Speech at the Tianjin Municipal Conference of Party Members and Cadres
(March 17, 1957)
(Comrades Huang Huoqing, Wu Yannong, [name redacted], and Li Gengtao accompanied Mao Zedong onto the rostrum. All rose and applauded warmly for a long time.)

Huang Huoqing: Comrades, now let us invite Chairman Mao to speak to us.
(Applause)

Mao Zedong: What questions do you have?

Huang Huoqing: If you have questions you would like the Chairman to answer, you can write them down. For now, the Chairman will first speak to everyone.

Mao Zedong: Speak about what? Comrades, what questions do you have?
Many comrades I have never met before. Today, I will discuss a few things with you. I hope you will raise some questions for me. Since your questions haven’t come yet, there is still time, so I’ll say a few words first—let’s talk about “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.” How about that? (Applause)
Because this issue concerns our entire Party, it concerns everyone in society, it concerns democratic personages and people from all walks of life. Within our Party, opinions on this issue are not entirely unanimous. Some comrades feel this policy is fine and approve of it. Some comrades, on the surface, seem to think it’s acceptable, but deep down they always feel a bit uneasy:
“Let a hundred flowers bloom”—with so many flowers, what if something bad emerges? How can that be allowed!
“Let a hundred schools of thought contend”—we Communists count as only one “school,” while ninety-nine other schools surround us. How can that be allowed! Is there such a problem, comrades? Within our Party, there are those who understand this issue relatively well, those who understand a little but not much, those who are skeptical, those who disapprove—there are all kinds of opinions.

Speech at the Tianjin Municipal Conference of Party Members and Cadres
What was the main work our Party did in the past? Isn’t there construction work now? Over the past several decades, our main work has been the work of class struggle. Class struggle—that is not yet construction work. Class struggle means overthrowing certain systems—the systems of imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism, and feudalism. That was a revolution. Socialism means overthrowing the capitalist system. All these fall within the scope of class struggle. Fighting Chiang Kai-shek, resisting U.S. aggression and aiding Korea, suppressing counterrevolutionaries, land reform, democratic reform in the cities, and socialist transformation—all these fall within the scope of class struggle. That was a tremendous momentum, wasn’t it?
Over the past several decades, from the founding of our Party until the first half of last year, socialist transformation—that is, the high tide from the second half of the year before last to the first half of last year—at that time, gongs and drums resounded, and it was bustling with excitement. The energy of our Party was mainly focused on this aspect. This struggle lasted a very long time. If we count from the time of our ancestors in the Opium War, 1840, from the time of opposing imperialism, up to 1950, that’s 110 years. Up to last year, 1956, that’s 116 years. Only then did we change the superstructure and the relations of production—changing the old relations of production into new relations of production, changing the old superstructure into a new superstructure. Relations of production mainly refer to ownership. Now our ownership is socialist ownership. The superstructure refers to the government, the organs of state power, the army—all have been changed. This was a tremendous struggle. When we were engaged in this struggle in the past, people did not believe in us at the beginning either. Who believed that the Communist Party could succeed? When the Communist Party first emerged, people did not believe. In the middle, they also did not believe, because in the middle we experienced defeats. After the defeat during the Northern Expedition, and later, the defeat of the Agrarian Revolution—after two major defeats, people did not believe. And now? Now people believe. They say the Communist Party is capable. Capable in what areas? They say you are capable in politics, you are capable in military affairs—you have these two skills. People say the Communist Party has these two skills and can pass the test. Did imperialism pass the test? Competing with us, comparing with us—Chiang Kai-shek, the Kuomintang, compared with us—who won? Who was defeated? We won. Since you won, then it’s settled. Winning is good. You won, so what more is there to say? That’s fine. But what about construction? Historically, people have always said the Communist Party probably isn’t capable in that area. How is it now? We carry out revolution on one hand and construction on the other. I just said that class struggle was the “main” focus—class struggle as the primary task, not that there was no construction. There was still construction. In this area, we are not skilled. To say we are not skilled—well, we do know a little, because in the past, when we were engaged in class struggle, we learned a bit in the base areas. But when it comes to building large factories—design, construction, installation, that whole set of things—we don’t know how. Science, natural science, engineering technology, teaching university students—we have very few university professors. Are there any university professors here? (Stands up and asks the audience) Are there any? University professors, please raise your hands! Not a single one? Are there any university professors? There must be a few, right? (A comrade in the audience raises a hand) One—there’s one over there. Pitifully few! Comrades, (Huang Huoqing: Some didn’t raise their hands. Chairman Mao returns to his seat and continues) How many didn’t raise their hands? Yes, your influence isn’t great, so you don’t dare raise your hands.
