Talk at the Meeting of Party Cadres in Shanghai

Date: 1957-03-20
Source: Secret Speeches of Chairman Mao: From the Hundred Flowers to the Great Leap Forward
        (Harvard University Press, 1989), ed. Roderick MacFarquhar, Timothy Cheek, Eugene Wu

---

Talk at the Meeting of Party Cadres in Shanghai

20 MARCH 1957

[302] Comrade Ke Qingshi¹ has mentioned just now that the present is a period of transition. In the past, we engaged in the revolutionary struggle. But this struggle has now basically come to an end at home. The former regime of the class enemy has been overthrown and the reformed social system has basically replaced the old one. The new task we are facing now is construction. Construction is also a sort of revolution. It is a technical and a cultural revolution: to unite all the members of society and people all over the country to struggle with

Source: 1:302–12; alternate text, 10:136–46.
¹Ke Qingshi, the Shanghai first secretary and member of the Politburo, was a close sup- porter of Mao’s during this period and subsequently during the Great Leap Forward; see Origins 1, pp. 205, 281–2, 290–2; Origins 2, pp. 21, 36, 62, 83, 89, 164, 250.
the natural world. Of course, the struggle persists between man and
man in the process of construction. At the present stage of transition,
the struggle between man and man still includes class struggle. When
we say that class struggle has basically come to an end, we mean that
it has not yet completely ended. The struggle between the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie will continue for quite a long time, particularly
in the field of ideology. Our party has taken notice of this situation.
At the Eighth National Congress of the party, Comrade XXX's
report² and the resolution of the Congress both stated that large-scale mass class struggle had basically ended. As the contradictions
between ourselves and the enemy at home have been essentially
solved, the contradictions among the people now become more obvious than in the past. So far, however, many comrades have not yet
quite realized this situation, and they are still using some of the old
methods to solve the new problems. It ought to be made clear that
for a time in the past the Center itself did not specifically address this
problem because this change did not mature until recently. For example, among the ten relationships discussed at the conference of the
provincial and municipal party secretaries last April,³ one was the
problem of the relationship between ourselves and the enemy, and
another was the problem of right and wrong. [The idea that] class
struggle had basically finished was not discussed at that time. It was
not until the latter half of last year, [303] when the party congress
was held, that we could declare this definitely. Now the situation has
become even clearer. Therefore, we need to explain to the whole
party in even more detail that we should not use the old methods to
deal with the new problems, and that we should distinguish contradictions between ourselves and the enemy from those among the
people.

Are there any contradictions in socialist society? Lenin once
talked about this question and thought there were contradictions. But
Stalin in reality did not admit this for a long time. During Stalin's
later life, people were neither allowed to speak ill of the society nor
to criticize the party or the government. In fact, Stalin mistook
contradictions among the people for those between ourselves and the
enemy, and consequently regarded those who bad-mouthed [the
party or the government] or who spread gossip as enemies, thus
wronging many people. In his book, *Economic Problems of Socialism
in the U.S.S.R.*, written in 1952, Stalin mentioned that there
remained contradictions between production relations and productive forces in socialist society, and [said that] if the contradictions
could not be handled correctly, they would be transformed into
antagonistic ones. Nevertheless, Stalin talked little about contradictions within socialist society and those among the people. In my
opinion, we must currently discuss this problem in public—not only
within the party, but also clearly in the newspapers, so as to arrive at
an appropriate conclusion to this problem. It is better this way.
Let's take for example the problem of people making trouble. This
is obviously not a universal phenomenon; rather, there are isolated
cases. Nevertheless, they may occur frequently because the phenomenon of bureaucratism always exists. We must rectify [our errors], and
solve the problem of bureaucratism. But no matter [how hard we try],
it will always remain difficult to avoid bureaucratism, since our party
is so big, our work is so complicated, and the country is so large. Wher-ever bureaucratism arises, people there may make trouble. How
should we respond when disturbances occur? We ought to think of it
as a common phenomenon, and we should not make a fuss over it. We
ought to realize that it is a way to adjust the social order under unusual
circumstances. If a problem can't be solved with correct methods after
a long period of time and so the people begin to make trouble, and
then the problem is solved, why then should they not make trouble?
Of course, we by no means encourage [people] to cause trouble. Solv-ing problems without [people] making trouble, solving them through
the democratic-centralist [304] system in accordance with the formula
"unity-criticism-unity" is what we advocate. In order to carry out this
policy, we must oppose bureaucratism. If a leader of a certain unit is
thoroughly bureaucratic and very stubborn, and it is impossible for
the people there to express their opinions, while the higher authorities
have failed to detect and correct [the situation] in time, nor have they
removed the leader from his office—well, then, the people there would
doubtless make trouble. Under such unusual circumstances, what
does it matter if some trouble arises?

