On Ideological Work (Talk at a Conference Attended by Party Cadres from PLA Nanjing Command and from Jiangsu and Anhui Provinces)

Date: 1957-03-19
Source: Secret Speeches of Chairman Mao: From the Hundred Flowers to the Great Leap Forward
        (Harvard University Press, 1989), ed. Roderick MacFarquhar, Timothy Cheek, Eugene Wu

---
before. I think this place Nanjing, a coiling dragon and a crouching
tiger,! a good place. But a gentleman named Zhang Taiyan? asserts
that [the expression] “a coiling dragon and crouching tiger” is a “false
statement made by the ancients,” a lie told by the ancients. It appears
that when applied to the Nationalist party, the expression is indeed a
false statement. For having ruled from here for twenty years, the
Nationalist party was driven away by the people. Now in the hands
of the people, Nanjing is again a good place, I think.
The problems that exist in various places are more or less the
same. We now find ourselves in a period of transition, a period
in which the old struggle—class struggle, has basically ended, has basically been completed. The struggle against imperialism was class
struggle; the struggle against bureaucratic capitalism, feudalism, and
the Nationalist party, the War to Resist America and Aid Korea, and
the campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries were also class struggles. Later we went on to launch the socialist movement, socialist
transformation, the character of which is also that of class struggle.
Now, is the collectivization movement class struggle? The collectivization movement is, of course, not a struggle of one class against
another class, but the transition from one system to another system,
or from a system of individual ownership to one of collective ownership. Individual production is a category associated with, and in the
domain of, capitalism. It is the source that gives birth to capitalism,
often gives birth to capitalism. This domain or base area from which
capitalism stems has been eliminated by collectivization.
[279] Therefore, generally speaking, what we were engaged in over
the past few decades was class struggle. We transformed the superstructure, overthrew the Japanese puppet regime and the government
of Chiang Kai-shek. We have established the People's Government
and changed the relations of production and the socio-economic system. As far as social and political systems are concerned, the face of
our society has been changed. Look, all of us here in this auditorium
are Communist party [members], not Nationalist party [members].

“Coiling dragon and crouching tiger” (longpan huju) a traditional phrase for Nanjing,
attributed to Zhuge Liang, military commander and prime minister of the Shu during the
Three Kingdoms period. See Tai-ping yu-lan, juan 156.
Comrades, the change of the superstructure and the socialist economic system through class struggle merely opened the road for the
transformation of other things. Now we are confronted with new
problems. Domestically, the struggle we had in the past has been basically concluded; but internationally, it is still not over yet. Why do
we still need the PLA? We need it, most importantly, against foreign
imperialism, which may come and invade our country, given their
malicious intentions. Within our country, there are also still a few
surviving counterrevolutionary elements who have not yet been ferreted out, as well as some of those suppressed in the past, such as the
remnants of the landlord class and the Nationalist party, who may
rise up if we do not have the PLA around. The landlords, rich peasants, and capitalists now all behave themselves. The capitalists are
somewhat different [from the rest of them]. For this reason, we treat
them as part of the problems among the people. Unlike the peasants,
who embrace collectivization, one may say the national bourgeoisie
is only half-willing to accept socialism. In other words, they are somewhat reluctant. Moreover, they agree to subject themselves to transformation on terms which are quite favorable to them. Therefore, we
now find ourselves in a period of change: from class struggle to the
struggle against nature. To improve living conditions, we must promote construction, that is to say we must struggle against nature.
From revolution to construction, [280] from our previous antiimperialist and anti-feudal revolution and the subsequent socialist revolution to technical and cultural revolution.’
In order to build our country, we must have technology and

clear or still haven’t recognized this kind of change.
Now a number of new problems have arisen: the problem of
science and technology; the problem of culture; people are making
demands upon us; and some people are making trouble. What are
these problems? Temporary workers, hard-pressed households in the
countryside, students, and collectivization have all given birth to
new problems. A small number of workers go on strike; a small number of students boycott classes or take part in demonstrations or petitions; among demobilized soldiers, some are also inclined to stir up
troubles; also some APC members, well-to-do middle peasants, not
many but they are dissatisfied and want to drop out of the APCs.
There are still other things with which they are dissatisfied, and so
they make trouble with us.
What is to be done? How to handle trouble started by the people?
We must discuss these questions in clear and unequivocal terms.
Contradictions should be divided into two types: the first type is
called contradictions between ourselves and the enemy; the second
type is called contradictions among the people. What we solved in
the past few decades was the first contradiction, and now we must
solve the second contradiction. It manifests itself in various areas. For
instance, [the current transformation] from an agricultural country
to an industrialized country is also a contradiction.
[281] We don’t possess enough technology; we don’t have
machines and culture; and we are not well off. Some people say,
“Now that we have entered socialism, perhaps we are going to live a
happy life.” Don’t they also say: “Socialism has already succeeded.
After the Communist party convened a congress at which it was
proclaimed that socialism had been basically accomplished. It seems
as though we are about to live a happy life.” This indicates that they
are ignorant of what socialism means. Socialism, when seen as a
social system, is nothing but the relations of production. We have
established a relationship that differs from the old one. To carry out
production: there existed in the past the capitalist-worker relationship and the landlord-peasant relationship. Now we have established
a socialist relationship, and use that kind of interrelationship to promote production. Speaking of production, we have just started. As
for the new relationship, it has just been established and has not yet
been perfected. The APCs have still not been consolidated. When
people use these methods to engage in production, the relations
between them are socialist relations. For the old methods are unsuitable and relatively inadequate for [promoting] production and development, but also have, over a long period of time, caused the
Chinese people to remain poverty-stricken and illiterate, and to be
looked down upon by other peoples of the world. Now these [old]
relations have just been changed, but production has not yet started.
Without production there can be no life; without a great deal of production there can be no good life. How many years are needed? I
think probably a hundred years are needed. A hundred years from
now I won't exist in this world to enjoy the good life. It certainly
won't take that long if we proceed step by step; perhaps a decade or
so from now life will become slightly better; two or three decades
from now it'll be a little bit better still; fifty years from now it'll
become more or less enjoyable; and a hundred years from now things
will be truly extraordinary and very different from what they are
today. A hundred years is a very short period. Even if ten thousand
years are needed, people still must live on.
How can life be made better when revolution and socialism have
just begun? How can grain production be increased? Has grain production been increased? Yes. In 1949, the year in which the People’s
Government was established, we got only 220 billion catties of grain.
Last year we had already got 360 billion catties, an increase of 140 billion catties.* But how many people are to be fed? One of the advantages of our country is its large population, but its disadvantage
is also that large population. The more people, the more mouths to
feed; and the more mouths to feed, the more grain is needed. The
additional 140 billion catties of grain have all disappeared. At times
we even feel a shortage of grain. There was a shortage of grain in
1949; today, there is still a shortage, there is still not enough grain. In
order to live well, we have now already drawn up a twelve-year plan
for the development of production, a science plan, an agricultural

shek. They are the previous generation, and the previous government. What they left to us was a people fleeced to the last bit. Nev-ertheless, they are all gone; things will get better. Since they are gone,
a piece of land is made available. This piece of land of ours stretches
9,600,000 square kilometers from the seacoast in the east to the Kunlun Mountain Range and the Pamir Plateau in the west; and from the
Amur River in the north to Hainan Island in the south. Together
with the entire people of our country, together with everybody,
together with the youth, let’s devote decades to working on this land.
The first half of this century is for revolution, then the second half is for
construction. Forty years are still left of this century; this means our
central task at present is construction.
[We] must clearly distinguish the two types of contradiction. The
first type, contradictions between ourselves and the enemy, should
not be mixed up with the second type, contradictions among the