Now some people say the Communist Party can’t do science, can’t teach in universities, can’t work as doctors in hospitals, can’t handle engineering in factories, can’t serve as engineers or technical personnel. There are a few things we can’t do, that’s all! What do you think of such talk? Have you heard it? Comrades! I have heard some talk like this. I say this talk is correct—it accords with the facts. It is true that we lack scientists, engineering and technical personnel, doctors, and university professors. There are also few serving as teachers in middle schools. In literature and the arts, it’s about a thirty-seventy split—just like Stalin made mistakes: didn’t Stalin have 30 percent mistakes and 70 percent correctness? We have 30 percent ability and 70 percent inability. In literature and the arts, the advantage still lies outside the Communist Party. University professors are almost entirely outside the Communist Party. Doctors are almost entirely outside the Communist Party. Isn’t that so? In the education sector, there are two million people—in universities, middle schools, and primary schools, the so-called “teaching” staff among public employees number as many as two million. What does the Communist Party do? In the schools, the Communist Party is nominally the leader, but in reality it cannot lead, because you don’t understand! So we must admit that this is our area of weakness.

Speech at the Tianjin Municipal Conference of Party Members and Cadres
What they say is correct, but their words are also not comprehensive. I say they are half right, and half wrong. That the Communist Party cannot lead—this is correct. That the Communist Party can also lead—this they did not say. Why can it also lead? I say: it is precisely because I don’t understand that I ask you to do it! The Kuomintang also didn’t understand. “Generalissimo Chiang” Chiang Kai-shek, he didn’t understand either. The Kuomintang, that party, was about the same as us in the areas I just mentioned. It was also a party engaged in class struggle—it specialized in class struggle and did not engage in construction. We, on one hand, carry out class struggle, and over these seven years, we have done a bit of construction. He engaged in it for twenty years and only produced a few tens of thousands of tons of steel. We have engaged in it for seven years—this year makes eight. How many tons of steel do we have? Possibly reaching five million tons. According to the plan, 4.12 million tons, and it may be exceeded. Perhaps not quite five million, but over four million tons. So, in twenty years he had only a few tens of thousands of tons, while in eight years we have four million tons. This means we engage in planning. Moreover, the Ministry of Finance provides food for these people. The Kuomintang, first, had no plans, and second, provided no food. Comrades! If I don’t eat, I can’t speak, and you can’t listen either. Scientists, university professors, doctors—they all need to eat. The Kuomintang had food but wouldn’t give it to those people. It specialized in class struggle, feeding the army and feeding those political hacks. I say Li Fuchun and Li Xiannian—there are these two people in the world: one manages planning, the other manages finance. Put all these scientists, university professors, engineers, and doctors into the plans, draw up long-term plans and annual plans, and lead them through these—lead them by means of plans. Besides this, what else can lead them? Lead them by means of politics—lead them by means of Marxism-Leninism. But in any case, we are currently incapable. However, things in this world can be learned. We must learn now. At present, the work of class struggle is basically concluded. By “basically concluded,” I mean it is not completely concluded. Large-scale, mass class struggle is basically concluded. As we stated at the Eighth National Congress, our entire Party must devote itself to this construction, must learn science, must learn to teach in universities, must learn to conduct experiments and research science in scientific institutions, must learn to be engineers, technical personnel, and doctors, to wage struggle against nature, to lead the entire society in waging struggle against nature, and to change the face of China. After changing the political face, we must also change the economic face. To change the political face, we spent several decades. To change the economic face—to change it roughly, to make it different from the past—will also require several decades. Just as in the past we did not know how to wage class struggle—who knew how to wage class struggle? No one did. For example, I didn’t. I was a primary school teacher. When I joined the Communist Party, I hadn’t thought of it. I believed the propaganda the capitalists fed us. I attended a bourgeois school and believed that stuff. Later, I was, more or less, driven to join the rebels at Liangshan. What about all of you? Did you make up your minds long ago—born of your mothers to be Communists? Is that so? Was your assigned task to be a Communist? My mother didn’t assign me that task. So it was learned, wasn’t it? Land reform—we didn’t know how to do that either. We didn’t know how to do all sorts of things. We