Comrades Huang Huoqing, Wu Yannong, ×××, and Li Gengtao accompanied Chairman Mao as he appeared on the rostrum. All stood up and gave prolonged, enthusiastic applause.

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

Chairman Mao: What questions do you have?

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

What shall I talk about? Comrades, what questions do you have?

I haven’t met many of you comrades before. Today, I’ll talk with you about a few things. I hope you comrades will put forward some questions for me. Since your questions haven’t arrived yet, well, there’s still time, so I’ll say a few words first—let’s talk about “letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend”! All right? (Applause)

This is an issue that concerns our entire Party and one that society cares about—democratic personages and people from all walks of life outside the Party are concerned about it. Among us comrades, opinions on this issue are not completely unanimous. Some comrades think this policy is fine and approve of it. Some comrades, on the face of it, seem okay with it, but deep down there’s always a bit of unease: with “a hundred flowers blooming,” so many flowers—what if something bad comes out? How terrible that would be! “A hundred schools of thought contending”—we Communists count as just one “school,” while ninety-nine other schools are surrounding us. How terrible that would be! Isn’t that a problem, comrades? There are those who understand this issue quite well, those who understand a little but not much, and still those who are skeptical or disapprove. All kinds of opinions exist within our Party.

In the past, what has been the main work our Party has done? Aren’t we engaged in construction work now? Over the past several decades, our main work has been class struggle. Class struggle, not construction work. Class struggle means overthrowing certain systems—namely, imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism, and feudalism. That was a revolution; socialism overthrows the capitalist system. These all fall within the scope of class struggle. Fighting Chiang Kai-shek, resisting U.S. aggression and aiding Korea, suppressing counterrevolutionaries, land reform—in the cities there was also democratic reform, plus socialist transformation. All these are within the scope of class struggle. That momentum was tremendous, wasn’t it?

In the past decades, from the founding of our Party up until the first half of last year—the socialist transformation, the upsurge from the second half of the year before last through the first half of last year—there were gongs and drums clamoring to the sky, great bustle and excitement. Our Party’s energy was mainly focused on that area. This struggle has lasted a very long time, counting from the Opium War, in the time of our ancestors—1840, fighting against imperialism from then—to 1950, that’s a hundred years, and to last year, 1956, it has been 116 years before we finally transformed the superstructure and the relations of production—changing the old relations of production into new relations of production, and the old superstructure into a new superstructure. Relations of production mainly refer to ownership; now our ownership is socialist ownership. The superstructure is the government, state organs of power, the military—all have been transformed. This was a tremendous struggle. When we were carrying out this struggle in the past, people did not believe in us in the beginning either. Who believed the Communist Party could succeed? At the start, when the Communist Party first existed, people didn’t believe; in the middle, they still didn’t believe, because we went through defeats in between. The defeat during the Northern Expedition, and later the failure of the Agrarian Revolution—after two major defeats, people didn’t believe at all. And now? Now people believe, saying the Communist Party is capable—capable in what way? Saying politically you are capable, militarily you are capable—you have these two skills. People say the Communist Party has these two skills and could even pass the exam. Did imperialism pass the exam? Competing with us, taking the test against us—Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang competed with us. Who won the contest? Who triumphed and who was defeated? We won. Since you won, that settles it—winning is good. You won, what else is there to say? That’s fine. But what about construction? All along, people have said the Communist Party is probably no good at it. How is it now? We carried out revolution on one hand and construction on the other. I just said “mainly”—with class struggle as the principal task—not that there was no construction. There was construction, but in this respect we were not capable. To say we were incapable, we did know a little, because during the past class struggle, in the base areas we learned a thing or two, more or less. But building large factories, designing, construction, installation—that whole set of things, we were not capable. Science, natural sciences, engineering and technology, educating college students—we had very few university professors. Are there any university professors present? (Rises and asks toward the audience) Any? University professors, please raise your hands! Not even a thousand? 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.) Several didn’t raise their hands? That’s right, your influence isn’t great, so you don’t dare raise your hands.