*Mao is using approximations of contemporary statistics; his figures translate into 110 million tons for 1949 and 180 million tons for 1956. For official figures, see State Statistical
Bureau, Ten Great Years (Beijing, Foreign Languages Press, 1960), p. 119.
>The only twelve-year programs to be drawn up formally were for agriculture and science;
see Origins 1, pp. 18, 35.
Un Ideological Work
people. That there are contradictions in socialist society, that contradictions persist in socialist society, this is something Lenin once
asserted. He recognized that there were contradictions in socialism. During the first years of Stalin’s leadership, the period following the death of Lenin, domestic life in the Soviet Union was still
quite lively and not very different from ours today. There, too, were
different parties, different factions, and well-known personages such
as Trotsky. Trotsky had many followers, but he was perhaps only a
democratic personage within the Communist party. [283] Moreover,
he played a mischievous role in making trouble with us. Besides
these, there were still other people; and in society at large, one could
speak out and criticize the government. At that time, there was such
a period, but afterwards it didn’t last. Afterwards, under an increasingly dictatorial government, criticism was no longer to be tolerated.
If someone made a criticism, or a hundred flowers were to bloom,
that was something very much to be feared. Only one flower was
allowed to bloom. A hundred schools contending was also feared.
Whoever caused the slightest trouble would be branded a counterrevolutionary and thrown into jail or executed. In this case, the two
types of contradiction were being confused with each other, with
contradictions among the people mistaken for contradictions between ourselves and the enemy. Your Nanjing comrade Xu Jiatun®
says that when a host of students came to him to present petitions,
their ranks remained in good order. Governor Peng Chong’ also says
they maintained good discipline and behaved well on the street. But
once inside his yamen, they began to shout: “Down with bureaucratism!” in an effort to get their problems solved. If anybody had given
such a case to Stalin, I think he would have arrested some of them,
and it is very likely that several people would have lost their heads.

°Xu Jiatun had become a secretary of the Nanjing party committee in Nov. 1954. In April
1957, he would explain the Hundred Flowers policy to non-party personages at a session of
the provincial CPPCC. See Chinese Communist Who’s Who, vol. 1, (Taipei, Institute of Inter-national Relations, 1970), pp. 279-80. In 1983, Xu became head of the Xinhua News
Agency in Hong Kong, and thus Beijing’s “ambassador” to the colony.
'Mao or the editor of this speech got Peng Chong’s position wrong: he was not provincial governor (sheng zhang) of Jiangsu, but mayor (shi zhang) of Nanjing. Peng, who like
Xu Jiatun had moved from Fujian to Nanjing in the mid 1950s, was also secretary of the
municipal party. See Who's Who in Communist China, vol. 2, p. 544. After the Cultural Revolution, Peng Chong was appointed to the Politburo of the CCP’s 11th Congress in 1977,
but dropped from it at the 12th Congress in 1982.
Un Ideological Work
Down with bureaucratism, isn’t this counterrevolutionary? As a matter of fact, not a single one of them was a counterrevolutionary. They
were all good young students. Not only that, the problem should
have been solved. There had indeed been some bureaucratism, for
the case involving overseas Chinese students who caused trouble was
not properly solved. By presenting petitions, the students helped us.
They themselves also learned a lesson, as did many cadres, and the
overseas Chinese students as well. Those who had started the trouble
and beaten up people also stopped. Why did they have to fight every
day? Because in the past we didn’t educate them well, and because we
didn’t mobilize the masses to criticize them. Similar to this problem
there are also some [cases of] demobilized soldiers making trouble.
Comrade Zeng Xisheng is from your neighbor, Anhui province.
The demobilized soldiers there caused trouble and went to see him.
He spoke to them for forty minutes and their problems were solved.
At the outset they were filled with anger, but later their anger somehow disappeared. In short, [their] problems became only a few, and
they were all resolved. One of these people has been found to be a
crook who tried to pass himself off as a revolutionary soldier. He was
a bad hat, and he was one of the leaders.
When the people cause trouble, we should never use the methods
we employ with the landlord class, the Nationalist party, and imperialism. We must adopt an entirely new approach. Except for those
who violate the law—for example, those who kill people with knives;
those who injure people, or those who break into offices [284] and
smash furniture, must be dealt with according to legal procedures—
all the rest, even if they have made mistakes, even if they are leaders,
even if they have taken the lead in making trouble, should be subject
to persuasion and education, and mustn't be expelled from factories,
schools, or offices. Suppose you expel a person, where will he go?
When expelled from this school, he'll enter that school. Does it make
any difference? When expelled from this factory, he'll go to that store.
After all, he must find himself a place. He cannot go to the Sun Yat-sen mausoleum and make a living there.? Without food and shelter,
he cannot survive there. He cannot live in the wilderness, but must

8Zeng Xisheng was the Anhui provincial party’s first secretary at this time.
?Nanjing was the capital of the Nationalist Republic of China from 1928 to 1937, and the
Nationalist party’s founder's mausoleum was completed there in 1929.
Un Ideological Work
stay. By expelling him, you may find peace and quiet;
but that is only by shifting your problem onto someone else. I think
too much peace and quiet won't do you any good. It's not a bad thing
to find that there are a few troublemakers in an office, a school, or a
factory.
Now let me talk again about the first type of contradiction—
contradictions between the enemy and ourselves, between the enemy
and the people, or between the people and the enemy and counterrevolutionaries. Currently there exist two erroneous viewpoints. One is
the right-deviationist viewpoint which holds that peace and tranquility now prevail in the world. Consequently, the few reactionary elements as well as evil doers are not brought to justice as they deserve.
This is not right. This is the right-opportunist viewpoint. Since it
now exists in various provinces, each of these provinces must pay
attention [to this problem]. Some of our friends among the democratic personages or democratic parties also share the right-deviationist
viewpoint. Sometimes their right-deviationist viewpoint is more to
the right than ours, as some of the counterrevolutionaries now kept
in jail or having been executed are their old friends. They feel somewhat disheartened because [we] have executed their relatives or
friends. There are such viewpoints [and] we must make explicit our
attitude. It is unhealthy to have such viewpoints within party ranks.
Second, there is also the exaggerating or “left” viewpoint, which