didn’t know how to fight wars either. We fought many losing battles, went through many changes, and as our experience grew, we learned and became skilled at waging class struggle. Isn’t that so? After many failures, now we must engage in construction for several decades. Can we perhaps pay a smaller price than we paid when learning class struggle? Because we paid a very heavy price. There were several revolutionary defeats: the defeat of the 1927 Revolution, the loss of all the southern base areas before the Long March, and little work left in the White Areas. That was due to “Leftism.” The 1927 defeat was due to Rightism. In class struggle, we were too Rightist, and later too “Leftist.” Having experienced both, we learned. So people like Chen Duxiu and Wang Ming (Chen Duxiu went over to the enemy’s side and later died. Wang Ming has not gone over to the enemy’s side)—regardless, such individuals have all been of great benefit to us. It was not these individuals per se, but the movements they led, which failed at certain times. This provided great education to the entire Party and to the people of the whole country. But the price was very great. Now, in our construction, will we also pay such a great price? Take the former leaders of Hungary—their class struggle also failed. Their construction work also failed, because once turmoil broke out—last October, when turmoil broke out—I say it broke out very well. Some people are very unhappy about Hungary. I am very happy. Bad things are good things. Was it better for Hungary to have turmoil or not? It’s not a question of whether it should have happened or not—in short, it was bound to happen.

At the Tianjin City Party Members and Cadres Conference
Yes, a boil will always burst eventually. I think we can strive for this, because we once learned that class struggle requires paying a great price to master. So now, if we do not engage in right opportunism—why did we once pay such a great price? Wasn’t it because we suffered losses from engaging in left opportunism? We suffered losses from engaging in dogmatism and left opportunism. If we now do not repeat past mistakes during the construction period, then we can pay a relatively smaller price and avoid incidents like the one in Hungary.

Now let us think carefully—it is very necessary to think. There is such a situation: the conclusion of class struggle, this matter. In the past, during the high tide of class struggle, such as socialist transformation and the suppression of counterrevolutionaries, during the high tide, our shortcomings were not very visible to people. Our shortcomings—we still understood them. In construction, science, and running schools, people were forgiving; people were relatively forgiving toward us. Now in society, that drama is no longer being performed—[unclear]—is there any? That is the suppression of counterrevolutionaries; its drama is not much anymore. There still is some, but now it is not being performed. Among those present are military officers and military cadres. If there were no drama to perform, what would we need them for? Of course, there is still drama to perform, but now it is not being performed. Thus, "nurture troops for a thousand days"—now we still haven’t heard the cannons roar. Consequently, many problems in society have been exposed. This problem exists because the gongs and drums, the gongs and drums of class struggle, were very lively. Since the first half of last year, the gongs and drums resounded to the skies, and afterward the "Eighth Congress" drew its conclusions. Then this matter floated to the surface, placed on the agenda, placed on our Party’s agenda. People have made even greater demands of us: "What are you Communists doing?" We say: "Comrades, I also have a set of skills called class struggle! Ha ha! Don’t always look down on us! I, your old man, have been at it for decades!" But if we keep saying this, it’s not so good. Because people acknowledge this point. They say you are capable in politics, capable in military affairs—you’ve been at it for decades, you’ve toiled and labored, that’s no problem, our names are in the book of merits. But, comrade, ah, how is teaching done in universities now? How are surgeries performed in hospitals? I haven’t studied that. How should middle schools be run? How are scientific problems solved? Atomic physics, and whatnot—engineers, design, construction, installation, operation—this whole set we don’t know. We are just beginning to learn. Changing this situation requires a period of time—probably roughly three five-year plans, at least fifteen more years, before there will be a change, a greater change. The time needed will be a bit more, because this requires learning, requires time. So can we learn it? I think we certainly can learn it. There’s nothing tricky about it. Natural sciences, surgeries and the like—if you haven’t studied, you can’t perform them. If I were to perform surgery, it would be like the surgery described in a comic dialogue—I would certainly be that kind of doctor. But as long as you study, you can learn. Are there people studying now? There are people studying now, and we will also send people to study. For example, today’s university