Now some people say the Communist Party is no good at science, no good at teaching in universities, no good at working as doctors in hospitals, no good at engineering in factories—being engineers or technicians—just no good at several things. Well, how about that? Have you heard such remarks, comrades? I’ve heard some talk like that. I say those words are well put, in line with the facts. That is, we have no scientists, engineering technicians, doctors, or university professors. We also have very few teaching in middle schools. In literature and art, we have a bit, but it’s about a 30–70 split—just like Stalin making mistakes: didn’t Stalin have 30 percent mistakes and 70 percent correctness? We are 30 percent capable and 70 percent incapable. In literature and art, 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? The education sector has two million people—in universities, middle schools, and primary schools—the so-called “jiao” (educators) among “gong-jiao personnel” numbers as many as two million. What does the Communist Party do? In the schools, the Party is nominally in leadership, but in fact it cannot lead, because you don’t understand! So we must admit: this is the area where we fall short. What they say is correct, but their words are not comprehensive. I say only half of what they say is correct; the other half is wrong. “The Communist Party cannot lead”—that part is correct. “The Communist Party can also lead”—that they didn’t say. Why can it also lead? I say: precisely because I don’t understand, I invite you experts in! The Kuomintang also didn’t understand—“Generalissimo Chiang,” Chiang Kai-shek, he didn’t understand either. The Kuomintang Party was roughly the same as us in those areas just mentioned—it was also a party engaged in class struggle; it specialized in class struggle and didn’t engage in construction. We carried out class struggle on one hand, and in these past seven years we’ve done some construction. They worked at it for twenty years and only had a few tens of thousands of tons of steel. We’ve worked at it for seven—no, this year makes eight—years. How many tons of steel can we produce? Possibly five million tons. According to the plan, 4.12 million tons; we might exceed that. Perhaps not quite five million, so over four million tons. So they had only a few tens of thousands of tons in twenty years, while we have four million tons in eight years. This is to say we conduct planning. In addition, the Ministry of Finance provides food so these people can eat. The Kuomintang, first, had no plans, and second, provided no food. Comrades! Without eating, I couldn’t speak, nor could you listen. Scientists, university professors, doctors—they all need to eat. The Kuomintang had food but wouldn’t give it to those people. They specialized in class struggle, gave food to the army, to those politicians. I say Li Fuchun and Li Xiannian—there are these two people in the world: one managing planning and one managing finance—place these scientists, university professors, engineers, doctors all within the plans, draw up long-term plans and annual plans, and lead them through these plans. Moreover, is there another way to lead them? It is to lead them politically—that is, to lead them with Marxism-Leninism. But no matter what, we are not capable right now. However, things in this world can be learned. We must learn now. At present, class struggle, this task, is basically concluded. So-called “basically concluded” does not mean completely finished—large-scale, mass class struggle is basically concluded. We stated at the “Eighth National Congress” that our entire Party demands to engage in this construction, to learn science, to learn how to be professors in universities, to learn how to conduct experiments in scientific institutions and study science. To learn how to be engineers, to be technicians, to be doctors, to wage struggle against nature, to lead all of society in waging struggle against nature, to transform the face of China. After the political face has been transformed, the economic face must also be transformed. We spent several decades transforming the political face. To transform the economic face—to transform it substantially, so it differs from the past—will also require several decades. Just as in the past we did not know how to conduct class struggle—who knew class struggle? No one knew it innately. For example, I didn’t. I was a primary school teacher. Joining the Communist Party—I hadn’t thought of that either. I believed the propaganda the capitalists fed us; I attended a bourgeois school; I believed all that. Later, I was probably driven to join the rebels at Liangshan, so to speak. What about all of you? Did you make up your minds long ago—born from your mothers as Communists? Is that it? Handing over the mission as a Communist—my mother didn’t hand over that mission to me. So it is learned, isn’t it? Land reform, too—we didn’t know how. In all kinds of things, we didn’t know how. Fighting wars, we didn’t know how either. We fought so many lost battles, went through so many changes; as experience accumulated, we learned and became good at conducting