claims that there are still many counterrevolutionaries. Such a claim
is wrong. At present, hidden counterrevolutionaries still exist, and
this must be affirmed. The campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries in the past was basically correct. Had we not suppressed the
counterrevolutionaries, what might have happened can hardly be
imagined. One of the reasons why things like the Hungarian events
have never occurred in China is that we have eliminated counterrevolutionaries, whereas in Hungary they were not eliminated. Therefore, to say that there are still many counterrevolutionaries doesn't
correspond [285] to reality. It is an exaggeration.
As class struggle has been basically completed, the second type of
contradiction, contradictions among the people, now becomes more
revealed and further exposed. Regarding problems of this kind, consensus has not yet been reached among our comrades. There are still
different opinions. Only through explanation, discussion, and study
can our comrades reach unanimity of opinions on these problems.
Mentally we are ill prepared for dealing with trouble caused for us by
the people, because in the past we fought the enemy alongside the
people. Now since the enemy is no longer there or can no longer be
found, only the people and we remain. If they do not argue with you
when they have grievances, who else can they argue with? In the past
to make things difficult for the enemy was to make revolution. But
what they are doing now cannot be called revolution. After getting
rid of me, then what? Ask Chiang Kai-shek to come back? Nevertheless, because you fail to handle things properly, they still won't stop
making trouble. If things are properly handled, if in nine out of ten
places things are properly handled, if nine out of ten problems are
properly handled, but in one place there is one problem which is not
properly handled, then trouble will occur in that place. Their causing
trouble is normal—for if you fail to handle [their problems] properly, why shouldn’t they argue with you? Now tell me, if they don’t
argue with you, who else can they argue with? With “Generalissimo
Chiang Kai-shek”? But he’s gone to Taiwan. That’s why they want to
argue with the factory director, the APC leader, the xiang [township]
government, the city government, the People’s Government, or the
school principal: because you fail to handle [their problems] properly. In our work there exist bureaucratism, subjectivism, and sectarianism. Bureaucratism exists because there are too many people and
because we've been fighting for the revolution, don’t you? After all, we
have a set of methods, namely our methods for dealing with the
enemy. Sometimes we can use them, call in the police to suppress,
arrests. Calling in the police to make arrests when the students go on
strike is to suppress the people. Not afraid of the imperialists and Chiang Kai-shek, or [their] warplanes and artillery. Not afraid of imperialism, but when the people
cause trouble, [you] are somehow a bit afraid. Now listen, if you are
not afraid of imperialism, why should you be afraid of the common
people? And yet, strange as it is, [they] are just afraid of the common
people. They may not be afraid of imperialism; but as soon as people
start arguing with them, they become helpless. This is because they
have never learned how to deal with [such situations]. They still
haven't learned well. What they learned in the past was how to deal
with imperialism and Chiang Kai-shek; if one talks about struggling
against local despots and allocating land [to the people], that they
were good at. But when it comes to dealing with discontented people, they have not studied well. They have never taken this class.
Therefore, [this problem] really deserves our attention, and we must
openly raise this problem with people both within and outside the
party and start discussing it. Then a solution will be found.
Comrades, confronted with imperialism and the common people,
which after all is easier to deal with? Which one is more difficult to
deal with, the enemy or the common people? No matter how long
you try to drive them away, the enemy simply refuses to go. How
shameless they are! The spies who have wormed their way into our
government, schools, factories, and the countryside simply refuse to
go. But in no way are the common people spies, nor are they imperialists, landlords, or capitalists. As common people and working people, they can be easily brought to reason. That’s why when a large
group of students, indignant at the overseas Chinese students’ use of
violence, went to present petitions, Comrade Xu Jiatun and Comrade Peng Chong successfully settled the case by the method of
persuasion.
My position is that, nationally, our policy is “Overall consideration and proper arrangements” and strengthening ideological education. You may call this a strategic policy, for what is involved here are
“Overall consideration and proper arrangements” for 600 million people including the landlords, rich peasants, national bourgeoisie, counterrevolutionaries who have not been executed, and all sorts of
unemployed people. All must be properly taken care of, so that they
can live and have something to do. Among [all] these [600 million],
approximately five million are intellectuals. In China, the number of
intellectuals is rather too small. Nevertheless, there’s still a group of
them, about five million of them. Of these, less than a million have
joined the Communist party. There are still four million outside the
party. What are they doing? They are working in our government
[287] systems [xitong]: A small fraction of them is affiliated with the
army; two million of them are in the educational system, including
colleges, middle schools, and elementary schools; one million are in
the financial and economic system. In addition, there are scientific
workers, literary and art workers, writers, poets, artists, painters,
actors, as well as journalists, newspaper editors, and so on. Many of
them are in Shanghai.
Of this big group of intellectuals, some have integrated themselves
with the workers and peasants, accepted Marxism, and joined the
Communist party; some haven't joined the party, but are very close
to us. Those who actively support and endorse Marxism constitute
only a small proportion, perhaps 10 percent or slightly more than
that. Jiangsu reportedly has 17 percent. At the other end are those
who are hostile to us, but who are not spies. They are hostile to us
and do not accept Marxism. Reluctantly they accept the socialist system, for they are incapable of reversing the historical trend. Such people do exist. They perhaps make up a few percent in the entire
population. Those in the middle constitute 80 percent. Maybe not
that much, but somewhere between 70 percent and 80 percent. These
are the centrist faction, the vacillating elements. To a certain degree
they subscribe to Marxism, and they have also read a few books, but
never really dug into it. They only learned it here (pointing at his
own forehead), but never really got into it deeply.
There is one way in which we can put the intellectuals to the test.
Some say we must distinguish between a petty-bourgeois intellectual
and a bourgeois intellectual. The idea is that it is better to be labeled
as a petty-bourgeois intellectual than as a bourgeois intellectual. But
I think this is not true. I myself used to be a bourgeois intellectual
and went to a bourgeois school where the social atmosphere was
infused with the air of capitalism, and what I learned there was all
Idealist stuff. [For a time] I believed in the Idealism of Kant. Can one
call it petty-bourgeois? Sometimes you may and should draw a distinction; but when it comes to world outlook, such a distinction can
hardly be made. How would you define the petty-bourgeois world
outlook? Semi-materialist? As for myself, not until afterwards did I
study Marxism and learn it. Moreover, it took a very long time for
me to be transformed gradually in the struggle against the enemy.
There is one thing by which we can test the intellectuals, that is,
to see which of them can identify with the workers and peasants and
which of them can become one with the working people. Some of
the intellectuals are able to do so; but most of them keep a considerable distance from the workers and peasants, so that, even if they
want to, they can hardly merge with the latter. They don’t feel
affection for the workers and peasants; they aren’t friends with them.
If they have something to say, the workers and peasants won't tell it
to them; they, in turn, also look down upon the workers and peasants. The intellectuals have all got a tail, so we must throw cold water
on them. When you throw cold water on a dog, it will tuck its tail
between its legs. But if you don’t, it will stick up its tail and look
quite cocky. Since they have read some books, they are indeed quite
proud of themselves. But when the working people see their grand
airs, they feel uncomfortable.
Our task is to win over this 70 to 80 percent wavering centrist faction. They generally endorse the socialist system, but they haven't
completely accepted Marxism as a world outlook. I would say they
are not serving the people wholeheartedly, but only half-heartedly.
Half of their hearts wants to serve the people, that’s fine. Yet there is
still another half, which they don’t know where to put. Do you
think they support Taiwan? Apparently they don’t support Taiwan.
But when it comes to foreign countries, I’m afraid they would still
say the United States is admirable. “Look, the United States has so
much steel. Science in the United States is so advanced.” Are the foreign countries, capitalist countries, or Western countries really admirable? I think they are indeed admirable. They have so many
planes and so much steel, whereas we have nothing. But the fact