students, today’s Communist Party members and Youth League members—they are studying. In fifteen years, they will be university professors, they will be engineers. Perhaps it won’t take fifteen years; when they graduate in fifteen years, there will also be existing scientists, engineers, university professors, and some middle school teachers who are willing to join the Communist Party. If conditions are suitable, we can also accept them into the Party. So with three more five-year plans, we can learn it. Which is easier to learn, class struggle? I think this thing is relatively easier to learn. It’s always easier than fighting wars, than eliminating counterrevolutionaries—like eliminating counterrevolutionaries, you can’t even see them. You say they don’t exist, yet they do; you say they exist, yet they haven’t written "counterrevolutionary" on their names. Fighting a war like the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea against the Americans—in fact, there wasn’t much certainty. The United States was such a huge mass, and we used just one finger to strike them. I think it’s still the case that after graduating from middle school, entering university for five years, and then working for five to ten years after graduation, one can become a university professor, an engineer, or an engineering technician, and can also perform surgeries. So some people fail to see these changes and probably think the Communist Party can never learn. I think we can learn, and now our task is precisely to learn. So who are the teachers? The teachers are the current non-Party democratic personages. They are our teachers; we must learn something from them. As long as our attitude is good, we don’t put on bureaucratic airs, we don’t flaunt that "I’ve been at it for decades—where were you during the revolution?" stuff. We don’t trot out that set; we pack that set away, because trotting it out is meaningless. What’s the point of decades? That’s for historians to write about. When we meet every day, we finish with two sentences: "I, your old man, have been in revolution for decades." Beyond that, there’s nothing—it’s as if we’ve done nothing, because that matter is finished, that matter is basically finished—the issue of class struggle. Now let’s talk about science. Whatever strengths you have, I’ll learn from you. Do I understand it? I am utterly ignorant. First admit that I am utterly ignorant. Then what have you been doing in the past? Well, it’s because in the past I was engaged in class struggle, just a bit busy. Answering like that is acceptable—just that I neglected my studies in youth! Neglected my studies in youth, so I don’t understand. Now, can you teach? Some teachers are not so forthcoming. But as long as we earnestly seek instruction, they will teach. I say that in the past, when apprenticing to a master, one had to burn incense and kowtow three times. Does this still exist in Tianjin? Probably it still does! Still kowtowing? (Huang Huoqing: No more kowtowing.) No more kowtowing. (Huang Huoqing: Signing master-apprentice contracts.) Signing master-apprentice contracts. Now the calamity of kowtowing is unavoidable. I say, if it were required, what should we do? If that rule must be followed—if we still had to kowtow three times before they would teach us, would we kowtow? At this point a problem arises. I say we should kowtow three times. You want to learn skills, and his rule is that you must kowtow. Now, kowtowing can be dispensed with, but we must sincerely learn from him, respect the master, respect him, and study diligently—this is also equivalent to kowtowing. This spirit is still necessary. Now within our Party, there is a kind of atmosphere that is not very good: our minds are still filled with those past decades, and new habits have not been formed. When there’s nothing to do—do you play mahjong or cards here? Or watch plays, or dance? In any case, there’s nothing to do, and the habit of reading and studying has not been cultivated. We haven’t devoted our surplus energy to study. This is the general situation. As for those in schools, in factories, in scientific research institutions, in hospitals—our staff, wherever they can learn, even learning a part of it is good, or understanding the content is good. If you are completely ignorant, yet you are there doing leadership work, it’s no wonder people say we are incompetent. If you are completely ignorant, you should study; if you still put on airs, that’s not good. You should study. "Let a hundred flowers bloom"—regarding the arts, such a policy is particularly prominent in such a period. "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend"—this is competition. What if bad things emerge? Now there are many bad things, many strange arguments. I say it doesn’t matter; just criticize these strange arguments. People are very afraid that the flowers blooming won’t look good, that these flowers are poisonous. "Let a hundred schools of thought contend"—some say the Communist Party is just one school, and the other ninety-odd schools have surrounded us. Of course, that’s not the meaning. In the social sciences, on issues of worldview, it is not a matter of a hundred schools contending. It is two schools