class struggle. Isn’t that so? After many failures, now we are engaging in construction, which will also take several decades. Can we perhaps pay a smaller price than we paid when learning class struggle? Because the price we paid was very great—several times the revolution failed. The 1927 revolution failed; before the Long March, the base areas in the South were all lost, and little work remained in the White Areas. That was because of “Leftism.” The failure in 1927 was because of Rightism. In class struggle, Rightism, and later “Leftism”—having experienced both, we learned. So, Chen Duxiu, Wang Ming—(Chen Duxiu eventually went over to the enemy; later, that man also died. Wang Ming has not yet gone over to the enemy.) No matter what, such people have brought us great benefit. It wasn’t just these individuals, but the movements they led, which failed at certain times. This greatly educated the whole Party and greatly educated people across the country; indeed, the price was enormous. Now, in our construction, will we also pay such a huge price? For instance, the former leaders of Hungary—their class struggle also failed. Their construction work also failed, because—there was turmoil—last October there was turmoil. I say the turmoil was very good. Some people are very unhappy about Hungary; I am very happy. Bad things are good things. Is it better for Hungary to have turmoil or not? Whether it’s better or not is irrelevant; in short, turmoil was bound to happen. A boil must eventually burst. I think we can strive—because we once had to pay an enormous price to learn class struggle. So now, if we don’t engage in Right-leaning opportunism… Why did we once pay such a huge price? Wasn’t it because we suffered losses from engaging in “Left-leaning” opportunism? We suffered losses because of dogmatism and Left-leaning opportunism. If we do not repeat past mistakes now, in construction, then we can pay a relatively smaller cost and avoid incidents like the one in Hungary. (The original text has some ungrammatical sentences.)

Now let’s think carefully—it’s very necessary to think this through. There is a situation where class struggle as such has come to an end. In the past, during the high tide of class struggle, such as the socialist transformation and the suppression of counter-revolutionaries, at the height of the movement, our shortcomings were not very visible to people. We were aware of our own shortcomings, but in areas like construction, science, running schools, people tended to forgive us—they were relatively forgiving toward us. In society now, that particular drama is no longer being performed—×××, is there such a thing? I mean the suppression of counter-revolutionaries. That drama has fewer and fewer scenes. True, there are still some. Among those present, there are military officers and military cadres. If there were no drama left to perform, what would we need them for? Of course, there is still some drama to perform, but for now it’s not being performed. Hence, "nurture soldiers for a thousand days"—but no sound of gunfire has been heard yet. As a result, many problems in society have now come to the surface. This problem has arisen because the gongs and drums of class struggle were once thunderously loud. Since the first half of last year, when the gongs and drums resounded through the heavens, and later the Eighth National Congress reached its conclusions, this matter has floated to the surface and been placed on the agenda—on our Party’s agenda. People have become more demanding of us. They ask: "What are you Communists actually doing?" We reply: "Comrades, I too have a set of skills—it’s called class struggle! Ha ha! Don’t always look down on us! We’ve been at it for decades!" (Laughter) But if we keep repeating this line, it won’t be so good. Because people acknowledge this. They say: You’re capable in politics, capable in military affairs—you’ve been at it for decades, you’ve worked hard, no question about that; your names are in the book of merits. But, comrade, now, how does one teach at a university? How does one perform surgery in a hospital? I haven’t studied it. How should middle schools be run? How are scientific problems to be solved—atomic physics, all these things? Engineers, design, construction, installation, operation—we don’t know any of this. We’ve only just begun to learn. Changing this situation will take time—probably roughly three five-year plans, around fifteen years, before there is a change. A bigger change will require even more time. Because these things need to be learned, and learning takes time. Can we learn them, then? In my view, we certainly can. There’s nothing mysterious about it. Natural science, surgery, and the like—if you haven’t studied, you simply can’t perform surgery. If I tried to perform surgery, I would be exactly like that comedian who joked about performing surgery—I’d be that kind of doctor. But as long as you study, you can learn. Are people studying now? Yes, they are. And we’re also going to send people to study. For example, today’s university students, today’s Communist Party members, today’s Communist Youth League