should not just trail behind the Party committee"; "Once you have the leadership in mind, you cannot lay out a good page; when you have the readers in mind, you can lay out a good newspaper." Some even advocate running opposition newspapers, saying: "Non-establishment newspapers" or "folk newspapers" can "boldly speak out, hit the mark on current ills, and say what the people want to say." Many Party members involved in running newspapers also raise the question of how the "Party character" and "popular character" of newspapers should be unified and understood.

**Fourteen,** Some point out that Party schools have a special characteristic: the students are all Party members. Therefore, the "contention" here can only be limited to disputes over different understandings of Marxism-Leninism; non-Marxist-Leninist theories and ideas cannot be allowed to contend. It seems not quite right, why fear contention? Some say, "A 'pulpit' for idealism cannot be set up in Party schools." Some say, the Party school already has a guiding principle (i.e., "study theory, integrate with practice, raise awareness, enhance Party character"), so why introduce another one, "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend"? Is it one guiding principle or two? Some say, the spirit of "Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend" is "linking theory with practice," so the policy of letting a hundred schools contend is already included in the original Party school policy; why should it be particularly emphasized in Party schools?

**Fifteen,** Is there a contradiction between implementing the policy of letting a hundred schools contend and studying classical works? Some say advocating a hundred schools of thought contend and independent thinking hinders the study of Marxism-Leninism, because this way, everyone will not first absorb the content of classical works but will first go and doubt the classical works. Is it not allowed to doubt them then? Some say, "Classical works are not to be doubted." Why not allow discussion?

**Sixteen,** Is it allowed to doubt Party policies? Are opinions that doubt Party policies allowed to be debated? Some say that according to the Party Constitution, Party members can discuss Party policies at Party meetings and in Party publications, and skeptical opinions can also be raised for debate. Some say that debate among Party members regarding Party policy is limited to questions of different understandings and methods of implementation; if there are opinions opposing or skeptical of Party policy itself, debate is not allowed. The former is affirmed, but is the latter denied?

**Seventeen,** Is a Party member allowed to doubt or oppose individual tenets of Marxism-Leninism theoretically? If the doubt or opposition is fundamental—questioning Marxist-Leninist philosophy, economics, or socialist theory—can such a person remain in the Party? (For example, if someone still believes in Keynesian doctrine after joining the Party, what should be done?) That means allowing criticism and contention.

**Eighteen,** How to overcome dogmatism in the teaching of Marxism-Leninism? Currently, many instructors of theoretical courses bury themselves in preparing lecture notes and read from them verbatim, paying no attention to major domestic or international events, not studying important Party documents, and not researching the current situation. This should change.

**Nineteen,** After the introduction of the policies of "Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom, Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend," "independent thinking," and slogans like "comprehensive development, teaching according to aptitude," leading cadres of the Party and administration in institutions of higher learning have shown two tendencies: one is to abdicate leadership, failing to educate and criticize the erroneous thinking and behavior of the masses, resulting in some confusion; the other is to hesitate and watch, or even harbor resistance toward this major Party policy, not daring to fully delegate authority in various areas of work, so that the initiative of the masses in teaching and scientific research has not been well brought into play. Therefore, how to correctly implement these policies and guiding principles in education remains an urgent problem to be solved.

**Twenty,** In response to the strikes and petition incidents that have occurred in a few specialized secondary schools and individual institutions of higher learning, how should political and ideological education work for the broad masses of youth be carried out in the future? This point merits re-examination.

**Twenty-one,** After the Party Constitution stipulated that school Party organizations have the functions of leading and supervising administrative bodies and mass organizations, some people both inside and outside the Party believe that Party member leading cadres in schools have not conducted much research in science or teaching and face more difficulties leading teaching and scientific research work. Some Party committee secretaries and Party member school presidents/chancellors also lack confidence in this. How should this problem be resolved in terms of ideological understanding and concrete methods? Both are incorrect.

**Twenty-two,** Since the call to "March Toward Science" was raised, instructors in higher education institutions have focused more on engaging in scientific research work and are less willing to do teaching work, thus creating the problem of how to appropriately arrange teaching and scientific research work. At the same time, Party cadres and political work cadres mostly wish to do scientific research or teaching work, are not content with political work, and the tendency to neglect political and ideological work is quite serious. Both are incorrect.