that they are admirable doesn’t mean you are admirable, too. For no
matter how much steel your United States has, it is the steel of the
American people, not the steel of us Chinese people. What’s the use
of us talking about their being admirable all day long? Every year the
United States turns out 100 million tons of steel, but not us. If every
year we could increase our steel output by tens of thousands of tons,
we would be delighted. Now we've only got 4 million tons of steel.
According to the first FYP, we may achieve 4.12 million tons, which
is not much. If your United States raises its steel output by a few million tons, we
won't be happy. The more steel you have, the unhappier we are.
What are you going to do with the additional steel? It is very dangerous when you greatly increase your steel output; they will attack us!
Yet some of our intellectuals still keep trumpeting how much steel
the United States has. Steel! Steel! So much! We must persuade them
out of this. We must persuade the intellectuals.
Some intellectuals work as teachers. Scientists are all teachers; so
are college professors, middle school teachers, and elementary school
teachers. They all teach the people. Journalists and those who run
newspapers are doing the same thing. Broadcasters, writers, and
artists are all teachers of the people. Technicians and engineers are
indispensable in our factories. Those who think we can look down
upon these several million intellectuals, those who think we can do
away without them, are all wrong. We can't do without them; we can't get
anywhere without these several million intellectuals. We can’t even
take one step, so to speak: Our schools will have to be closed, and
the publication of our newspapers will have to stop. Speaking of literature and art, the Communist party has never produced either a
Mei Lanfang or a Zhou Xinfang. Now an actress named Yuan
Xuefen has joined the party, but we still haven’t got a Mei Lanfang,
a Zhou Xinfang, or a Cheng Yanqiu; and we still haven't got any
professors. Now we are beginning to have some engineers, but still
they are very few. Some technical personnel are beginning to join the
Communist party, but the bulk of them are still outside the party.
So our several million intellectuals have their use, no matter how
wavering they are. They are the property and the teacher of our people. For the time being, there is only them to work as teachers. No
other teachers are available, because they are what the older generation and society left to us. If we look at their class origins, they invariably came from landlord, rich peasant, and bourgeois [290]
[families]. But they can be changed through education. We mustn't
use the theory of the unique importance of class origin. Otherwise,
Lu Xun would have been a landlord, a rich peasant, or a bourgeois;
Marx would have been a landlord, a rich peasant, or a bourgeois; and
so would Lenin. Isn’t this absurd? This is why we mustn’t talk of the
theory of the unique importance of class origin. This is because
today they—the landlords, rich peasants, and the bourgeoisie—have
been cut off from the source of their social power. Their social basis
or their roots in society have been eradicated. Now suspended in mid
air, they are like parachutes hanging in the sky, and can be easily
remolded; and we should not be afraid of them.
Some comrades of worker-peasant origin or worker-peasant cadres
are somewhat annoyed when they see the intellectuals; perhaps they
can’t stand them or make headway with them. It is true that the intellectuals are hard to deal with. This is precisely because they are intellectuals. The trouble lies in [the fact] that whereas they have read a
few books, we haven’t. And because we haven't, they get so stuck-up
that it’s really hard for us to deal with them. If you think it’s hard,
then it’s hard; but if you think it’s easy, then it can be easy. After all,
over the past seven years, these several million intellectuals have made
some progress, and we must recognize this. You people in Jiangsu can
testify to it, for there are more intellectuals here than anywhere else,
am I right? After all, they are reckoned to have made some progress.
What are the democratic parties? The democratic parties are all
intellectuals. There are very few worker-peasant cadres in the democratic parties. Where are there any worker-peasant cadres? Such democratic parties as the Revolutionary [Committee of the National
party], the [China] Democratic League, the [China] Democratic [National] Construction [Association], the Jiu-san Society, and the Peasants and Workers Democratic Party are all groups of intellectuals.
That’s why our party put forward the policy of “Let a hundred
flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend” and the policy of
“Long-term coexistence and mutual supervision.” It is comrade
Jiang Weiqing’s suggestion that I speak on this issue.
There are reasons why we put forward such policies. As regards
“Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend,” should
we still “bloom” or should we “rein in”? Now the non-party personages are saying that the “blooming” is not enough. They are deeply
worried lest we should “rein in.” On the other hand, from what has
taken place, our comrades think that things don’t seem to be right
and are somewhat reluctant [to continue] “blooming,” and would prefer the retreat. What about us? The Center’s opinion has
already been discussed with comrades in various provinces, at the second plenum of the Central Committee last November and at the conference of provincial party secretaries this January. We have a
common opinion. [291] We consider that the policy of “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend” must be adhered
to. We must “bloom” and not “rein in.” What is incorrect should be
criticized. Wrong ideas and wrong works—or, if only part of an article or a work is wrong, then that part—should be criticized. But we
must use the method of persuasion. In short, we must choose
between the method of persuasion and the method of coercion. We
must select one method. Should we “bloom” or “rein in’? We must
pick one. It is our opinion that “blooming” should continue, that
there should be no “reining in.” However, in the course of “blooming” many things will come forth, many things that will not be right
will come forth: then what to do? Should we “suppress” them, or
should we adopt a different method and persuade them? Some comrades have itchy hands and want to suppress people in much the same
way as they would the class enemy: they would either resort to military law, using simple methods; or when the army is not called in,
then use administrative orders to suppress people intolerable in their
eyes. The Center believes this way is bad. You can never win people's
support by suppressing them. Ever since ancient times, no one has
been able to change people’s minds by means of coercion. In dealing
with the enemy, of course, we must take repressive measures; but
after that, we still have to persuade them. For example, as soon as a
captured enemy soldier is disarmed, we begin to persuade him. So
long as a counterrevolutionary is not executed, we must win him
over, educate him, and remold him. High-handed policy cannot
solve any problems. In dealing with problems among the people,
high-handed policy must be discarded.
If [we] “bloom,” if [we] use only persuasion, and do not use administrative orders to suppress, could there be chaos in the world? We
can assure you this is never going to happen. But won't people criticize the shortcomings of our work? Won't they criticize our shortcomings in
newspapers, periodicals, and at forum discussions, so much so
over unable to back down with good grace, and the People’s
Government, like its counterpart in Hungary, would be toppled?
fer to sound
cadres. If we are tainted with bureaucratism and shortcomings,
let people within the party criticize us, then let people outside the
party criticize us. Let them criticize our [292] shortcomings; let
them help us reform our bureaucratism and overcome our shortcomings. Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Could [we] be toppled? Of
course, not. How can the People’s Government be blown down? Last
year Shanghai was hit by a tornado, and some very huge things were
blown away. Houses and petroleum containers were all swept up into
the air. But the Shanghai People’s Government didn’t get swept away.
No matter how hard it blows, I believe a typhoon could never bring
down the People’s Government, the Communist party, Marxism, the
veteran cadres, and the new cadres, provided they genuinely and sincerely serve the people. Those who serve the people half-heartedly
will get half-blown away, while those who never want to serve but to
oppose the people deserve to be blown down.
What’s to be done if there is poison? With the hundred flowers
springing up, many carry poison in their bodies, as if they have
grown out of the mouth of a snake. Speaking of poisonous things,
there is an article entitled “More on the historical experience of the
proletarian dictatorship.” You comrades have probably already read
it. In this article there is such a passage which says that under democratic centralism, if there are shortcomings, they should be criticized: “There is no doubt that the centralism in the system of
democratic centralism must rest on a broad basis of democracy, and
that the party leadership must maintain close ties with the masses.
Any shortcomings in this respect must be firmly criticized and overcome. But such criticism should be made only for the purpose of consolidating democratic centralism and of strengthening the leadership
of the party. It should in no circumstances bring about disorganization
and confusion in the ranks of the proletariat, as our enemies
desire.”22 Is this correct? This is correct and very well said. You