members—they are studying. In fifteen years, they will be university professors, they will be engineers. Maybe it won’t even take fifteen years; by the time they graduate in fifteen years, they’ll be ready. There are also existing scientists, engineers, university professors, and some secondary school teachers who are willing to join the Communist Party. If conditions are suitable, we can accept them into the Communist Party as well. So with another three five-year plans, we can learn. As for class struggle, which is easier to learn? I think class struggle is actually easier to learn. At any rate, it’s far easier than fighting a war, or than purging counter-revolutionaries—like that purging of counter-revolutionaries; you can’t see them at all. You say they don’t exist, yet there they are; you say they exist, but they haven’t written "counter-revolutionary" on their foreheads. Or fighting the Americans in the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea—facing such a huge mass of Americans, we poked at them with just one finger. In my view, it’s simply a matter of: after graduating from secondary school, spending five years at university, and then working for five to ten years—then one can become a university professor, or an engineer or a technical specialist, even perform surgery. So some people fail to see these changes and think the Communist Party will never learn. I say we can learn. And now our task is precisely to learn. Who will be our teachers? Our teachers are the democratic personages outside the Party today. They are our teachers, and we must learn something from them. So long as we have a good attitude, don’t put on bureaucratic airs, don’t flaunt that "How many decades have I been at it? Where were you during the revolution?" line. Let’s pack away that whole attitude, because displaying it is pointless. What’s the point of "several decades"? That’s for historians to write about. When we meet daily, two sentences sum it up: "I’ve been in the revolution for decades." After that, nothing else—it’s as if you’ve done nothing at all, because those matters are finished, essentially finished—the problem of class struggle. Now we turn to talk about science. What are your strong points? I’ll learn from you. Do I understand any of it? I’m utterly ignorant. First, admit that you’re utterly ignorant. "Well, what have you been doing all this time?" The reply is: Because in the past I was busy with class struggle—just a bit too busy. Answering it this way is fine. It’s simply a case of neglected cultivation in youth. Neglected cultivation in youth, hence ignorance. Now, can you teach? Some instructors still aren’t so forthcoming. But if we humbly seek their guidance, they will teach. I recall that in the old days, when taking on a master, you had to burn incense and kowtow three times. Does Tianjin still have that practice? Perhaps it still does? Still kowtowing? (Huang Huoqing: No more kowtowing.) No more kowtowing. (Huang Huoqing: They sign teacher-apprentice contracts.) Sign teacher-apprentice contracts. Now, this calamity of kowtowing can be avoided. I say, what if it were required? What if those rules are insisted upon? What if you still had to kowtow three times before they’d teach—would you kowtow or not? This raises a problem. I say we ought to kowtow three times. You want to learn skills, and their custom requires you to kowtow. You can skip the kowtow now, but you must sincerely and wholeheartedly learn from them, respect the master, respect them, study diligently—this is equivalent to kowtowing. That spirit is still necessary. At present, there’s an unhealthy atmosphere within our Party: our minds are still filled with those past decades, and new habits have not been formed. When there’s nothing to do, you play mahjong or cards, or watch plays, or go dancing. In any case, there’s nothing to do; the habit of reading and studying hasn’t been cultivated. We haven’t devoted our surplus energy to learning. This is generally the case. As for those in schools, in factories, in scientific research institutions, in hospitals—our staff members, wherever they can learn, it’s good to learn at least a part, or to understand the content. If you’re utterly ignorant and yet you have to do leadership work there, no wonder people say we’re no good. If you’re utterly ignorant, yet you put on that sort of airs, that’s very bad. We ought to study. "Let a hundred flowers bloom"—such a policy regarding the arts is especially prominent in this period. "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend"—this is competition. What if something bad blooms? Now there’s a lot of bad stuff, a lot of strange talk. I say: never mind; just criticize that strange talk. People are very afraid that the flowers blooming won’t be good-looking, that some flowers are poisonous. As for "a hundred schools of thought contending," they say the Communist Party is just one school, and the other ninety-some schools are surrounding us. Of course, that’s not the meaning. In the social sciences, on questions of worldview, it’s not a case of a hundred schools contending; it’s two schools contending. One school