**Twenty-three,** In the past, schools rigidly controlled student management. Since the introduction of the "Hundred Flowers Bloom, Hundred Schools of Thought Contend" policy and the discussion of comprehensive development and teaching according to aptitude (also influenced by foreign practices), another deviation has begun to emerge: students emphasize freedom, democracy, and the development of individual expertise; they do not observe school discipline, are impolite to teachers, and lack the spirit of hard work and endurance. Meanwhile, on the part of schools and teachers...

Otherwise, they become constrained and dare not manage or educate students. The former is wrong. 24. Some education administration leading departments and schools make the mistake of neglecting the political and ideological leadership of schools, with a tendency to focus solely on professional work. This should be corrected. There is also the issue of schools having too many courses and teaching materials that are generally too heavy in content, which creates a heavy burden on students (though there are certainly other reasons). However, some say the main reason does not lie here but elsewhere. 25. Since the teaching policy of all-round development and individualized instruction was put forward for discussion, many have actively participated. As of now, there are still two opinions: one holds that all-round development is a complete policy and does not need to include individualized instruction; the other holds that it needs to include individualized instruction. The two opinions are currently deadlocked. The former opinion mostly comes from education leadership departments and some personnel in educational institutions, while the latter mainly comes from lower-level education leadership departments and school officials. In the discussion of this policy, it also shows that one group has acknowledged past educational achievements a bit too much, admitting only very minor shortcomings; the other group seems to have somewhat negated the achievements too much while seeing more shortcomings. 26. In an earlier period, the Ministry of Health summarized the traditional Chinese medicine policy into a seventeen-character directive: "First, systematic study and full acceptance, then organize and improve," which caused some misunderstandings in the medical community. Some felt that implementing the traditional Chinese medicine policy conflicted with the policy of "letting a hundred schools of thought contend," and some Western-trained doctors were unwilling to accept the issue of studying traditional Chinese medicine. On the other hand, there is also a problem in the guiding thought of traditional Chinese medicine work of rejecting all differing opinions. 27. How should the health system strengthen political and ideological work? How should health administration departments address political and ideological issues? How should Party committees at all levels strengthen their leadership over health work? Should the tasks of Party organizations in hospitals be the same as those in schools, enterprises, and factories (i.e., achieving Party leadership and supervision)? 28. Currently, there is some confusion in the analysis of contradictions in rural areas. Some say: "The main contradiction at present is the contradiction between new and old ideologies"; some believe it is a "contradiction in operation and management"; some say it is "mainly a struggle among rich middle peasants"; others hold that "capitalist ideology is already a remnant" or "petty-bourgeois ideology is a remnant." How can it be made comprehensive? 29. At present, in ideological struggles within the Party, the distinction between the meanings of bourgeois ideology and petty-bourgeois ideology is unclear; sometimes one term is used, sometimes the other. How is this boundary defined? 30. At present, what are the main categories of contradictions among the people, and what is the current principal contradiction? 31. At present, which types of bureaucratism should mainly be opposed? In some places, the masses do not draw clear boundaries when opposing bureaucratism; for instance, they consider leadership's inability to meet their demands as bureaucratism. 32. In the past, when various professional departments assigned tasks, they only specified production tasks, targets, and profits turned over to the state. In the future, can political tasks also be stipulated? How can the contradiction of professional work crowding out politics be resolved? How should various professional departments carry out ideological and political work? How should the dual leadership of professional departments and local Party committees be coordinated? 33. Currently, officials doing Party committee work in cultural and educational units lack ability and a high level of competence. Additionally, according to reports from some leading comrades in provincial Party committees, some people currently emphasize the principal system and resist the Party committee system. How can the Party committee system be improved in the cultural and educational system? Printed based on Mao Zedong's annotated documents.

**Notes**
〔1〕 A Compilation of Some Issues Concerning Ideological Work, printed and distributed by the General Office of the Publicity Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on March 6, 1957, for the reference of comrades attending the National Propaganda Work Conference, included a total of thirty-three issues. During his review, Mao Zedong wrote twenty-two annotations on twenty of these issues.