²This is clearly a reference to Liu Shaoqi's political report at the 8th Congress, with Liu's
name excised because of his fall. Again, Mao is here endorsing a position which he himself
had earlier laid down, but for which Liu was denounced during the Cultural Revolution.
³Mao is referring to the "Ten great relationships"; see SW5:284–307.
There are always different viewpoints—both rightist and “left”,
within our party, whether about contradictions between ourselves
and the enemy or about contradictions among the people. The rightist attitude is to see no enemy in respect of the problem of contradictions between ourselves and the enemy. Don’t we say that the
domestic class contradictions have been basically solved? Some people understand basically solved as meaning completely solved.
Hence, they would not deal with the bad people whom the people
hate very much, the true spies, and the real evil-doers. This kind of
thinking is obviously wrong. It is also incorrect to exaggerate the
contradictions. Exaggeration is the “left” viewpoint. Class contradictions have already been basically solved; but some people say they
haven’t yet, and maintain that contradictions are still very great. As
for contradictions among the people, some people ignore the facts
and consider that all’s right with the world. [In their minds], our
Communist party was the representative of the people in the struggle against imperialism and the Nationalist party, and later on
against the bourgeoisie. How could the people turn against us?
Hitherto, they have never imagined that the people could feel dissatisfied and that they would demonstrate against us, present petitions, go on strike, or boycott classes. They cannot quite believe this
even now. This is one type of emotion. The other type of emotion is
to be scared. They think things could not be worse when a little trouble occurs—there will be a massive upheaval throughout the land and
the Communist party will collapse. If a tornado strikes, will our
Communist party, the People’s Government, and Marxism be blown
away? We can say impossible with confidence. So there’s nothing to
be scared of. Moreover, if in reality a situation arises when people
feel they must make trouble, it is better to allow them to do so rather
than prevent them. You, comrades, may ponder whether such a view
is appropriate. This is one problem.
[305] Next, I’d like to say something about the question of the
intellectuals. There are about five million intellectuals in the whole
country. They may all be considered bourgeois-type intellectuals as
far as their education, their family background, and their past service
are concerned. Among them, about a little over 10 percent have
joined the Communist party. Some others have been proletarianized
⁴See Text 3, p. 138.
and have accepted Marxism for quite a long time, although they have
not yet joined the party. They account for several percent of the intellectuals. Some comrades estimate that if we put these two groups together, they account for about 15 to 17 percent. On the other hand,
there are a few intellectuals who are antagonistic towards us. Yet they
are not counterrevolutionaries, and they may cooperate with us on
some problems, for example, on the problem of opposing imperialism. Nevertheless, they doubt Marxist ideology and the socialist system. Such people also account for several percent. The remaining 70
to 80 percent of the intellectuals have a middle-of-the-road attitude.
They understand a little Marxism, but not much. They may approve
of the socialist system, but they are easily shaken. It is also difficult
for them to accept the Marxist world view. They often use the terms
“yours” and “ours.” Unlike most workers and poor and lower-middle
peasants, they do not take our party as their party. Looking at their
relationships with workers and peasants, we can also see that their
world view is not a Marxist one. When they visit factories and the
countryside, they can’t identify themselves with the workers and peasants. Although they have been there, they keep a distance from the
workers and peasants, and can neither make friends nor have heart-to-heart talks with the latter. Their relationship with the workers
and peasants is still that between “yours” and “ours.” They, too, serve
the people, but they cannot do it wholeheartedly. They cannot be of
one mind with the people, nor are they totally apart from them; they
are half-heartedly with the people. Our work is to win them over. We
should try, for example, within a period of three FYPs (eleven years
remain) to enable the entire intelligentsia to go one step forward in
learning Marxism and in combining themselves with the workers
and peasants. And from them, one-third should either join the party
or become non-party activities. After that, we will try further to win
over the rest of the intellectuals. In this way we must step by step
change [306] the state of the intelligentsia and transform their world
view.
It is still a problem for some intellectuals to accept the view that literature and the arts are for the workers, peasants, and soldiers. This is
one kind of manifestation of the fact that intellectuals have not yet
formed a new outlook on life. We should tell them that in our country there are no people other than workers and peasants, because capitalists are to become workers while landlords are just changing into
peasants. In addition to these two kinds of people (workers and peasants), the third kind is the intellectual. Intellectuals serve the workers and peasants. They themselves are also changing their very essence and will transform step by step into working-class intellectuals. Therefore, literature and the arts will certainly be for the workers, peasants, and soldiers; there can be no other orientation. Can you still serve the landlords, the bourgeoisie, or imperialism? These forces have already disappeared from the political stage, and they have lost their base in society. As regards the several hundreds of millions of petty-bourgeois elements, they have collectivized and can no longer be called bourgeoisie because they have become collectivized peasants and collectivized handicraft workers. Of course, there remains in their minds a petty-bourgeois tail, particularly in the case of the well-to-do middle peasants and upper-middle peasants. They still have quite a strong sense of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology. Those intellectuals who now doubt the orientation towards the workers, peasants, and soldiers actually reflect the ideology of the bourgeoisie and the rich section of the petty-bourgeoisie. Though both bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie still have a tail left, however, no matter how long the tail is, it will eventually vanish. So we have every possibility to unite and win over the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intellectuals. But it takes time. The period will be at least as long as ten or twenty years. We should not be imprudent or hasty. Marxism can only be accepted gradually through persuasion, not through cramming [it down people's throats]. Cramming it down can-not solve problems.

