WORK

March 12, 1957

Comrades,

This conference has gone very well. Many questions have been raised during
the conference and we have learned about many things. I shall now make a
few remarks on questions the comrades here have been discussing.

We are living in a period of great social change. Chinese society has been
in the midst of great changes for a long time. The War of Resistance Against
Japan was one period of great change and the War of Liberation another. But
the present changes are much more profound in character than the earlier
ones. We are now building socialism. Hundreds of millions of people are taking
part in the movement for socialist transformation. Class relations are changing
throughout the country. The petty bourgeoisie in agriculture and handicrafts
and the bourgeoisie in industry and commerce have both experienced changes.
The social and economic system has been changed; individual economy has been
transformed into collective economy, and capitalist private ownership is
being transformed into socialist public ownership. Changes of such magnitude
are of course reflected in people's minds. Man's social being determines
his consciousness. These great changes in our social system are reflected
differently among people of different classes, strata and social groups.
The masses eagerly support them, for life itself has confirmed that socialism
is the only way out for China. Overthrowing the old social system and
establishing a new one, the system of socialism, means a great struggle,
a great change in the social system and in men's relations with each other.
It should be said that the situation is basically sound. But the new social
system has only just been established and requires time for its consolidation.
It must not be assumed that the new system can be completely consolidated
the moment it is established; that is impossible. It has to be consolidated
step by step. To achieve its ultimate consolidation, it is necessary not
only to bring about the socialist industrialization of the country and persevere
in the socialist revolution on the economic front, but also to carry on constant
and arduous socialist revolutionary struggles and socialist education on
the political and ideological fronts. Moreover, various complementary
international conditions are required. In China the struggle to consolidate
the socialist system, the struggle to decide whether socialism or capitalism
will prevail, will take a long historical period. But we should all realize
that the new system of socialism will unquestionably be consolidated. We
can assuredly build a socialist state with modern industry, modern agriculture,
and modern science and culture. This is the first point I want to make.

Second, the situation regarding the intellectuals in our country. No accurate
statistics are available on the number of intellectuals in China. It is estimated
that there are about five million of all types, including both higher and
ordinary intellectuals. Of these five million the overwhelming majority are
patriotic, love our People's Republic, and are willing to serve the people
and the socialist state. A small number do not quite welcome the socialist
system and are not very happy about it. They are still sceptical about socialism,
but they are patriotic when it comes to facing imperialism. The number of
intellectuals who are hostile to our state is very small. They do not like
our state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and yearn for the old society.
Whenever there is an opportunity, they will stir up trouble and attempt to
overthrow the Communist Party and restore the old China. As between the
proletarian and the bourgeois lines, as between the socialist and the capitalist
lines, they stubbornly choose to follow the latter. In fact this line is
not practicable, and therefore they are actually ready to capitulate to
imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism. Such persons are found
in political circles and in industrial and commercial, cultural and educational,
scientific and technological and religious circles, and they are extremely
reactionary. They account for only 1 or 2 or 3 per cent of the five
million intellectuals. The overwhelming majority, or well over 90 per cent,
of the total of five million, support the socialist system in varying degrees.
Many of them are not yet quite clear on how to work under socialism and on
how to understand, handle and solve many of the new problems.

