Annotations on the “Collection of Certain Issues Concerning Ideological Work” issued by the Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee [1]
Half of them are directed at
(March 1957)
I. Among scientists, especially natural scientists, there are quite a few who believe that the Party cannot lead scientific work. They also hold the view that Party leadership is not conducive to the development of science. “In the United States, science is left entirely to its own devices; scientists enjoy great freedom, which is why we have achievements like those of Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang. We cannot attain such results here.” Some even call for the Party to adopt a policy of “non-interference.” Furthermore, certain scientists prefer to engage in research projects that are relatively easy to yield personal success, rather than dedicating themselves to serving the nation’s actual needs. How the Party should lead scientific work remains a question worthy of study.
II. There are still obstacles to fully implementing the policy of “letting a hundred schools of thought contend.” On the one hand, some Party members holding leading positions tend to attribute all manifestations of bourgeois ideology among scientists in recent times to the very spirit of “a hundred schools contending” and “marching toward science.” (This is partly due to our own shortcomings—many ideological problems have not been adequately resolved, such as the so-called “associate doctoral” issue, which has been ongoing for nearly a year yet relevant departments have still not taken concrete action.) Moreover, dogmatism has been further exacerbated by the widespread practice of prescribing fixed reading lists for “associate doctoral” candidates and rigid guidelines on how to write dissertations, particularly in the social sciences. On the other hand, sectarian tendencies among non-Party scientists have yet to be thoroughly eradicated.
There are valid reasons for this. Second, many scientists believe that without favorable working conditions, no significant scientific achievements can be made. Consequently, they feel that the policy of “a hundred schools contending” does little to address their practical concerns. This viewpoint is more pronounced among natural scientists than among social scientists—particularly economists, who complain about the lack of access to reliable statistical data necessary for conducting rigorous research. Since paper supplies have become increasingly scarce, scientists have grown even more anxious about whether their findings can be published. At present, we lack a sound system for both publishing and evaluating scientific research, which constitutes a major impediment to the full implementation of the “a hundred schools contending” policy.
IV. People often ask: What is the relationship between “a hundred schools contending” and Marxism-Leninism, which serves as the guiding ideology of the state? At the same time, there are differing opinions regarding which types of articles should or should not be allowed to participate in such debates. Some argue that issues already settled within the scientific community should no longer be opened up for discussion. Others maintain that articles characterized by empty rhetoric and self-aggrandizement, rather than by a factual and objective approach to problem-solving, ought not to be permitted to join the debate. Still others believe that contributions marked by an inappropriate attitude toward intellectual discourse should likewise be excluded. These concerns are frequently framed as questions concerning the interplay between “a hundred schools contending” and academic ethos.
V. Philosophers have raised the issue of idealistic interpretations. Philosophy
At present, we should not seek out the primary danger, but rather address specific problems individually.
That is incorrect. However, a small number of individuals may be allowed to do so.
the question of inheriting cultural legacies. This issue is of broad concern and is being discussed across literature, law, and other fields. The question of whether to study aspects of bourgeois sociology that might prove useful to us has also been raised. Meanwhile, fundamental theoretical questions remain unresolved in several key areas of the social sciences, such as dialectical materialism and historical materialism, as well as political economy.
VI. In the literary and artistic circles, on the one hand, tendencies toward “leftist” dogmatism and sectarianism remain quite serious; on the other hand, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas are indeed making a resurgence. Opinions differ among comrades as to which of these two tendencies poses the greater threat. How, then, should we assess this situation?
VII. What principles should guide the portrayal of internal contradictions among the people in literary works? How should we balance exposing and criticizing societal shortcomings with maintaining appropriate artistic standards?
VIII. Some writers currently hold the view that the sole purpose of literature is to depict reality—that whatever one sees should be written down, and that feeling itself constitutes truth—regardless of any educational impact the work might have on the public. How, then, should we understand the relationship between literary authenticity and ideological content?
IX. There is disagreement within the literary and artistic community regarding the concept of socialist realism. Some argue that since literature aims to reflect reality, mere realism suffices; once socialism emerged, realistic writing naturally evolved into socialist realism, rendering the notion of “socialist realism” redundant. Others contend that an author’s stance and perspective are indispensable to the act of representation. A writer imbued with socialist
Annotations on the “Collection of Certain Issues Concerning Ideological Work” issued by the Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee
ideology will produce a form of realism distinct from that of the past.
As above.
Therefore, socialist realism differs in essence from conventional realism and should not be dismissed. How, then, should we regard this issue?
X. How can literary criticism be conducted properly?
XI. Should newspapers and periodicals be permitted to publish views that diverge from the Party’s position?
This is a question worth studying. Specifically, can policies of the Party and directives issued by Party and government bodies be subject to open debate in the press?