Currently, there is a theory popular among a section of the intellectuals, which says that the Communist party is not capable of leading science. Is there any truth in their claim? We think it is a half-truth. At present, there are indeed few party members among the engineers, professors, doctors, and other high-level specialists. Generally speaking, at the moment we actually don't understand science [307]. In the past, our people had neither the time nor money to attend universities and study abroad. Moreover, the imperialists and the Nationalist party did not allow us to stay in the cities to study science. Many intellectuals say that we are not capable of leading science though we are good at politics as well as military affairs. Actually, even this they were not willing to admit until recently. In the past, before we had won our victory and when we were still engaging in guerilla warfare, they did not speak in this way. At that time, they thought we were good for nothing. In short, [they thought that] we wouldn't get anywhere. People want to see results. Therefore, so long as we still have not established our leadership of science, it is impossible for us to convince them that we are capable of such leadership. However, what they say is only partially true. They have not realized the other half [of the truth]. Although we now don't understand science, we are using the state plan and politics to lead scientific enterprises. Under the leadership of the Communist party and the People's Government, China's industry has developed, and science has developed, too. Is this not a fact? In this respect, if scientists are not working under the leadership of the Communist party and the People's Government, then under whose leadership are they working? Besides, like politics and economics, science can be understood through study. Now that we have grasped politics and military affairs, we can also learn science. If in the process of political and military struggle, from 1921 to 1949, it took us as long as twenty-eight years to win our victory, then it will not take us such a long time to reach the level of the average [scientific] specialist. Fifteen years will be enough—five years of university [training] plus ten year's working [experience].

Another problem closely linked with the problems of the intellectuals and of science and the arts concerns the policies of “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend” and “Long-term coexistence and mutual supervision.” We still need to do a lot of work to explain this policy within the party. Some comrades think the policy is too dangerous. If we let a hundred flowers bloom, may we not let some devils out? As for the policy of “Long-term coexistence and mutual supervision,” they say, “What right do the democratic parties have to [be allowed] long-term coexistence with us? A short time is quite enough!” [Others say,] “I can supervise you, but you are not in the position to do that to me. Where were you democratic parties when we were fighting for power?” All these [308] viewpoints oppose “blooming” and favor “reining in.” Are these viewpoints correct?