As far as the attitude of the five million intellectuals towards Marxism
is concerned, one may say that over 10 per cent, comprising the Communists
and sympathizers, are relatively familiar with Marxism and take a firm stand
-- the stand of the proletariat. Among the total of five million, they are
a minority, but they are the nucleus and a powerful force. The majority have
the desire to study Marxism and have already learned a little, but they are
not yet familiar with it. Some of them still have doubts, their stand is
not yet firm and they vacillate in moments of stress. This section of
intellectuals, constituting the majority of the five million, is still in
the middle. Those who strongly oppose Marxism, or are hostile to it, are
very few in number. Some actually disagree with Marxism, although they do
not openly say so. There will be people like this for a long time to come,
and we should allow them to disagree. Take some of the idealists for example.
They may support the socialist political and economic system but disagree
with the Marxist world outlook. The same holds true for the patriotic people
in religious circles. They are theists and we are atheists. We cannot force
them to accept the Marxist world outlook. In short, the attitude towards
Marxism of the five million intellectuals may be summed up as follows: Those
who support Marxism and are relatively familiar with it are a minority, those
who oppose it are also a minority, and the majority support Marxism but are
not familiar with it and support it in varying degrees. Here there are three
different kinds of stand -- resolute, wavering and antagonistic. It should
be recognized that this situation will continue for a very long time. If
we fail to recognize this, we shall make too great a demand on others and
at the same time set ourselves too small a task. Our comrades in propaganda
work have the task of disseminating Marxism. This has to be done gradually
and done well, so that people willingly accept it. We cannot force people
to accept Marxism, we can only persuade them. If over a period of several
five-year plans a fairly large number of our intellectuals accept Marxism
and acquire a fairly good grasp of it through practice, through their work
and life, through class struggle, production and scientific activity, that
will be fine. And that is what we hope will happen.

Third, the question of the remoulding of the intellectuals. Ours is a culturally
underdeveloped country. For a vast country like ours, five million intellectuals
are too few. Without intellectuals our work cannot be done well, and we should
therefore do a good job of uniting with them. Socialist society mainly comprises
three sections of people, the workers, the peasants and the intellectuals.
Intellectuals are mental workers. Their work is in the service of the people,
that is, in the service of the workers and the peasants. As far as the majority
of the intellectuals are concerned, they can serve the new China as they
did the old, serve the proletariat as they did the bourgeoisie. When the
intellectuals served the old China, the left wing resisted, the middle wavered,
and only the right wing stood firm. Now, when it comes to serving the new
society, the reverse is the case. The left wing stands firm, the middle wavers
(this wavering in the new society is different from that in the old), and
the right wing resists. Moreover, intellectuals are educators. Our newspapers
are educating the people every day. Our writers and artists, scientists and
technicians, professors and teachers are all educating students, educating
the people. Being educators and teachers, they have the duty to be educated
first. And all the more so in the present period of great change in the social
system. They have had some Marxist education in the last few years, and some
have studied very hard and made great progress. But the majority still have
a long way to go before they can completely replace their bourgeois world
outlook with the proletarian world outlook. Some have read a few Marxist
books and think themselves quite learned, but what they have read has not
sunk in, has not taken root in their minds, so that they don't know how to
use it and their class feelings remain unchanged. Others are conceited;
having picked up some book-phrases, they think themselves terrific and
are very cocky; but whenever a storm blows up, they take a stand very different
from that of the workers and the great majority of the working peasants.
They waver while the latter stand firm, they equivocate while the latter
are forthright. Hence it is wrong to assume that people who educate others
no longer need to be educated themselves and no longer need to study, or
that socialist remoulding means remoulding others -- the landlords, the
capitalists and the individual producers -- but not the intellectuals. The
intellectuals, too, need remoulding, and not only those who have not changed
their basic stand; everybody should study and remould himself. I say "everybody",
and that includes all of us present here. Conditions are changing all the
time, and to adapt one's thinking to the new conditions, one must study.
Even those who have a better grasp of Marxism and are comparatively firm
in their proletarian stand have to go on studying, have to absorb what is
new and study new problems. Unless they rid their minds of what is unsound,
intellectuals cannot shoulder the task of educating others. Naturally, we
have to learn while teaching and be pupils while serving as teachers. To
be a good teacher, one must first be a good pupil. There are many things
which cannot be learned from books alone; one must learn from those engaged
in production, from the workers, from the peasants and, in schools, from
the students, from those one teaches. In my opinion, the majority of our
intellectuals are willing to learn. Given their willingness, it is our duty
sincerely to help them study; we must help them in an appropriate way and
must not resort to compulsion and force them to study.