is the proletariat; the other is the bourgeoisie. Among the hundred schools, classified by their nature, they can be divided into two contending schools. In the world today, there is the proletariat on one side and the bourgeoisie on the other—proletarian thought and bourgeois thought. It’s a struggle between the ideas of these two schools. In the field of social science, does the petty bourgeoisie count as a school? Of course, it could be considered a school. But on fundamental points, the petty bourgeoisie is in the same camp as the bourgeoisie; it falls within the bourgeois category. Within the Communist Party this one school, is there contention? In reality, yes. Historically, the Second International was a school—wearing Marxism on its head, but in substance it was revisionist. There is still revisionism today—Yugoslavia. Do we have any in our country? We also have such elements; such people can be found—they can be called right-leaning opportunists. In China, it’s better not to speak of revisionism as if we have a revisionist faction; right now we don’t. But there was such in the past—Chen Duxiu was one. Chen Duxiu was a revisionist right-leaning opportunist. Later, during Wang Ming’s period, the second Wang Ming line error—do the comrades know about it? The second one, right at the beginning of the War of Resistance Against Japan: that was revisionism. Now, didn’t Zhong Dianfei write an article about the film issue? Negating everything, negating all past achievements. And then some comrades affirm everything, failing to see shortcomings and mistakes; they cannot tolerate others criticizing the shortcomings and mistakes in our work. Who are these people? They’re Chen Yu and Ma Hanbing. On January 7, there was an article in *People’s Daily* by Chen Qitong and Ma Hanbing. I say these comrades are well-intentioned, loyal and devoted, pursuing righteousness; they are trying to protect the Party. Seeing the gongs and drums clanging outside against us, they automatically go out to fight without waiting for orders. Those who automatically go out to fight like this do have a spirit—they detest those things they find unbearable. We should recognize that this aspect of them is good, but their approach and method are wrong. Does Tianjin have such instances? You can look for them. Both "left" and "right"—those who affirm everything and those who negate everything—these are two kinds of one-sidedness. Affirming everything in our work without analysis is wrong. The old dogmatists were like this; Rákosi was like this; Stalin was like this. Can we say Stalin was entirely a dogmatist? We can’t say that. This man did many things, but he also had dogmatism. His dogmatism influenced China, causing our revolution to fail during one period. Had we followed his approach completely, the subsequent revolution wouldn’t have succeeded either; we wouldn’t be having this meeting here, and who would have built this building? It wouldn’t have been us; we wouldn’t have this opportunity, because it would still be under the rule of the Guomintang and imperialism. He had both aspects: he had dogmatism. To copy everything from the Soviet Union—we must learn from the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union has much that is well worth learning. Both their mistakes and their achievements. The slogan we now raise is "Learn from the advanced experience of the Soviet Union"; we’ve never advocated learning from its backward experience. When was such a slogan ever put forward? But although no such slogan was raised, a certain amount of things were copied over wholesale during the last seven years. Yet, broadly speaking, we cannot be said to have adopted everything entirely without selection—this was rigid copying. Because we had once criticized dogmatism, and the source of dogmatism was Stalin.

Regarding the various opinions in society, those things that have surfaced because the class struggle has basically ended—various discontent, dissatisfaction with the Communist Party, claims that we are incapable—as I just mentioned, if we are truly incapable, we should admit it. They say we cannot lead science. In terms of specific professional work, we indeed cannot lead; but in terms of the overall advancement of science, we can lead, and that is leadership through politics! The state plan leads them, so we have the task of learning. Regarding these erroneous arguments, the many mistaken views in society, what policy should we adopt? We should adopt the policy of "letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend." We should resolve these issues through discussion and debate. Which is right and which is wrong—this is the only method we have; no other method will do. Yet currently, there is a sentiment within our Party that clings to the methods of the past, or what might be called resorting to military law—if you don't obey, then military law is applied, and you are simply dragged out and executed (that is military law, because we are accustomed to such simple methods). That approach of so-and-so (referring to the suppression of counter-revolutionaries—note by the recorder) no longer works. That was