Last August, in a central directive approving a plan to improve the work of the People’s Daily, it was stated: “With the exception of articles by a few central leaders and a handful of editorials, the newspaper generally need not represent the views of the CPC Central Committee, and it may even publish articles by authors whose views contradict those of our Party members.” Particularly since the introduction of the “let a hundred schools contend” policy, local authorities have interpreted this matter in various ways, leading to misunderstandings and difficult-to-resolve problems. Some party committees have sought to restrict or prohibit the publication of opinions differing from Party policy, while media outlets, under pressure from both readers and writers, have advocated for greater openness. Certain publications have printed articles discussing specific state affairs, resulting in unintended consequences. For example, one newspaper published an article on the “Labor and Health System,” debating whether it was suitable for China. As a result, many students were influenced by the debate and subsequently refused to participate, prompting the Central Sports Commission to disapprove of such discussions in the press. Similar issues have arisen repeatedly.
XII. Another related issue: Given that certain measures taken by central government ministries were implemented without prior consultation with local authorities, is it permissible for local newspapers to offer critical commentary on these actions?
XII. Some argue: “Newspapers are propaganda tools, but they are also commodities. If they are not treated as commodities, they will inevitably fail to attract readers.” Such remarks have drawn considerable attention within the press. During discussions, some have denied that newspapers serve as instruments for the Party to educate the people or to exercise its leadership. For instance, one editor asserted: “Newspapers should wield independent authority and should not simply follow behind the party committee”; “As long as editors keep leadership in mind, the layout suffers; only when readers are prioritized can a newspaper truly succeed.” Others have even called for the establishment of opposition newspapers, claiming that “opposition” and “civilian” publications could “speak boldly, strike at current problems, and articulate what the people truly wish to express.” Many Party-affiliated journalists have also raised the question of how to reconcile a newspaper’s “Party character” with its “people-oriented nature”—and how exactly these concepts should be understood.
XIV. It has been pointed out that party schools possess a unique characteristic: all participants are Party members. Consequently, any debate within such institutions should be confined to differences in understanding Marxism-Leninism and should not permit discussions of theories or ideologies outside this framework. Some have questioned: Isn’t this somewhat restrictive? Why fear controversy?
“Party schools should not provide a platform for idealism.” Others have noted that party schools already have a clear policy—namely, “study theory, connect it to practice, enhance awareness, and strengthen Party membership”—so why introduce another principle of “a hundred schools contending”? Is this one policy or two?
Some suggest that the spirit of “a hundred schools contending” lies precisely in bridging theory and practice.
Annotations on the “Collection of Certain Issues Concerning Ideological Work” issued by the Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee
If there is already a policy in place at the party school, why emphasize “a hundred schools contending” separately?
XV. Is there any conflict between implementing the “a hundred schools contending” policy and studying classic works? Some argue that promoting free debate and independent thinking hinders the study of Marxism-Leninism, because instead of first accepting the contents of these classics, people begin by questioning them. Others counter: “Are classic works meant to be beyond doubt?”
XVI. Is it permissible to question Party policies? And if so, can dissenting opinions regarding these policies be openly debated? According to the Party Constitution, Party members may discuss policies at Party meetings and in Party publications, and dissenting views can indeed be put forward for debate. However, some argue that Party members’ debates over policy should be limited to disagreements concerning interpretation or implementation methods; expressions of outright opposition or skepticism toward Party policies, they claim, should not be allowed.
The former is correct.
XVII. Are individual principles of Marxism-Leninism open to theoretical doubt or even rejection by Party members? For example, if someone fundamentally doubts the philosophical, economic, or socialist theoretical foundations of Marxism-Leninism, should such criticism and debate be permitted? Or should such individuals reconsider their continued membership in the Party? (Consider, for instance, someone who joined the Party but continues to adhere to Keynesian economics—how might this be handled?)
XVIII. How can we overcome dogmatism in the teaching of Marxism-Leninism?
Currently, many instructors of theoretical courses focus solely on preparing and reciting lecture scripts, paying little attention to domestic and international affairs, failing to study important Party documents, and neglecting to analyze the current situation.
XIX. Following the promulgation of the “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom, Let a Hundred Schools Contend” policy along with slogans such as “Independent Thinking” and “All-Round Development Tailored to Individual Talents,” leading cadres in universities—both Party and administrative—have exhibited two contrasting behaviors: one group has abdicated its leadership role, refraining from educating and criticizing erroneous ideas and behaviors among students, thereby giving rise to considerable confusion; the other believes that neither approach is appropriate. Faced with this major Party policy, they have adopted a wait-and-see stance, even displaying resistance, hesitating to fully delegate authority and thus stifling students’ enthusiasm for teaching and scientific research.
Consequently, determining the proper method for implementing this policy in the field of education remains an urgent task.