Fourth, the question of the integration of the intellectuals with the masses
of workers and peasants. Since they are to serve the masses of workers and
peasants, intellectuals must, first and foremost, know them and be familiar
with their life, work and ideas. We encourage intellectuals to go among the
masses, to go to factories and villages. It is very bad if you never in all
your life meet a worker or a peasant. Our state personnel, writers, artists,
teachers and scientific research workers should seize every opportunity to
get close to the workers and peasants. Some can go to factories or villages
just to look around; this may be called "looking at the flowers on horseback"
and is better than doing nothing at all. Others can stay for a few months,
conducting investigations and making friends; this may be called "dismounting
to look at the flowers". Still others can stay and live there for a considerable
time, say, two or three years or even longer; this may be called "settling
down". Some intellectuals do live among the workers and peasants,
for instance, technicians in factories, technical personnel in agriculture
and teachers in rural schools. They should do their work well and become
one with the workers and peasants. We should make it the common practice
to get close to the workers and peasants, in other words, we should have
large numbers of intellectuals doing so. Not all of them of course; some
are unable to go for one reason or another, but we hope that as many as possible
will go. Nor can they all go at the same time; they can go in batches at
different times. In the Yenan days, intellectuals were urged to make direct
contact with workers and peasants. Many intellectuals in Yenan were very
confused in their thinking and came forth with all sorts of queer arguments.
We held a forum and advised them to go among the masses. Later on, many did,
and the results were very good. Until an intellectual's book knowledge is
integrated with practice, it is incomplete or indeed very incomplete. It
is chiefly through reading books that intellectuals acquire the experience
of our predecessors. Of course, reading books cannot be dispensed with, but
by itself it does not solve problems. One must study the actual situation,
study practical experience and factual material, and make friends with the
workers and peasants. Making friends with the workers and peasants is no
easy job. Today also there are people who go to factories or villages, and
the results are good in some cases but not in others. What is involved here
is the question of stand or attitude, that is, of one's world outlook. We
advocate "letting a hundred schools of thought contend", and there may be
many schools and trends in every branch of learning, but on the matter of
world outlook, there are basically only two schools in our time, the proletarian
and the bourgeois. It is one or the other, either the proletarian or the
bourgeois world outlook. The communist world outlook is the world outlook
of the proletariat and of no other class. Most of our present intellectuals
come from the old society and from families of non-working people. Even those
who come from workers' or peasants' families are still bourgeois intellectuals,
because the education they received before liberation was a bourgeois education
and their world outlook is fundamentally bourgeois. If the intellectuals
do not discard the old and replace it by the proletarian world outlook, they
will remain different from the workers and peasants in their viewpoint, stand
and feelings and will be like square pegs in round holes, and the workers
and peasants will not open their hearts to them. If the intellectuals integrate
themselves with the workers and peasants and make friends with them, the
Marxism they have learned from books can become truly their own. In order
to have a real grasp of Marxism, one must learn it not only from books, but
chiefly through class struggle, through practical work and close contact
with the masses of workers and peasants. When in addition to studying some
Marxism our intellectuals have gained some understanding of it through close
contact with the masses of workers and peasants and through their own practical
work, we will all be speaking the same language, not only the common language
of patriotism and of the socialist system, but probably even that of the
communist world outlook. If that happens, all of us will certainly work much
better.

Fifth, rectification. Rectification means correcting one's way of thinking
and style of work. Rectification movements were conducted within the Communist
Party during the anti-Japanese war, during the War of Liberation, and in
the early days after the founding of the People's Republic of China. Now
the Central Committee of the Communist Party has decided on another rectification
within the Party to be started this year. Non-Party people may take part
or abstain as they wish. The main thing in this rectification movement is
to criticize the following incorrect ways of thinking and styles of work
-- subjectivism, bureaucracy and sectarianism. As in the rectification movement
during the anti-Japanese war, the method this time will be first to study
a number of documents, and then, on the basis of such study, to examine one's
own thinking and work and unfold criticism and self-criticism to expose
shortcomings and mistakes and promote what is right and good. On the one
hand, we must be strict and conduct criticism and self-criticism with respect
to mistakes and shortcomings seriously, not perfunctorily, and correct them;
on the other hand, we must use the method of the "gentle breeze and mild
rain" and that of "learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones and curing
the sickness to save the patient", and we must oppose the method of "finishing
people off with a single blow".