22 The translation of this passage is taken from the English version of this article issued by

the Foreign Languages Press and reproduced in Communist China, 1955-1959: Policy Documents with Analysis (Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 1962), p. 268. For the circumstances
of the article’s original publication, see Text 3, n. 2.
On ideological Work 341
discuss this article with the democratic personages. You
can also ask university students to discuss it. As is made clear in this
article, criticism surely is allowed, but the result and purpose of it
must be the consolidation of democratic centralism and the leadership of the party. It must on no account lead to the disorganization
and confusion in the ranks of the proletariat that our enemies hope
for. These principles must be adhered to, but care must also be taken
to show flexibility. When people are allowed to speak out, they may
say things that are very unpleasant to hear; when a hundred flowers
bloom, some may appear that look very ugly. Labor strikes, student
strikes, petitions, and demonstrations may lead to a bit of chaos.
Their purpose is not necessarily [293] consistent with the above principle. Since 80 percent of the intellectuals have not learned Marxism
and still retain the bourgeois world outlook, how can they possibly
understand that principle when they see the masses start disturbances? When people criticize us at forums, we may find ourselves in
a bad situation. On such occasions, if you try to silence them by saying, “Look, I’ve got a book here, have you ever read it?”, it won’t
work. At any rate, you must learn to solve problems in the same way
as Comrade Peng Chong and Comrade Xu Jiatun handled them.
Had they at the time kept reciting what I quoted a moment ago but
said nothing else, I’m sure they would not have remained in the positions as mayors. Since what [the masses] want to see solved are concrete problems, it is inevitable that sometimes they may go to
extremes.
Some of the literary works are not so correct. In Shanghai they
have put on a play called Substitute a Wild Cat for the Prince.” It is
said that in this play, which I have not seen, demons and ghosts of
every description all make their appearance on the stage. I think it’s
quite all right if only a few monsters appear on the stage. Many people have never seen monsters in their life. I for one have seen very
few. Therefore, I’d like very much to watch Substitute a Wild Cat for

Limao huan taizi, based on a corrupted version of a story about the Empress Liu, consort
of Emperor Zhenzong (998-1023) of the Song dynasty, is a traditional Chinese opera in
which the childless empress, out of jealousy, substitutes a wild cat for a baby prince born to
an imperial concubine.
342 Mao Zedong
the Prince. How can one afford to miss that play if one wants to live
in this world? Nevertheless, we mustn’t watch that kind of stuff too
often, nor should we put on monster shows every day—today, tomorrow, and so on. A few such shows may help us broaden our horizons
and widen our knowledge of the ideology left over by the feudal society in its artistic form, which is different from fairy tales. For example, The Monkey King Turns the Heavenly Palace Upside Down is
everybody’s favorite piece, to which no one seems to have any objection. Other pieces, such as Cleave the Mountain and Rescue the Mother
[Pishan jiu mu], The Golden Mountain Submerged [Shuiman Jin shan],
and The Broken Bridge [Duan qiao], and so forth, are also fairy tales
and are not opposed by anyone either. Even if there were other [undesirable] things, we would not get perturbed. Let them be performed for a while; sooner or later people will criticize them. When
there are only a few novels, and poems are written and published,
and plays, those like Substitute a Wild Cat for the Prince are staged,
why should one be so worried? We should be patient and let people
form their own judgement. Gradually literary and theoretical works
will change for the better. Under no circumstances should we try to
ban them by administrative orders. Comrades, don’t be under any
misapprehension that I am trying to promote demons and ghosts. I
do not advocate those things, but rather want to eliminate them. But
the way to eliminate them is to let them appear and be judged by public opinion. Sooner or later they will either slowly die out or gradually be changed. In the past we tried to use orders [294] to ban
them. We banned them for seven years, and now they have slowly
reappeared. From this you can see that the ban we imposed wasn’t
effective.
Finally, I will talk a bit about letting people both within and outside the party discuss the issues raised by our party. We must say the
same thing: those outside the party must be told the same as those

