You say your level of Marxism is low, and you feel uncertain about running a newspaper in a socialist society.
Being uncertain now is fine—you will gradually get a clearer picture.
At the beginning of everything, one is always uncertain.
Take guerrilla warfare, for example. Before we fought, we hadn’t even thought about it. Later, forced by circumstances like the rebels at Mount Liang, we had no choice but to steel ourselves and fight.
Of course, war is no joking matter, but as we kept fighting, we gradually became familiar with it.
Who can be certain about newly emerging issues? I myself am uncertain.
Take the Korean War, for instance. Fighting American imperialism was different from fighting Japanese imperialism. At first, we were also uncertain, but after a couple of battles, we gained clarity.
Now we have to handle contradictions among the people, which is not the same as the class struggle of the past (though some class struggle is mixed in). It’s only natural to be uncertain at first.
Uncertainty is nothing to worry about; we can thoroughly study the problems.
Many books on socialism have been published, but books teaching people how to concretely build socialism did not exist at the time of the Russian socialist revolution. Some books try to lay out everything about a socialist society, but those are based on utopian socialism, not scientific socialism.
Some things have yet to emerge. Even if they can be predicted, it does not mean we can propose specific guidelines and solutions right away.

As for insufficient mastery of Marxism, this is a widespread problem. The only way to solve it is to study diligently.
Of course, studying must be voluntary.
I’ve heard that some writers dislike Marxism intensely, saying that with it, writing novels becomes difficult.
I think this is also a kind of “conditioned reflex.”
Whenever something new appears, the old habits suppress it so that the new cannot get in, because the old overwhelms the new.
They say that after learning Marxism, writing novels becomes hard—probably because Marxism clashes with their old ideas, so they can’t produce anything.
It is very necessary to advocate the study of Marxism among intellectuals. We should encourage everyone to study it for ten or eight years. As their knowledge of Marxism increases, the old ideas will be pushed aside.
But studying Marxism also requires fostering a proper atmosphere. Without that atmosphere, one cannot learn well.

At present, there are two ideological tendencies: one is dogmatism, and the other is right-leaning opportunism.
Right-leaning opportunism is characterized by negating everything, while dogmatism dismisses any doubt with a single blow and affirms everything.
Both dogmatism and right-leaning opportunism are one-sided; they use metaphysical ways of thinking to observe and understand problems in a one-sided, isolated manner.
Of course, it is difficult to completely avoid one-sidedness.
One-sidedness in ways of thinking is related to not having studied Marxism well.
We should spend ten or eight years diligently studying Marxism and gradually abandon metaphysical ways of thinking.
If we do that, our ideological outlook may be very different.

The recent criticisms of films have been very useful. However, the Film Bureau didn’t open its doors wide enough. Their articles show a tendency to affirm everything, and as soon as people criticize, they shut their doors tightly again.
I think the issues raised in most critical articles are very helpful for reforming our film industry.
Take current films: I don’t like watching them, though there are, of course, some good ones. We should not negate everything.
If the criticisms are based on facts, the Film Bureau must accept them, or else film work cannot improve.
In the articles published in your newspaper, the first period featured more criticisms, and the second more affirmations. Now you can organize articles to unify both, affirming the good and criticizing the bad.
It is wrong for the Film Bureau to ignore this.
This debate has exposed problems, which is beneficial to both the Film Bureau and the writers.

Your newspaper is lively, publishing pieces on music, chess, calligraphy, painting, and the like. I enjoy reading them.
Young people who don’t like them don’t have to read them—everyone has their own “conditioned reflex.”
Not everyone will like a particular thing.
You can publish some letters from the masses—try it out and see.
If the government and relevant business departments have differing opinions, the newspaper offices can discuss the matter with them, explain in print, and then see the result.
I’m afraid not publishing anything isn’t so good. If you don’t, the business departments might fall into bureaucratism and fail to improve their work.