Ours is a great Party, a glorious Party, a correct Party. This must be
affirmed as a fact. But we still have shortcomings, and this, too, must be
affirmed as a fact. We should not affirm everything about ourselves, but
only what is correct; at the same time, we should not negate everything about
ourselves, but only what is wrong. Achievements are the main thing in our
work, and yet there are not a few shortcomings and mistakes. That is why
we need a rectification movement. Will it undermine our Party's prestige
if we criticize our own subjectivism, bureaucracy and sectarianism? I think
not. On the contrary, it will serve to enhance the Party's prestige. This
was borne out by the rectification movement during the anti-Japanese war.
It enhanced the prestige of our Party, of our Party comrades and our veteran
cadres, and it also enabled the new cadres to make great progress. Which
of the two was afraid of criticism, the Communist Party or the Kuomintang?
The Kuomintang. It prohibited criticism, but that did not save it from final
defeat. The Communist Party does not fear criticism because we are Marxists,
the truth is on our side, and the basic masses, the workers and peasants,
are on our side. As we used to say, the rectification movement is "a widespread
movement of Marxist education".[1] Rectification
means the whole Party studying Marxism through criticism and self-criticism.
We can certainly learn more Marxism in the course of the rectification movement.

The transformation and construction of China depend on us for leadership.
When we have rectified our way of thinking and style of work, we shall enjoy
greater initiative in our work, become more capable and do a better job.
Our country has need of many people who whole-heartedly serve the masses
and the cause of socialism and who are determined to bring about changes.
We Communists should all be people of this kind. Formerly, in the old China,
it was a crime to talk about reforms, and offenders would be beheaded or
imprisoned. Nevertheless there were determined reformers who were dauntless
and published books and newspapers, educated and organized the people and
waged indomitable struggles under every kind of difficulty. The state, the
people's democratic dictatorship, has paved the way for the rapid economic
and cultural development of our country. It is only a few years since the
establishment of our state, and yet people can already see the unprecedented
flowering of the economy, culture, education and science. In building up
the new China we Communists are likewise not daunted by any difficulties.
But we cannot accomplish this all on our own. We need a good number of non-Party
people with high ideals who will keep to the socialist and communist orientation
and fight dauntlessly with us to transform and construct our society. It
is a colossal task to ensure a better life for the several hundred million
people of China and to make our economically and culturally backward country
a prosperous and powerful one with a high level of culture. And it is precisely
in order to be able to shoulder this task more competently and work better
with all non-Party people who have high ideals and the determination to institute
reforms that we must conduct rectification movements both now and in the
future, and constantly rid ourselves of whatever is wrong. Thoroughgoing
materialists are fearless; we hope that all our fellow fighters will courageously
shoulder their responsibilities and overcome all difficulties, fearing no
setbacks or gibes, nor hesitating to criticize us Communists and give us
their suggestions. "He who is not afraid of death by a thousand cuts dares
to unhorse the emperor" -- this is the dauntless spirit needed in our struggle
to build socialism and communism. On our part, we Communists should create
conditions helpful to those who co-operate with us, establish good comradely
relations with them in our common work and unite with them in our joint struggle.