Sun Wukong danao tian gong is an opera drawn from the immensely popular novel, Journey to the West (also known by Arthur Waley’s translation, Monkey). For details on this favorite literary image for Mao, see Text 3, n. 6, n. 47.
*°Pishan jiu mu, also known as Baolian deng (Precious lotus lamp), is a traditional Chinese
opera based on a Yuan dynasty play, in which the son of a fairy mother and a human father
performs a legendary feat in rescuing his mother. Shuiman Jin shan and Duan qiao are
operas drawn from the popular novel Baishe zhuan (The white snake).
26Mao also mentioned the ban on 8 March, see pp. 242-4.
On ideological Work 343
within the party. For instance, we shouldn’t avoid using such words
as “half-heartedness” when speaking to them. “I insist on saying that
you are half-hearted. What can you do about it?” “No way! You call
me half-hearted, no way!” No way, I want to beat you! I’m not afraid
of having a fight with you. But if you are half-hearted and I say so,
why should you feel uncomfortable? After all, at least half of your
effort is good! You are still half-hearted, and this is talking about your
world outlook, not your attitude toward the socialist system. Certainly you support the socialist system, but not necessarily all of it.
For instance, some are skeptical about the APC system. But if you
ask them whether they endorse socialism in general and the five-year
plan, the answer will be yes. Their answer will also be yes if you ask
them whether they endorse the Constitution. They generally
endorse the Communist party. When it comes to world outlook and
dialectical materialism, however, then they do not endorse, or only partially endorse. It’s for this reason that we say they are half-hearted.
Therefore, you have another task—to further remold [yourselves].
Yours is a dual character: On the one hand, you support socialism;
on the other hand, your support is not without reservation, that’s
why you are half-hearted. You have the desire to get close to the people, but you can’t get close enough and become one with them. After
spending a few days in the countryside, you remain basically
unchanged.
I hear an incident took place [here] in Nanjing. During the Three-
Antis, a writer, who was secretary-general, or something like that, of
the Writers’ Union, went down to the countryside to experience real
life, and yet he took with him city food to eat. When he was ready to
return, he informed Nanjing. As soon as they got the message, members of the Nanjing branch of the Writers’ Union lined up on both
sides of the street to welcome him. This writer, who had just tasted
real life, passed through in the middle, feeling, in a word, very proud
of himself. There was another person who happened to get married
in the middle of the Three-Antis who insisted on spending his wedding night sleeping in the bed that Chiang Kai-shek once used in the
Presidential palace. In short, various kinds of weird things can happen in this world. All these things were exposed during the Three-
Antis and Five-Antis.2” The reports sent by Nanjing [295] to Beijing
For the Three-Antis and Five-Antis, see Text 3, n. 35.
344 Mao Zedong
we saw. Being curious is the common feature of these people: Here is
the bed on which the President once slept. The President’s surname
is Chiang, [and he is no other than] Chiang Kai-shek! Today I’m getting married. I must spend the night on that bed.
We must make use of the democratic parties and democratic personages. A moment ago I spoke of the intellectuals. Those in the democratic parties are all intellectuals. We must make use of them. People
all agree that making use of them is right, but they also say these people are useless, these old good-for-nothings. Even waste materials
must be utilized. Waste materials also have their good points. [We]
should make use of them; [we] should hold meetings [for them]. At
the [Chinese People’s] Political Consultative Conference held
recently in Beijing, I also told them that they should not
adopt a perfunctory attitude toward such annual meetings. On the
contrary, each province should hold such a conference once or twice
a year, and take advantage of the opportunity thus offered to work
on them, persuade them, and make them work for us.28 Since they
are in contact with other people, we can persuade those other people
through them. Such an approach is an active one, which differs from
the passive approach of merely using them. Ours is the policy of
“utilization,” “restriction,” and “transformation.” Our comrades like
the last two aspects, namely, “restriction” and “transformation,” but
not the first one, that is, “utilization.” We only want to transform and
restrict you people. Clearly that policy is meant for the capitalists; it is
inappropriate to talk in this way to the democratic personages just
now. It is inadvisable to talk about the policy of “utilization,” “restriction,” and “transformation” to the democratic personages. But our
comrades, in fact, only [want to] restrict [them]. They don’t “transform” them, nor “utilize” them. They know how to do certain things
we are unable to do. We must be honest with them. In most cases, we
must not play a double game with them, saying one thing to those
within the party, but another to those outside the party. Whatever
I've told you I can tell them, too.29 Of course, any party will keep cer-

28 The CPPCC, the principal organ of the United Front in the PRC, is specifically intended
to symbolize the unity of the CCP and the democratic parties. Mao presumably was exhorting the CCP delegates to it to take more interest, since they would be more likely to query
its usefulness.
29Evidently, as the title of this talk indicates and this remark confirms, Mao in Nanjing was
talking only to party members, so it is hard to understand his frequent use of “you” as if
talking to non-party people.
On ideological Work 345
tain things secret from outsiders. The democratic parties have certain
things which they don’t want to tell us, and vice versa. But things having to do with policy can all be discussed, both within and outside
the party. Materials should all be made accessible to those outside the
party. Certain materials such as those on labor strikes, student
strikes, and demonstrations as well as those exposing our bureaucratism may be printed and distributed for them to read. [296] Since
they normally have no access to such materials, this would be better.
Sometimes the two parties [sic] may hold joint meetings in which
people both within and outside the party can participate. Recently a
propaganda conference was held in Beijing. It was quite a success.
About 150 to 160 non-party personages attended the conference.
They made up 20 percent of the attendance. When you hold meetings with them, you may give them even more seats and let them
take 40 percent. We don’t play two-faced games on issues that have a
bearing on policy. Let them see the materials.
Hard struggle [jianku fendou].*° Both Comrade Jiang Weiqing and
I have discussed this. How long will it take before our people's life
can be improved? Now we must encourage hard struggle. This, however, doesn’t mean that female comrades should not wear brightcolored clothes. They can still wear bright-colored clothes. According to one study, bright-colored clothes are less expensive. Currently,
women have to make two suits of clothes, and wear the brightcolored one underneath a blue jacket. That’s too expensive. We must
practice thrift, and wearing bright-colored clothes is one way to
achieve economy. From the standpoint of thrift and hard struggle,
much work still needs to be done.
Now some comrades evidently have become rather sluggish and
do not do much work. When there is nothing to do, they while away
their time playing poker and mah-jong. I hear that playing poker has
become a fashion, and sometimes people play it all night. We must
cultivate the habit of reading. I have no objection to people's playing
poker, dancing, or going to the theater; but they must know when to
stop. Our strong points are no longer any use. Our strong points are
class struggle, politics, and military affairs. Our weak points are our
lack of culture, lack of science, and lack of technology. We must
learn these things. I’ve already said this in my 1949 article “On the

*°By hard struggle here, Mao probably means living austerely.
346 Mao Zedong
people’s democratic dictatorship.”3! I said our strong points, our specialties, and the things we comprehended soon would become useless, and what we found before us were things unfamiliar to us. Therefore, our task was to learn. Now after seven years, I feel even more
strongly that we must encourage people to study, to acquire the habit
of reading, and to spend their spare time reading. Once they concentrate their spare energy on reading, they won't be as interested in playing poker as they were before. They will find their new interest in
books [297] and study.
It appears that some comrades not only have lost their revolutionary
will, but also lack the death-defying spirit. What does a “death-defying
spirit mean? In All Men Are Brothers,32 there is a fellow named
“Death-defying Third Brother” Shi Xiu. His was the embodiment of
death-defying spirit. In the old days while we were making revolution,
we also displayed that kind of death-defying spirit and strong will. In
recent years, however, some comrades have begun to lose their vigor.
They created such a storm over their wage grades that some even
went on a hunger strike for three days. It’s really a disgrace! I think
one can go without food for four days and still be all right. But on
the third or fourth day of their hunger strike, people began taking
food to them. I think it’s too early. Let them starve for four to five
days. It may get serious if they don’t eat for a whole week, but eating
nothing for three days is no big deal. Why should you bring them
milk and eggs in such a hurry? Some even cried their hearts out
when their ranks, their wages, or the style of their clothes could not
match those of others.
People's wages probably will be adjusted, but the Center hasn't
made the decision yet. Didn't we propose a wage reform and increase
wages last year? Wages should be increased; but in some cases they
have been increased more than they should have been, such as in the
administrative system and perhaps the educational system. Here I’m
not talking about the workers, nor the factories, but the administrative system. There are 1.7 million administrative personnel in our
country (including township [level] cadres, but not those in the