Newspapers must be under leadership, but that leadership must suit objective conditions.
Marxism handles matters according to objective conditions, and objective conditions include objective effects.
If the masses love to read the paper, it proves good leadership; if they don’t, then the leadership isn’t so brilliant, is it?
There is correct leadership, and there is incorrect leadership.
Correct leadership handles matters according to objective conditions, conforms to reality, and is welcomed by the masses. Incorrect leadership does not handle matters according to objective conditions, divorces itself from reality, and separates from the masses.
If those who compile the newspaper feel unfree, and if the paper they produce is not loved by the masses, such leadership is surely dogmatic.
We must oppose dogmatism.
In the past, we carried out rectification campaigns for several years, criticized dogmatism, and handled affairs independently and autonomously according to the essential spirit of Marxism, only then winning victory in the Chinese revolution.

It’s fine for newspapers to have some degree of specialization. For example, when the free market was first opened, I liked reading *Ta Kung Pao* because it published a lot on that topic and did so quickly.
However, too much specialization can sometimes become dull, and people lose interest in reading.
Specialists should also read things beyond their own fields.

Socialist countries’ newspapers are, on the whole, better than those in capitalist countries.
Some newspapers in Hong Kong may lack what we call ideological content, but they also don’t mean much: their statements are untrue, fond of exaggeration, and they spread toxins.
Our newspapers contain little poison and are beneficial to the people.

As for articles in the papers, “shorter, shorter, shorter again” is correct, but “softer, softer, softer again” needs some reconsideration.
Don’t be too hard, because if you are too hard, people won’t enjoy reading. You can unify the soft and the hard.
Articles that are written in a popular, warm style, leading from small matters to large ones, from the near to the distant, and captivating the reader—those are very good.
Running a newspaper with a stern face won’t do.

Do you admire Lu Xun? Lu Xun’s articles are not too soft, but not too hard either; they are not unpleasant to read.
Some people say writing essays is difficult, and the difficulty lies precisely here.
Someone asked: What would Lu Xun do if he were alive today? I think if Lu Xun were alive, he might dare to write, or he might not.
Under abnormal circumstances, he might not write, but more likely, he would.
As the saying goes, “He who is willing to sacrifice his own life dares to pull the emperor off his horse.”
Lu Xun was a genuine Marxist, a thoroughgoing materialist.
A genuine Marxist, a thoroughgoing materialist, fears nothing, so he would write.

Nowadays, some writers dare not write. There are two situations: one is that we have not created an environment where they dare to write, and they fear being subjected to repression; the other is that they themselves have not fully grasped materialism.
A thoroughgoing materialist dares to write.
In Lu Xun’s time, repression meant going to jail or being beheaded, yet Lu Xun was not afraid.
As for how to write essays now, we have no experience. I think we should bring Lu Xun back, so to speak, and let everyone learn from him and carefully study his work.
His essays covered many topics: politics, literature, art, and so forth. Especially in his later period, he wrote most about politics, only rarely touching on economics.
Everything Lu Xun produced was forced out of him.
Even his Marxism was learned under pressure.
He came from a scholarly family, yet people called him a “feudal remnant” and said he was no good. Still, Lu Xun continued to write.
Nowadays, you can also write essays on economic subjects.

The quality of an article should be judged by its effect. Since ancient times, conclusions have been drawn based on effects.

Are the news reports of Xinhua News Agency welcomed? I’ve heard that some among you have raised the question of whether news reports from a news agency have a class nature.
Before classes are eliminated, all news reports—whether from a news agency or a newspaper—have a class nature.
The “freedom of the press” touted by the bourgeoisie is deceptive; there is no such thing as purely objective reporting.
Today, American news agencies and newspapers also report on the economic construction of New China. They want to do business, so they put on a show for people to see, because they are under pressure from the economic crisis.

When carrying out criticism in the newspapers, you must prepare a staircase for the person criticized, or else the masses will surround him and he won’t be able to step down.
Opposing bureaucratism is the same.
During the “Three-Antis” campaign, many ministers came down the stairs with the help of the Central Committee providing them with ladders.
In the past, launching campaigns was necessary—we had no choice—but each campaign inevitably hurt too many people. We should draw lessons from this.
Now, resorting to large-scale democracy does not suit the interests of the majority of the people.
Some people always want to use large-scale democracy against others, intending to repress them. But when it comes to repressing themselves, the smaller the democracy, the better—in their view.
I think that in areas like literature and the press, we should use “small democracy” to solve problems, adding yet another “small” on top—a fine drizzling rain that falls without end.