Sixth, the question of one-sidedness. One-sidedness means thinking in terms
of absolutes, that is, taking a metaphysical approach to problems. In the
appraisal of our work, it is one-sided to affirm everything or to negate
everything. There still are quite a few people inside the Communist Party
and many outside it who do just that. To affirm everything is to see only
the good and not the bad, and to welcome only praise and not criticism. To
talk as though our work is good in every respect is at variance with the
facts. It is not true that everything is good; there are shortcomings and
mistakes. But neither is it true that everything is bad; that too is at variance
with the facts. Here analysis is necessary. To negate everything is to think,
without prior analysis, that nothing has been done well and that the great
task of building socialism, the great struggle in which hundreds of millions
of people are participating, is a complete mess with nothing commendable
about it. Although there is a difference between many of those who hold such
views and those who are hostile to the socialist system, these views are
very mistaken and harmful and can only dishearten people. It is wrong to
appraise our work either from the standpoint of affirming everything or from
the standpoint of negating everything. We should criticize those people who
take such a one-sided approach to problems, though of course we should do
so in the spirit of "learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones and
curing the sickness to save the patient", and we should give them help.

Some people say: Since there is to be a rectification movement and since
everyone is asked to express his opinions, one-sidedness is unavoidable,
and therefore it seems that in calling for the elimination of one-sidedness,
you really don't want people to speak up. Is this assertion right? It is
naturally difficult for everyone to be free from any trace of one-sidedness.
People always examine and handle problems and express their views in the
light of their own experience, and unavoidably they sometimes show a little
one-sidedness. However, shouldn't we ask them gradually to overcome
their one-sidedness and look at problems in a relatively all-sided way? In
my opinion, we should. We would be stagnating and we would be approving
one-sidedness and contradicting the whole purpose of rectification if we
did not make the demand that from day to day and from year to year more and
more people should view problems in a relatively all-sided way. One-sidedness
violates dialectics. We want gradually to disseminate dialectics and to ask
everyone gradually to learn the use of the scientific dialectical method.
Some of the articles appearing today are extremely pretentious but empty,
without any analysis of problems or reasoned argument, and they carry no
conviction. There should be fewer and fewer articles of this kind. When writing
an article, one should not be for ever thinking, "How smart I am!" but should
put oneself on a completely equal footing with one's readers. You may have
been in the revolution for a long time, but if you say something wrong people
will refute you all the same. The more you put on airs, the less people will
stand for it and the less they will care to read your articles. We should
do our work honestly, take an analytical approach, write convincingly and
never strike a pose to overawe people.

Some people say that while one-sidedness can be avoided in a lengthy article,
it is unavoidable in a short essay. Must a short essay inevitably be one-sided?
As I have just said, it is usually hard to avoid one-sidedness, and there
is nothing terrible if it creeps in to a certain extent. Criticism would
be hampered if everyone were required to look at problems in an absolutely
all-sided way. Nevertheless, we do ask everyone to try to approach problems
in a relatively all-sided way and try to avoid one-sidedness not only in
long articles but also in short articles, short essays included. Some people
argue, how is it possible to undertake analysis in an essay of a few hundred
or one to two thousand words? I say, why not? Didn't Lu Hsun do it? The
analytical method is dialectical. By analysis, we mean analysing the
contradictions in things. And sound analysis is impossible without intimate
knowledge of life and without real understanding of the relevant contradictions.
Lu Hsun's later essays are so penetrating and powerful and yet so free from
one-sidedness precisely because by then he had grasped dialectics. Some of
Lenin's articles can also be called short essays they are satirical and pungent,
but without one-sidedness. Almost all of Lu Hsun's essays were directed at
the enemy; some of Lenin's essays were directed at the enemy and others at
comrades. Can the Lu Hsun type of essay be used against mistakes and shortcomings
within the ranks of the people? I think it can. Of course, we must make a
distinction between ourselves and the enemy, and we must not adopt an
antagonistic stand towards comrades and treat them as we would the enemy.
One must speak warmly and sincerely with a desire to protect the cause of
the people and raise their political consciousness and must not indulge in
ridicule or attack.