31 Translated in SW4, pp. 411-24.
32For the novel Shuihu zhuan, see Text 8, n. 4.
33This italicized passage and the five subsequent ones correspond roughly to the three paragraphs in SW5, pp. 437-9. New Mao Texts, Vol. 1, pp. 297, 298-9, 299-300, likewise corresponds roughly to XJ5, pp. 420-2.
On ideological Work 347
APCs). In the education system there are 2 million people; in addition there are the commercial system and the enterprise system not
linked with factories. Finally, there are 3.8 million PLA personnel.
Altogether, there are 10 million plus. This is the number of people
who together form the state we have organized. Formerly there were
8 million industrial workers, now they have increased to 12 million. Since ours is a big country, we do need more functionaries.
There should be no question about that. But over 10 million is a bit
too large a figure. Therefore, as soon as we are ready, I mean, as soon
as outlets can be found, we plan to send a number of people back to
the factories and APCs. Production is mainly carried out in two sectors: one is industry; the other is agriculture. These are the two sectors on which we rely in terms of production. Now it appears that
there are inequalities in our current wage system which have caused
discontent among the people. I think the more people complain, the
easier this problem can be solved. Because the more people complain, [298] the more justification for us to make an adjustment. We
must maintain the spirit, the vitality, and the enthusiasm we used to
display in the years of revolution and class struggle. Revolutionary
enthusiasm means carrying one’s work through to the end. Everybody has a life, but how long that life can last varies from person to
person—sixty [years], seventy, eighty, ninety. There's a painter named
Qi Baishi who is 98.34 We'll see how long you people can live. When


you are not truly able to work, you should more or less do something; and when you work, you should show enthusiasm. Lacking enthusiasm and not moving forward is not a good phenomenon, and we must
criticize it. Sometimes it is because there are more hands than needed
in an office, where too many people sit around without anything to
do. If they don’t play poker, what else can they do? When you have
a bunch of people and there are no more than a few minor things for
them to do, don’t you think they will end up playing poker?
We must strengthen our ideological and political work. How are
things going in the army? There are quite a few military cadres here
today. Isn’t peacetime political work different from wartime political
work? During the war, we had to stay close to the masses; we had to
maintain unity between officers and men, and between the army and
the people. At that time, because it was wartime, people tended to forrons
afaliate
a few
3 ta. . . .
*Qi Baishi (1863-1957) was at this time actually only 93. He died six months later in September. BDRC 1, pp. 302-4.
give us our shortcomings. Now we are in time of peace. We h 4
enemy before us, nor is there a war going on. All we do is training. no 4
if we have shortcomings, very naturally people will find it hard Now 4
give us. The same can be said if you work in the government or epee :
difficult for people to forgive us. Now we have instituted the syst
military ranks as well as various other systems. While these s We Om” Of
being implemented, we must continue to maintain the nity her, Bite
officers and men by integrating ourselves with the soldiers We als _ oa
allow them to criticize us. For example, when a party on gress om te |
vened, trey should be given the opportunity to criticize us Con on
Chen Y0°> once made an apt remark in the East China Milita Re . ‘
during the movement against the Three-Antis, sayin g that we had be e
aes dictatorship for several years, could we now let other 6 K
exercise dictatorship over us for a week? If we can. order people Peo oF
for years, why can’t we let our subordinates say something in criticig ‘ F |
us for a week, just a week? What he [299] meant to say 1s that we bo 5
let them [criticize us). I agree with what [he] said. We should br. Nt "
selves and let our subordinates criticize us for a week. But before hes
make the criticism, we should first get ready and give a talk about o Fj
shortcomings, such as one, two, three, four— Just three or four exam l
would be enough. Then let comrades have their say to supplement or writ 4
icize what ‘you have just said. Those who have rendered great service can |
rest assured that people won't forget the history of our achievements As 4
for | the soldiers, they should also be given the opportunity to criticize 4
give us our shortcomings. Now we are in time of peace. We have no
enemy before us, nor is there a war going on. All we do is training. Now
if we have shortcomings, very naturally people will find it hard to
give us. The same can be said if you work in the government or elsewhere; it is
difficult for people to forgive us. Now we have instituted the system of
military ranks as well as various other systems. While these systems are
being implemented, we must continue to maintain the unity between
officers and men by integrating ourselves with the soldiers. We also must
allow them to criticize us. For example, when a party congress is convened, they should be given the opportunity to criticize us. Comrade
Chen Yi once made an apt remark in the East China Military Region
during the movement against the Three-Antis, saying that we had been
exercising dictatorship for several years, could we now let other people
exercise dictatorship over us for a week? If we can order people around
for years, why can’t we let our subordinates say something in criticizing
us for a week, just a week? What he [299] meant to say is that we should
let them [criticize us]. I agree with what [he] said. We should brace ourselves and let our subordinates criticize us for a week. But before they
make the criticism, we should first get ready and give a talk about our
shortcomings, such as one, two, three, four—just three or four examples
would be enough. Then let comrades have their say to supplement or criticize what you have just said. Those who have rendered great service can
rest assured that people won't forget the history of our achievements. As
for the soldiers, they should also be given the opportunity to criticize us.