contending. The proletariat is one school, the bourgeoisie is the other. Among these hundred schools, classified by nature, they can be divided into two contending schools. In the world today: the proletariat is one school, the bourgeoisie is the other; proletarian ideology and bourgeois ideology—the ideological struggle between these two schools. In the field of social sciences, does the petty bourgeoisie count as a school? Of course, it can be counted as one. But the petty bourgeoisie, on fundamental points, belongs to the same school as the bourgeoisie; it falls within the category of the bourgeoisie. Within the Communist Party, is there contention? In fact, there is. Historically, the Second International was one school—wearing Marxism on its head but actually revisionist. Now there is still revisionism—Yugoslavia. Does our country have it? Our country also has such cases; such people can be found. These people can be called right opportunists. In China, we don’t need to talk about revisionism as if we have a revisionist faction—now we don’t. But in the past we did; Chen Duxiu was one. Chen Duxiu was revisionist, right opportunist. Later, during the Wang Ming period, the second Wang Ming line error—do comrades know about it? The second time, at the beginning of the war against Japan, the early period of the Anti-Japanese War, that was revisionism. Now, didn’t Zhong Dianfei write an article? On film issues, negating everything, regarding past achievements. On the other hand, some comrades affirm everything, failing to see shortcomings and errors, and cannot tolerate others criticizing the shortcomings and errors in our work. Who are these people? They are Chen Qitong and Ma Hanbing. On January 7, there was an article in the People’s Daily by Chen Qitong and Ma Hanbing. I say these comrades are well-intentioned, utterly loyal, pursuing justice. They are protecting the Party. Seeing the gongs and drums resounding outside opposing us, they automatically go out to fight without orders. These people who automatically go out to fight have a certain spirit; they hate those things they find intolerable. We should acknowledge that this point of theirs is good, but their policy and methods are wrong. Are there such incidents in Tianjin? You can look for them. "Left" and right—affirming everything and negating everything—these are two kinds of one-sidedness. Affirming everything in our work without analysis—this is wrong. The dogmatists of the past were like this. Rákosi was like this. Stalin was like this. Stalin—can we say he was entirely a dogmatist? We cannot say that. This man did many things, but he had dogmatism. His dogmatism influenced China, causing our revolution to fail for a period. If we had followed his methods, the later revolution would not have succeeded, and we would not be meeting here now. Who built this building? It wouldn’t have been us who built it; we wouldn’t have had this opportunity, because it would still be under the rule of the Kuomintang and imperialism. He had both aspects—he had dogmatism. Copying everything from the Soviet Union—we must learn from the Soviet Union. Soviet things are very worth learning, both the errors and the achievements. The slogan we now raise is to learn from the advanced experience of the Soviet Union; we have not said we should learn from its backward experience. When have we ever raised such a slogan? But although we haven’t raised it, some things have been copied over nonetheless, in the last seven years. But generally speaking, we cannot be said to have copied completely without selection—that is rigid copying—because we have criticized dogmatism to some extent, and the source of dogmatism came from Stalin.

Regarding the various differing opinions in society—the various things exposed because class struggle has basically ended, the various dissatisfactions, dissatisfaction with the Communist Party, saying we are incompetent—this is what I just mentioned. If we are originally incompetent, we should admit incompetence. Saying we cannot lead science—in terms of specific professional work, we cannot lead; in terms of advancing science as a whole, we can lead, that is, lead through politics! Lead them through state plans. So we have the task of learning. Regarding these erroneous arguments—there are many erroneous arguments in society—what policy should we adopt? We should adopt the policy of "let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend," resolving them through discussion and debate. Which is right and which is wrong—we