What if one dare not write? Some people say they dare not write even when
they have something to say, lest they should offend people and be criticized.
I think such worries can be cast aside. Ours is a people's democratic state,
and it provides an environment conducive to writing in the service of the
people. The policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools
of thought contend offers additional guarantees for the flowering of science
and the arts. If what you say is right, you need not fear criticism, and
through debate you can further explain your correct views. If what you say
is wrong, then criticism can help you correct your mistakes, and there is
nothing bad in that. In our society, militant revolutionary criticism and
counter-criticism is the healthy method used to expose and resolve
contradictions, develop science and the arts and ensure success in all our
work.

Seventh, whether to "open wide" or to "restrict"? This is a question of policy.
"Let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend"
is a long-term as well as a fundamental policy; it is not just a temporary
policy. In the discussion, comrades expressed disapproval of "restriction",
and I think this view is the correct one. The Central Committee of the Party
is of the opinion that we must "open wide", not "restrict".

Two alternative methods of leading our country, or in other words two alternative
policies, can be adopted -- to "open wide" or to "restrict". To "open wide"
means to let all people express their opinions freely, so that they dare
to speak, dare to criticize and dare to debate; it means not being afraid
of wrong views or anything poisonous; it means to encourage argument and
criticism among people holding different views, allowing freedom both for
criticism and for counter-criticism; it means not coercing people with wrong
views into submission but convincing them by reasoning. To "restrict" means
to forbid people to air differing opinions and express wrong ideas, and to
"finish them off with a single blow" if they do so. That is the way to aggravate
rather than to resolve contradictions. To "open wide", or to "restrict"?
We must choose one or the other of these two policies. We choose the former,
because it is the policy which will help to consolidate our country and develop
our culture.

We intend to use the policy of "opening wide" to unite with the several million
intellectuals and change their present outlook. As I have said above, the
overwhelming majority of the intellectuals in our country want to make progress
and remould themselves, and they are quite capable of being remoulded. In
this connection, the policy we adopt will play a big role. The question of
the intellectuals is above all one of ideology, and it is not helpful but
harmful to resort to crude and heavy-handed measures for solving ideological
questions. The remoulding of the intellectuals, and especially the changing
of their world outlook, is a process that requires a long period of time.
Our comrades must understand that ideological remoulding involves long-term,
patient and painstaking work, and they must not attempt to change people's
ideology, which has been shaped over decades of life by giving a few lectures
or by holding a few meetings. Persuasion, not coercion, is the only way to
convince people. Coercion will never result in convincing people. To try
to make them submit by force simply won't do. This kind of method is permissible
in dealing with the enemy, but absolutely impermissible in dealing with comrades
or friends. What if we don't know how to convince others? Then we have to
learn. We must learn to conquer erroneous ideas through debate and reasoning.

"Let a hundred flowers blossom" is the way to develop the arts, and "let
a hundred schools of thought contend" the way to develop science. Not only
is this a good method for developing science and the arts, but, applied more
widely, it is a good method for all our work. It enables us to make fewer
mistakes. There are many things we don't understand and are therefore unable
to tackle, but through debate and struggle we shall come to understand them
and learn how to tackle them. Truth develops through debate between different
views. The same method can be adopted in dealing with whatever is poisonous
and anti-Marxist, because in the struggle against it Marxism will develop.
This is development through the struggle of opposites, development conforming
to dialectics.

Haven't people discussed the true, the good and the beautiful all through
the ages? Their opposites are the false, the evil and the ugly. The former
would not exist without the latter. Truth stands in opposition to falsehood.
In society as in nature, every entity invariably divides into different parts,
only there are differences in content and form under different concrete
conditions. There will always be wrong things and ugly phenomena. There will
always be such opposites as the right and the wrong, the good and the evil,
the beautiful and the ugly. The same is true of fragrant flowers and poisonous
weeds. The relationship between them is one of the unity and struggle of
opposites. Only by comparing can one distinguish. Only by making distinctions
and waging struggle can there be development. Truth develops through its
struggle against falsehood. This is how Marxism develops. Marxism develops
in the struggle against bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology, and it is
only through struggle that it can develop.