Speaking of running newspapers, Communists are not as good as people outside the Party.
In Yan’an, our history of running newspapers was very short, and we had no experience in running newspapers on a national scale.
The same goes for running schools, publishing, and scientific research.
There are about five million intellectuals nationwide, and among them, Party members are merely a little finger.
To say that the Communist Party cannot lead science contains a grain of truth.
For now, we are laymen leading experts: we provide administrative leadership and political leadership.
As for specific scientific and technical fields like geology, the Communist Party does not understand them.
But the Kuomintang didn’t understand either.
Over more than twenty years in power, the Kuomintang only produced some two hundred geological specialists, whereas in seven years since Liberation, we have trained over ten thousand.
Given the current transitional period, this kind of administrative leadership will have to do; it will change in the future.

Now we must strive to bring over eighty percent of intellectuals in the intermediate state to study Marxism. We should ask them to have an initial understanding of Marxism, not to grasp it completely at once.
Even Marx himself, the creator of Marxism, did not grasp it fully all at once.
The publication of the *Communist Manifesto* in 1848 merely marked the beginning of the formation of the Marxist system, not its completion.
It is unrealistic to demand that intellectuals embrace Marxism all at once.
When people say they understand Marxism, the depth of their understanding actually varies.
I myself have not read many Marxist books.
As a specialist, one should read more, but we do not have that much time—reading a little less is all right. The important thing is to pay attention to research methods.

Nowadays, many cadres do not have the habit of reading. They spend their spare energy on playing cards, going to the theater, or dancing.
No one should waste their time.

We must make concrete analyses of concrete problems. The question of fast or slow reporting in the news is just such a case.
Some news items are not a matter of reporting them quickly or slowly, but of simply not reporting them at all.
Take the land reform news: that’s how it was. We didn’t publicize it in the newspapers, to avoid spreading immature or erroneous experiences.
At the end of the year before last, Beijing completed the conversion of all industries into joint state-private ownership within a few days and announced its entry into socialism. News of this kind should have been carefully considered beforehand. But then it was broadcast, and without regard to local conditions, every locality immediately rushed to do the same, which put us in a very passive position.

When criticizing problems among the people, the thrust can also be sharp.
I’d like to write some articles for the newspapers myself, but I’d have to resign as Chairman first.
I could open a column in the newspaper and become a columnist.
Articles should be sharp—only a sharp knife can cut paper—but the sharpness should help people, not hurt them.

On the question of “letting a hundred schools of thought contend,” if the debate concerns purely academic matters, going back and forth in the newspapers will have no impact.
But if it concerns policy matters, I’m afraid we need to distinguish between different situations.
However, delineating the scope is difficult because there are so many policies.
For example, you mentioned publicizing birth control and late marriage. If the newspapers publish too many articles on these topics, some people might think the Marriage Law is about to be amended and rush to get married.
That makes running newspapers quite difficult, too.

In the old society, what the newspapers published, ordinary people read as if they hadn’t read at all. Now, once something appears in print, it’s a completely different matter.
If bad consequences arise from the propaganda, you can write articles to explain and clarify, but often the commentary in our newspapers is not timely enough.
As for how to delineate the scope, each newspaper can go back and study it on its own.

*Based on the transcript of the recorded conversation preserved in the Central Archives.*

**Notes**
4. “Three-Antis”: see p. 172, note 3, of this volume.

--- Notes

1. This is the main part of Mao Zedong’s conversation with some representatives from the press and publishing circles during the National Conference on Propaganda Work of the Communist Party of China.

2. Refers to certain criticisms raised during the discussion on film issues carried out in Shanghai’s *Wen Hui Bao*. This discussion began in November 1956 and lasted nearly three months, touching on issues such as the guiding ideology of film art, the leadership methods and work style in film work, the film censorship system, the use and backlog of actors, the inheritance of film art traditions, and the relationship between film and its audience.

3. Refers to Shanghai’s *Ta Kung Pao*.