Only this method will work; no other methods are acceptable. Yet currently there is a sentiment within our Party that clings to continuing the old ways—what might be called resorting to military law. If you don’t obey, then military law is applied: you’re simply dragged out and beheaded. (Applying military law, yes. Because we’ve grown accustomed to such simplistic methods.) The method of [suppressing counterrevolutionaries] no longer works. That was for dealing with class enemies—for dealing with class enemies, for dealing with those who have blood debts and the like. Drag them out and behead them, apply military law. Because we’ve grown accustomed to this method, we’ve gotten used to it. We’ve been doing it for decades, in the course of class struggle. Actually, it wasn’t all that simple either; there were many meticulous methods involved. But because it was directed against the enemy, we had a great deal of drive. Now, however, it’s not about dealing with the enemy; it’s about handling problems within the ranks of the people—democratic parties, non-party democratic personages, national capitalists, all these people, university professors, doctors. This simplistic method simply won’t work anymore. This requires a different approach. We must learn from them; they are correct in areas like science and technology. So we have only one way out: to learn from them, and learning is entirely achievable. In ten to fifteen years, we can master it—not only leading them politically but also leading them technically. As for the various differing opinions, they fall into two categories. One category concerns science. Whether we understand it or not—we don’t understand it now, but we will in the future—the same principle applies: we cannot “resort to military law.” The method of [suppressing counterrevolutionaries] won’t work. We can only adopt the policy of “letting a hundred schools of thought contend.” Let everyone discuss. A single science can have several schools of thought; let them contend, and truth will eventually emerge. The same applies to issues in the social sciences. In all matters pertaining to science, we must use the method of debate, not the method of cracking down on whatever we find displeasing. To change this situation requires a process of persuasion. These discussions are nothing to be afraid of. What is there to fear? What about Hu Feng? Wasn’t Hu Feng arrested? That was because he ran a secret, small organization within the country. Hu Feng is still alive; one day he will be released. After serving a period in prison, his mistakes, his crimes, will have been fully accounted for. But Hu Feng’s ideology is not dead. In society, Hu Feng’s ideology lives on in many people. This is bourgeois ideology. In all matters concerning science, ideology, and spiritual issues—such as religion, Marxism-Leninism, the bourgeois worldview versus the proletarian worldview, and artistic matters—none of these can be handled with crude methods. There are two methods: one is coercion, the other is persuasion. Between these two methods, which one should we choose? The method of coercion? Or the method of persuasion? Currently, some of our comrades are growing impatient and are strongly inclined to apply a bit of pressure. But pressure leads to defiance. Those who are pressured into defiance will only push the problem into a position disadvantageous to us. And then, they’ll keep a mental tally: the Communist Party has made a mistake. When you fought the Americans past the 38th Parallel, using coercion was correct. When dealing with counterrevolutionaries, using coercion was correct. When dealing with Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang and the landlord class, using coercion was correct. But why use coercion to deal with science? If we use coercion, we have no justification, we cannot stand our ground, and we will lose. Therefore, we should adopt the method of persuasion. But what if we don’t know how to persuade? The solution is simply to learn. We have a saying in the south: “A beggar beating a dog—a specialized skill.” Beggars, or those you call panhandlers, have a special technique for beating dogs. “A beggar beating a dog—mastering a single trade.” That’s a saying we have in the countryside. Right now, we don’t understand, we don’t know how to cope, we don’t know how to reason. We must learn to reason, learn to write reasoned articles, and learn to deliver reasoned reports. “I just charge ahead.” A comrade once told me: “All this reasoning—I’m just not used to it. I just charge ahead.” He said he just charges ahead. I told him: “Charging ahead won’t solve the problem. Charging two or three times still won’t solve it.” We must analyze, we must study, and we must write articles that are persuasive. As for publishing various erroneous opinions in newspapers and journals, holding symposiums, and conducting reviews—will this throw our world into chaos and topple the People’s Government? I say absolutely not. Because they are not counterrevolutionaries, they are not spies. They are willing to cooperate with us—the vast majority, that is. Only a very small minority harbor hatred toward us, and even they are not spies, though they do hate us. Many people still do not believe in the Marxist worldview; they’ve studied a bit, but in reality they don’t believe. Then there are some who believe a little, but not completely. This includes members of the Communist Party—some comrades within our Party—who have not yet fully grasped Marxism and still don’t understand it. You see, there are people with both kinds of one-sidedness: the dogmatists, who affirm everything and won’t allow others to speak ill—even though we have shortcomings, they forbid anyone to mention them; and then there are those of another kind, who see everything as bad and negate everything. These two kinds of one-sidedness, these two forms of metaphysics, clearly exist.