for dealing with class enemies, for dealing with class enemies, for dealing with those with blood debts and such—just drag them out and execute them, that is military law. We are accustomed to this method; we have grown used to it. We've been at it for decades in the class struggle. Actually, it wasn't that simple, and there were many more nuanced methods, but because it was against enemies, we had a lot of drive. Now, it is not against enemies but to deal with issues within the people's ranks—the democratic parties, non-party democratic personages, national capitalists, so many people, university professors, doctors—such simple methods simply won't work anymore. This requires a different approach. We must learn; if they are correct—for example, in matters of science and technology—then our only way out is to learn from them, and it is entirely possible to learn. In ten to fifteen years, we can learn, and then we can lead them not only politically but also technically. As for the various differing opinions, they fall into two categories. One category concerns science. Whether we understand them or not—we may not understand now, and we will understand in the future—the policy remains the same: no "military law." That method of so-and-so's is no good. We can only adopt the policy of "a hundred schools of thought contend." Let everyone discuss; a single branch of science can have several schools, let them contend, and truth will eventually emerge. The same applies to issues in the social sciences. In all matters belonging to science, we must use the method of debate, not the method of cracking down whenever we find something disagreeable. To change such a situation, we need to go through a process of persuasion. These arguments are nothing to be afraid of. What is there to fear? What about Hu Feng? Wasn't Hu Feng arrested? That was because he organized secret small groups within the country. Hu Feng is still alive; one day he will have to be released. After spending a period in prison, once his mistakes and crimes have been fully accounted for, that's it. But Hu Feng's ideology has not died; in society, Hu Feng's ideology lives on in many people's minds; this is bourgeois ideology. In all matters of science, ideology, and spirit—such as religion, Marxism-Leninism, the bourgeois worldview versus the proletarian worldview, and matters of art—none of these can be handled with crude methods. There are two methods: one is called coercion, the other is persuasion. Between these two methods, which one to choose? Should we adopt coercion or persuasion? Now, some of our comrades are getting impatient and feel a strong urge to suppress things. But suppression leads to defiance; people who are suppressed will not be convinced. It will only drive the problems into a state that puts us at a disadvantage, and then they will keep a mental account, saying the Communist Party made mistakes. Against the Americans crossing the 38th parallel, using coercion was correct. Against counter-revolutionaries, using coercion was correct. Against the Kuomintang Chiang Kai-shek and the landlord class, using coercion was correct. But why would you use coercion against science? If we use coercion, we are in the wrong, we cannot stand firm, and we lose. So we should adopt the method of persuasion. But what if we don't know how to persuade? Then the solution is to learn. We have a saying in the south: "A beggar beating a dog—he practices one skill." A beggar, or what you might call a panhandler, has a special technique for beating dogs. "A beggar beating a dog practices a single skill," as the saying goes in our countryside. 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. "Old-timers just charge in." A comrade once said to me: "Going through all that reasoning, old hands just can't get used to it. Old-timers just charge in." He said "just charge in." I said, your charging in won't solve the problem; after charging in two or three times, it still won't solve the problem. You need to analyze, to study, and to write articles that are persuasive. As for the publication of various erroneous opinions in newspapers and journals, holding symposiums, and critiques—will this throw our world into chaos and topple the People's Government? I say, absolutely not. Because they are not counter-revolutionaries. They are not spies; the majority are willing to cooperate with us. Only a very small minority are hostile to us, and even they are not spies, though they are hostile. Many people still don't believe in the Marxist worldview; they may have learned a little but actually do not believe it. Others believe somewhat but not fully. This includes members of the Communist Party; some comrades in our Party have not fully grasped Marxism and still don't understand. You see, there are people with both kinds of one-sidedness: dogmatists who affirm everything and won't allow anyone to say a bad word, even though we have shortcomings and should not forbid people from pointing them out; and another kind of person who says everything is bad and negates everything. These two kinds of one-sidedness, these two forms of metaphysics, clearly exist.