We are for the policy of "opening wide"; so far there has been too little
of it rather than too much. We must not be afraid of "opening wide", nor
should we be afraid of criticism and poisonous weeds. Marxism is scientific
truth; it fears no criticism and cannot be overthrown by criticism. The same
holds for the Communist Party and the People's Government; they fear no criticism
and cannot be toppled by it. There will always be things that are wrong,
and that is nothing to be afraid of. Recently, ghosts and monsters have been
presented on the stage. Some comrades have become very worried by this spectacle.
In my opinion, a little of this doesn't matter much; within a few decades
such ghosts and monsters will disappear from the stage altogether, and you
won't be able to see them even if you want to. We must promote what is right
and oppose what is wrong, but we need not be frightened if people come in
contact with erroneous things. It will solve no problem simply to issue
administrative orders forbidding people to have any contact with perverse
and ugly phenomena and with erroneous ideas, or forbidding them to see ghosts
and monsters on the stage. Of course, I am not advocating the spread of such
stuff, I am only saying "a little of this doesn't matter much". It is not
at all strange that erroneous things should exist, nor should this give any
cause for fear; indeed it helps people learn to struggle against them better.
Even great storms are not to be feared. It is amid great storms that human
society progresses.

In our country bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology and anti-Marxist ideologies
will persist for a long time. Basically, the socialist system has been
established in our country. While we have won basic victory in transforming
the ownership of the means of production, we are even farther from complete
victory on the political and ideological fronts. In the ideological field,
the question of who will win out, the proletariat or the bourgeoisie, has
not yet been really settled. We still have to wage a protracted struggle
against bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology. It is wrong not to understand
this and to give up ideological struggle. All erroneous ideas, all poisonous
weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be subjected to criticism; in no
circumstances should they be allowed to spread freely. However, the criticism
should be fully reasoned, analytical and convincing, and neither rough and
bureaucratic, nor metaphysical and dogmatic.

For a long time now people have been levelling a lot of criticism at dogmatism.
That is as it should be. But they often neglect to criticize revisionism.
Both dogmatism and revisionism run counter to Marxism. Marxism must necessarily
advance; it must develop along with practice and cannot stand still. It would
become lifeless if it were stagnant and stereotyped. However, the basic
principles of Marxism must never be violated, otherwise mistakes will be
made. It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view
and to regard it as something rigid. It is revisionism to negate the basic
principles of Marxism and to negate its universal truth. Revisionism is one
form of bourgeois ideology. The revisionists deny the differences between
socialism and capitalism, between the dictatorship of the proletariat and
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What they advocate is in fact not the
socialist line but the capitalist line. In present circumstances, revisionism
is more pernicious than dogmatism. It is an important task for us to unfold
criticism of revisionism on the ideological front now.

Eighth and last, it is imperative for the Party committees of the provinces,
municipalities and autonomous regions to tackle the question of ideology.
This is a point some of the comrades present here want me to touch upon.
In many places, the Party committees have not yet tackled the question of
ideology, or have done very little about it. Mainly because they are busy.
But tackle it they must. By "tackling it" I mean that it must be put on the
agenda and studied. In the main the large-scale, turbulent class struggles
of the masses characteristic of times of revolution in our country have come
to an end, but there is still class struggle -- chiefly on the political
and ideological fronts-- and it is very acute too. The question of ideology
has now assumed great importance. The first secretaries of the Party committees
in all provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions should personally
tackle this question, which can be solved correctly only when they have given
it serious attention and gone into it. Meetings on propaganda work similar
to our present one should be held in all these places to discuss local
ideological work and all related problems. Such meetings should be attended
not only by Party comrades but also by people outside the Party, and people
with different opinions should be included. This will be all to the good
of these meetings, and no harm can come of it, as the experience of the present
conference has proved.
NOTES

1. "On Production by the Army for Its Own Support and on
the Importance of the Great Movements for Rectification and for Production",
Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Vol. III.

Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.