Now we are distributing *Reference News*. Comrades present here have all seen this publication, haven’t you? Perhaps not so many, but some have. People will say about this: the Communist Party and the People’s Government are doing the imperialists a favor—without charging a single copper, they publish a newspaper to curse themselves. The Communist Party, free of charge, publishes a newspaper for the imperialists to curse the Communist Party. Isn’t that how it looks? It certainly seems that way. I read it every day; much of it is cursing us. Now we plan to expand its circulation to 300,000 copies, potentially reaching a million readers, distributed down to the county level. In cities, down to what level? It’s to temper us. Both inside and outside the Party, we should undergo tempering, should broaden our horizons, and learn a bit about world affairs—how the enemy curses us, what things are like in the enemy’s own house. Some say this will cause chaos. It will not cause chaos. If we shut ourselves up in a room, seal our eyes shut, and plug our ears, that would be very dangerous. So, some people say that expanding the circulation of *Reference News* will cause the reactionaries’ arrogance to flare up. Therefore, that comrade (as your Municipal Committee’s Comrade Huang Huoqing told me) hopes that every piece of international news will have an editorial note appended. That would be troublesome! Comrade! Append notes to everything? We want people to think for themselves, to hold symposiums. Many strange opinions may emerge. As for strange opinions, I think the more the better. Just don’t seal yourself off. Marxism was created and developed through struggle against its hostile forces, and it must continue to develop now. For instance, in handling affairs in China, if we do not develop, then we will not handle our affairs well. When the principles and tenets of Marxism are implemented in China, they must take on a Chinese complexion and must be resolved according to the circumstances of specific problems. Some have no confidence in “letting a hundred schools of thought contend,” and fear that “letting a hundred flowers bloom” will release poison. I think this is not the case at all. If we adopt the method of coercion and forbid a hundred schools from contending and a hundred flowers from blooming, that will make our nation lifeless, simplistic, and unreasonable. It will cause our Party to stop studying how to reason and stop learning how to argue persuasively. As for whether Marxism can be criticized? Can the People’s Government be criticized? Can the Communist Party be criticized? Can veteran cadres be criticized? I say there is nothing that cannot be criticized, as long as someone is willing to criticize. What kind of people fear criticism? Parties like Chiang Kai-shek’s, fascists like Chiang Kai-shek. We are Marxist-Leninists; they are the Kuomintang. We are the Communist Party. Chiang Kai-shek had his “veteran cadres”—they too were “veteran cadres.” But those “veteran cadres” could not withstand criticism, because their footing was unsteady. Our capital is vast. We haven’t laid this out here—laid out the decades. When we do our work, we shouldn’t constantly wear it on our faces, saying, “I’ve been at it for decades.” But the people still know. Are veteran cadres so easily criticized that one criticism topples them, that a single puff of wind blows them over? You are all veteran cadres here—are there any new cadres? Probably some! Now, speaking specifically of veteran cadres, I think they cannot be blown over by an ordinary wind—unless it’s a force-12 typhoon. A force-12 typhoon can blow down trees and blow down houses, but to blow down veteran cadres, I think, still won’t work. A force-13 typhoon might try to blow down the Communist Party, the People’s Government, Marxism—veteran cadres won’t do, new cadres won’t do either, as long as they are correct. As for your mistakes, it’s precisely necessary to have a bit of wind blow on them, to have some gusts. Doesn’t this room have an electric fan? That’s because it’s winter! In summer, you need to get a fan. Probably in summer, people tend to have a few ailments. Let’s use washing one’s face as a metaphor. Do you wash your face once every three days or once a day? No one studies this matter—why people need to wash their face once a day, some even twice a day. It’s because there’s dust! Since the skin is not only a boundary with the outside—a “38th Parallel”—it is in contact with the air, it is “bounded by the Yellow River.” It presents a countenance, and it is also an excretory organ. The skin is a very large excretory organ; it excretes so many things. The human face, I think, is the dirtiest part of the entire body, because it has seven holes. Besides these, there are many other small excretory organs. Therefore, it must be washed every day. So, should the Party not wash? The Party must also wash its face. Poisonous weeds are not to be feared; the exposure of anti-Marxist ideas is not to be feared. Moreover, it serves a positive function. We need those things to come face-to-face with us, so that we can struggle against them and thereby develop ourselves. This is just like us getting vaccinated against smallpox. Just now I spoke about *Reference News*—we must expand its circulation. Aren’t we now promoting smallpox vaccination? What is the smallpox vaccine? It is a kind of virus, or a microorganism. A little bit of that stuff is placed inside a person, causing a fight within you, which then produces an immune strength. Afterward, you won’t get smallpox. Once you’ve had the pox, you won’t get them again, because you’ve developed “immunity.” A person who never gets sick throughout life is in great danger. Someone wrote an article saying I talked about something—minor ailments or whatever. What I meant was that a person who never falls ill in their lifetime will one day fall ill, and that will be dangerous, that’s all. Because too few bacteria and viruses have infiltrated them. People who are often sick are relatively more robust, because they are constantly struggling! Proletarian ideology must struggle against bourgeois ideology; Marxism must struggle against non-Marxism in order to develop. “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend”—this is precisely the reason it is necessary. The development of various arts requires a hundred flowers blooming and competing with one another, through comparison. A hundred schools of thought contending, competing with one another, criticizing and discussing—only then can what is correct develop. Therefore, we must not fear this. We must not fear. We must go out into the open air, not stay forever inside a room with heating.