XX. In light of past incidents of student strikes and petitions that occurred in a small number of secondary vocational schools and select universities, how should we conduct political and ideological education among young people going forward?
XXI. According to the Party Constitution, school Party organizations are tasked with both leading and supervising administrative bodies and mass organizations. However, some within and outside the Party believe that school-level Party leaders have insufficient expertise in science and teaching, making it difficult for them to effectively guide educational and research activities. Many secretaries of primary Party committees and Party-member principals of colleges and institutes also lack confidence in this regard. How, then, can this issue be resolved both ideologically and through concrete measures?
XXII. Since the launch of the “March Toward Science” campaign, university faculty members have increasingly prioritized research over teaching, leading to difficulties in appropriately balancing these two responsibilities. Simultaneously, Party cadres and personnel engaged in political work have shown a growing tendency to favor research or teaching over political duties, neglecting political and ideological education to a considerable extent.
Both approaches are misguided.
XXIII. In the past, schools maintained strict control over students. However, since the introduction of the “a hundred schools contending” policy and discussions on all-round development tailored to individual talents—along with external influences—another trend has emerged: students now emphasize freedom, democracy, and the cultivation of personal interests, often disregarding school discipline, showing disrespect toward teachers, and lacking a spirit of hard work and perseverance. Conversely, schools and teachers have become hesitant and unsure of how to manage and educate such students.
The former is wrong.
XXIV. Some educational administrative departments and school authorities have failed to prioritize political and ideological leadership, focusing instead solely on technical matters. Additionally, school curricula are often overloaded, with substantial amounts of instructional material, placing a heavy burden on students (though other factors undoubtedly contribute as well). Nevertheless, some argue that the root cause lies elsewhere.
XXV. Since the proposal of the “all-round development tailored to individual talents” policy, many have actively participated in the ensuing debate. To date, two main viewpoints persist: one holds that all-round development constitutes a comprehensive policy and does not require additional emphasis on individual talent, while the other insists that attention to individual aptitudes is essential. Currently, these two positions remain locked in stalemate. The former is primarily supported by educational administrators and certain officials, whereas the latter reflects the perspectives of lower-level educators and school management. This debate has also revealed that some individuals tend to overly glorify past educational achievements, acknowledging only minor shortcomings, while others appear to be excessively critical of those accomplishments, highlighting flaws to a greater extent.
XXVI. Recently, the Ministry of Health summarized its traditional Chinese medicine policy in seventeen characters—“first systematically learn, comprehensively accept, then organize and refine”—which led to some misunderstandings within the medical community. Some perceived a contradiction between implementing TCM policy and the “a hundred schools contending” guideline, while certain Western-trained physicians expressed resistance to engaging with TCM. On the other hand, there exists a tendency within TCM leadership to reject any dissenting opinions.
XXVII. How should the health system strengthen political and ideological work? How should health administrative departments address these issues, and how can party committees at all levels enhance their leadership over health-related affairs? Should hospital Party organizations assume the same functions as those in schools, enterprises, and factories—namely, exercising Party leadership and oversight?
XXVIII. At present, analyses of rural contradictions remain confused. Some contend that the primary contradiction lies between new and old ideologies; others attribute it to managerial conflicts; still others maintain that the core issue revolves around struggles among prosperous middle peasants. Yet others assert that capitalist ideology has largely disappeared, or that petty-bourgeois thought is merely residual. How can we achieve a more comprehensive understanding?
They are essentially the same thing.
XXIX.
Currently, within the Party’s ideological struggle, the distinctions between bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies remain unclear. Sometimes one term is used, sometimes the other, leaving the boundary between them ill-defined.
XXX. What are the main categories of internal contradictions among the people, and which one constitutes the primary contradiction at present?
XXXI. Which forms of bureaucracy should be most strongly opposed at present? At
Annotations on the “Collection of Certain Issues Concerning Ideological Work” issued by the Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee
present, in some localities, the line between legitimate grievances against bureaucratic practices and mere dissatisfaction with leadership decisions is blurred—for instance, when people perceive that their requests are not being met, they immediately label it as bureaucracy.
XXXII. In the past, various functional departments typically issued tasks specifying production targets, profit quotas, and other quantitative objectives. Going forward, should political tasks also be included? How can we resolve the tension between operational duties and political work? How should each department carry out ideological and political education? And how can we coordinate the dual leadership structure involving functional departments and local Party committees?
XXXIII. At present, the capacity and competence of cadres engaged in Party work within cultural and educational institutions are relatively weak. Furthermore, according to reports from some provincial-level officials, there has been a previous emphasis on principal-led governance, leading to resistance against the Party committee system. Under these circumstances, how can we improve and strengthen the Party committee system in the cultural and educational sectors?