their platoon leaders and company commanders. It would be best if such
criticism meetings could be held once a year for a few days. We have
tried before, and the outcome was beneficial. This is what we call democracy in military affairs, democracy in the army. If this [could be maintained], then the close relations between superiors and subordinate,
between officers and men, between the army and the people, and
between the army and local authorities would not be damaged because
of the system of military ranks and various other systems. There is no
reason why the relations between superiors and subordinates should
not be completely equal; that officers and men, military cadres
and soldiers should form an indivisible whole; and that the army and
the people, [the army] and local party and administrative authorities
should remain close to each other.
The entire party should put emphasis on ideological work. The
theme of my talk today is ideological work and ideological
problems. This is because these problems have become relatively
prominent of late, particularly those caused by the policy of “Let a
hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend” and that of
“Long-term coexistence and mutual supervision.” People are asking
whether “blooming” should be allowed to continue, lest it should
involve too much risk. Long-term coexistence —why should people be
afraid of long-term coexistence? “You democratic parties, where were
you when we were making revolution?” Whenever you bring this up,
they have to endure humiliation without knowing what to say. But
we say [that] at this time we should not bring up old scores, nor
should we rely on our titles, our positions, and our seniority. Speaking of
your seniority, that is, the number of years you have been a revolutionary, there is indeed no question about that. You should not, however, rely
on it. You may have great seniority, [stretching back] decades; but if one
day you blunder, or say something impudent, then people won't forgive
you. If you fail to get things done right, even though you have done
many good things, even though your position is high, if today you have
done something wrong and hurt the people, they won't forgive you.
Therefore, we must not rely on our seniority to earn our keep, but on our
ability to settle things correctly. We can rely only on our being correct;
never should we rely on our seniority. Will you rely on being correct,
[300] or will you rely on seniority? Relying on seniority won't earn
your keep if you do the wrong thing or handle problems in the wrong
way. People won't forgive you for that despite your seniority. In view of
this, we might as well forget about our seniority and try to deal with
things as if we didn’t have any official titles at all. In other words, don’t
put on bureaucratic airs. No bureaucratic airs. Drop them. Meet the people, meet subordinates. Don’t assume bureaucratic airs. Don’t rely on seniority to earn your keep. We must take all this seriously, particularly the
veteran cadres. Junior cadres don't have such a burden. They are relatively unencumbered. They say: “Being old does not necessarily mean
you're good! You have indeed been making revolution for decades.
And at the time when you were making revolution, we were still
crawling on the floor.” They can never beat us on that score. That’s
why they are free of encumbrances.
We must treat the new cadres as our equals. In many aspects, we are
inferior to them. Take knowledge for example, we must learn from
them. The current generation alone is able to pass on knowledge to
the working class and the peasantry. For do we have any other intellectuals at present? No, we don’t! About 80 percent of today’s college
[students] are the sons and daughters of landlords, rich peasants, and
capitalists. At secondary school, according to Jiangsu statistics,
60 percent of higher middle school [students] and over 40 percent of
lower middle school [students] are also the sons and daughters of
landlords, rich peasants, and capitalists. Only in elementary schools
[is the balance reversed]: sons and daughters of landlords, rich peasants, and capitalists make up 20 to 30 percent, whereas children of
workers and peasants possibly make up 70 to 80 percent. It will take
a very long time, probably ten to twenty years, before such a situation can be changed. Therefore, today’s intellectuals are bourgeois
intellectuals, and we must patiently win them over. On the other
hand, we must persuade them, help them to make progress and
accept Marxism; in other words, we must educate them. In order to
become teachers, first they must learn [to be students]. On the other
hand, we must learn from them. We must learn from the bourgeois
intellectuals, for no other intellectuals apart from them are available.
The proletariat must have its own intellectuals. Our country,
under the leadership of the proletariat, which alone has a bright
future. All other classes are moving toward becoming one with it.
For example, [301] take the peasants. In the future, they'll become
agricultural workers. The APC will become a state farm within a few
decades and APC members will become agricultural workers. The
capitalists today are changing; and within a few years, they, too, will
become workers. Everybody in our society will become a worker.
That’s why the working class alone has a future. All others are classes
in transition. The proletariat must have its own intellectuals, intellectuals who will serve it heart and soul, not half-heartedly. It is roughly
estimated that by the time the third FYP is fulfilled [i.e., 1967],
instead of the current percentage of a dozen or so, or 15 percent, or
17 percent of the five million intellectuals—(This includes some of
those who have joined the party but should not be counted as party
members. For joining the party doesn’t necessarily mean they have
accepted the Marxist world outlook completely. Some who do not
accept the Marxist world outlook never join the party. Lu Xun was
that kind of person. Who was better, Lu Xun or Chen Duxiu, Zhang
Guotao, or Gao Gang? I think Lu Xun was better. On the one hand
a party member, on the other a non-party personage. When we examine
individuals, those who have joined the party are not necessarily
better party members.)—[by then] we will have expanded [our
ranks] to one-third of the intellectuals. They will either join
the party or, while remaining outside the party, accept the Marxist
world outlook and get closer to the workers and peasants. The other
two-thirds (in proportion) will also change for the better during those ten-odd years,
from being half-hearted to being 70-percent-hearted. Their tails
will shrink, and they will make certain progress. We must strive for such a
situation. Because I have been speaking of ideological problems, I have
dealt with the problem of the intellectuals.
As for the many problems in connection with the collectivization
movement, I can't talk about them [today]. Collectivization is a good
thing, which has definitely displayed its superiority. Since this has
been borne out by many of the APCs, there should be no question
about it. But some comrades still remain skeptical, while some nonparty personages still disagree. Therefore, we must explain [things] to
them.

--- Notes

*Zhang Taiyan (Zhang Binglin) (1868-1936) was a scholar, editor, and anti-Manchu revolutionary; see BDRC 1, pp. 92-8.
Un Ideological Work
however, people like us could not come to this place, nor
In the past,
were we allowed to go to any other big cities. Seen in this light,
his lightness have changed; and they have been changed for quite a few
things in the realm of the superstructure and political system. The
transformation of the economic system into a socialist one came
over the last few years, and now can be said to have been basically
accomplished. All this is the result of our struggle over the past few
decades. If one takes the history of the Communist party, it’s something over thirty years; [or] if one counts from the anti-imperialist
[struggle] that began with the Opium War, over a hundred years, we
have done just one thing—we have engaged in class struggle.

Mao here seems to mean only the modernization of culture in the narrow sense, not the
total and wholesale transformation of the human soul undertaken later in the “Great Pro-letarian Cultural Revolution.”
Un Ideological Work
machines; we must also understand science. In this regard, in the past
we did hand work; we used hand tools to make tables, chairs, and
stools, using our hands to grow food and plant cotton, everything by
hand. But now [we have to] change to using machines; [to acquire]
the skill to operate machines is indeed a tremendous revolution.
Without such a revolution, if we have only changed our politics and
our social system, ours will remain a poor country, an agricultural
country, and a country with only handicraft industry and handicraft
skills. For this reason, we must carry out a cultural revolution. We
think you all understand and are all aware of the changed circumstances. It seems, however, as though some people are still not quite

*Mao is using approximations of contemporary statistics; his figures translate into 110 million tons for 1949 and 180 million tons for 1956. For official figures, see State Statistical
Bureau, Ten Great Years (Beijing, Foreign Languages Press, 1960), p. 119.
>The only twelve-year programs to be drawn up formally were for agriculture and science;
see Origins 1, pp. 18, 35.
Un Ideological Work
plan, and an industrial plan, which are to be carried out step by step
in our work and production. Such a matter is easy for us older folks
to understand, but not for the youth. It seems as though everything
must be made perfect as soon as they come into the world. There-fore, we must educate them, we must educate the broad masses of the
people, and in particular the youth, why they have to work hard and
start from scratch.
Today, we must start from scratch, for our ancestors left us very little. Who were our ancestors? Imperialism, feudalism, and Chiang Kai-