Now we publish *Reference News*. Have all the comrades present here seen it? Not so many, maybe? Well, some have. People will say about this: the Communist Party and the People's Government are doing a service for imperialism, and for free—not costing a single copper coin—publishing a newspaper to curse themselves. The Communist Party, free of charge, puts out a newspaper for imperialism to curse the Communist Party. Isn't that how it seems? It certainly looks that way. I read it every day; much of it is indeed cursing us. Now we plan to expand its circulation to 300,000 copies, potentially reaching a million readers, distributed down to the county level. To what level in the cities? This is to train us; both inside and outside the Party should undergo training, should see the world, and gain some knowledge of what is happening globally—how the enemy curses us and what is going on in the enemy's household. People say this will cause chaos; it won't. If we shut ourselves in our rooms, blindfold our eyes and plug our ears, that would be very dangerous. So someone said—Comrade Huang Huoqing from your municipal committee told me—that expanding the circulation of *Reference News* would cause the arrogance of reactionary forces to flare up. Therefore, that comrade hoped that every piece of international news should be accompanied by a commentary. That would be troublesome! Comrades, must every item have a commentary? Our aim is precisely to let people think for themselves, to hold symposiums. A lot of strange opinions may emerge; as for strange opinions, I think the more the better. The point is not to shut ourselves off. Marxism was created and developed through struggle against its hostile forces, and it still needs to develop. For instance, in handling affairs in China, if we do not develop it, then we will not do things well. When the principles and tenets of Marxism are implemented in China, they must take on Chinese characteristics and be resolved according to the specific circumstances of the problems. Some people have no confidence in the "hundred schools of thought contend" and are afraid that "letting a hundred flowers bloom" will release poison. I think this is not the case at all. If we adopt coercion, forbidding a hundred schools from contending and a hundred flowers from blooming, it would make our nation lifeless, simplistic, and unreasonable. It would cause our Party to refrain from studying how to reason and from learning how to reason. As for whether Marxism can be criticized, whether the People's Government can be criticized, whether the Communist Party can be criticized, and whether veteran cadres can be criticized—I say there is nothing that cannot be criticized, as long as someone is willing to criticize. Who is afraid of criticism? It is parties like Chiang Kai-shek’s, fascists like Chiang Kai-shek's. We are Marxist-Leninists; they are the Kuomintang; we are the Communist Party. As for Chiang Kai-shek's "veteran cadres," they too are "veteran cadres," but those "veteran cadres"—well, criticism of them is absolutely forbidden, because they are on shaky ground. We have substantial capital. I haven't laid this out—after decades of hard work, we don't need to flaunt it every day, saying we old-timers have been at it for decades, but the people still know. Are veteran cadres so easily toppled by criticism—blown over by a single puff of air? You are all veteran cadres, aren't you? Are there any new cadres? Probably there are. Now, specifically addressing veteran cadres—I say they cannot be blown over by an ordinary breeze, unless it’s a level-12 typhoon. A level-12 typhoon can uproot trees and blow down houses, but to blow down veteran cadres, I think even that won't work. A level-12 typhoon cannot blow down the Communist Party, the People's Government, Marxism—neither veteran cadres nor new cadres, as long as they are correct. As for your mistakes, a little wind is exactly what is needed, a little breeze. Doesn't this room have a fan? Oh, that's because it's winter! In summer, you need a fan. People probably tend to have some minor ailments in summer. Let's use face-washing as a metaphor. Do you wash your face once every three days or once a day? No one bothers to study such a thing—why people wash their faces once a day, some even twice a day. It’s because there is dust! Not only is the skin a boundary with the outside—the "38th parallel"—it is in contact with the air, with the "Yellow River as the border." It makes up a face, but it is also an excretory organ. The skin is a very large excretory organ, excreting so much stuff. I think the human face is the dirtiest part of the whole body, because it has seven holes that emit things, plus many other tiny excretory pores. That’s why you need to wash it every day. So, does the Party not need washing? The Party also needs to wash its face. Poisonous weeds are not to be feared; the exposure of anti-Marxist ideas is not to be feared. Moreover, they serve a purpose. We need those things to surface and confront us so that we can struggle against them and grow. This is just like being vaccinated against smallpox. As I just mentioned, *Reference News* should expand its circulation. Isn't smallpox vaccination being promoted now? What is the smallpox vaccine? It is a kind of virus, or a microorganism. A little bit of it is introduced into the human body to provoke a reaction, creating an immunity, so you won’t get smallpox later. If you've had smallpox, you won't get pockmarks, because you've developed "immunity." A person who never gets sick all their life is in great danger. Someone wrote an article saying I talked about minor ailments or something. What I meant was that a person who never gets sick all their life is in great danger the day they finally fall ill, that's all. Because too few bacteria and viruses have found their way in. People who are frequently ill are relatively more resilient, because they are constantly engaged in struggle! Proletarian ideology struggles against bourgeois ideology, and Marxism can only develop through struggle against non-Marxism. That is the principle behind the need for "letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend." The development of various arts requires letting a hundred flowers bloom and competing with one another, comparing. Through a hundred schools contending, competing, criticizing, and discussing, what is correct can develop. Therefore, we should not fear this; do not be afraid. We need to go out into the air and not stay cooped up in a room with central heating all the time.