The Center considers that those favoring “reining in” are wrong. “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend” is the basic policy for the development of science and the arts. It is not a temporary policy. During the present transition period, the policy
has particular significance for uniting and educating intellectuals.
That is to say, as long as they are not counterrevolutionaries, people
should have the freedom to speak not only on purely scientific and
artistic problems, but also on matters of a political nature in terms of
right and wrong. What shall we do if they have said incorrect things?
Shall we use the method of coercion or that of persuasion? The Center considers that the method of coercion is not good. Coercion does
not involve convincing someone. It is impossible to convince someone
with coercion. The contradictions among the people, the ideological
problems, and problems involving the mind can only be dealt
with through persuasion, not through coercion. The dictatorship of the
proletariat should be used only to deal with antagonistic classes and
enemies, that is, imperialism abroad and the surviving domestic enemies.
We must not use the measures of dictatorship but those of democracy
to deal with average people who have said the wrong thing or who have
made trouble. Here is an important line of demarcation. In handling
contradictions among the people, some of our comrades nowadays are
apt to resort to a “mili-tary solution.” This is very dangerous and must
be firmly corrected.
What should be done if [some of us] don’t know how to persuade?
We must learn. We ought to learn how to argue, and we can do it.
What shall we do then, if, after using the method of persuasion, people still continue making trouble? Could it cause massive upheaval
throughout the land? I don’t think so. As long as we persist with our
explanations and explain fully, disorder will not come about. In addition, we shouldn’t fear trouble. A little trouble can do us some good,
for in this way, we will be able to gain experience. We should criticize
and struggle against poisonous writings and other harmful things,
but we needn’t be scared. In the struggle against those harmful
things, we will be able to strengthen ourselves and develop Marxism.
Marxism has grown up from the very beginning in the struggle
against antagonistic ideas.
In order to wage a struggle against antagonistic ideas, we must first
rectify our own shortcomings. We have achieved great successes. Our
party is a great party, a glorious [309] party, and a correct party. This
must be affirmed. But we also have a lot of errors. This fact must also
be affirmed. We should not affirm all that we have done, but only the
most important and correct things. At the same time, we must not
negate all we have done, but only some [of our] mistakes and shortcomings. Those who negate everything are opportunists while those
who affirm everything are dogmatists. Dogmatism is also a form of
metaphysics, because it affirms everything without analysis. If we analyze our work, we can see that our achievements are the most important aspect of our work, but that there are shortcomings. Therefore,
we need to promote rectification.
The Center has not yet made a formal decision on rectification.
We plan to do it in this way: making preparations this year, and getting the movement under way in the two following years.5 We will
adopt the measures of the Yan’an period, studying Marxism calmly
and unhurriedly and with the spirit of self-criticism. We will use
proper methods to criticize subjectivism, sectarianism, and bureaucratism in our style of work. Criticism will be carried out in small
groups, not in large meetings. Errors will be neither minimized nor
exaggerated, and [everyone will have an opportunity for] selfexamination with the help of one’ comrades. In sum, the method is
“unity-criticism-unity.” That is to say, we will begin with the desire
for unity and reach the result of unity by way of criticism; we will
learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones, and we will cure the
sickness in order to save the patient. We will adopt this attitude in
conducting rectification in order to raise the level of our Marxist ideology. Since the Yan’an Rectification [Movement], we in fact have not
had any systematic party-wide rectification in over ten years. I believe
the result of rectification this time will be to enable our party to
make substantial progress. Shall we lose our prestige if we ourselves
criticize our own bureaucratism, subjectivism, and sectarianism? I
don’t think so. On the contrary, I think our prestige will increase.

5As these translations reveal, on 8 March, 10 March, and, as we see here, as late
as 20 March, Mao apparently still envisaged holding the Rectification Campaign in 1958,
with a preparatory (zhunbei) or informal (fei-zhengshi) period in 1957. In fact, the campaign
was formally launched on 30 April 1957. For a discussion of the importance of the rescheduling of the campaign, see Origins 1, pp. 177–83, 207–10, where it is incorrectly suggested
that the decision to advance the timetable was probably taken in February, before Mao
made his “Contradictions” speech, but that the actual launch date was not settled until after
22–23 April. This new evidence suggests that even the decision to advance the timetable
was not taken until late April, or that if Mao had taken the decision already, he was not yet
prepared to tip his hand. Either way, the decision-making process would serve to underline
the foot-dragging antagonism Mao faced on rectification, and would indicate that he nevertheless considered the issue so important—presumably out of a concern to avoid East
European-type unrest in China—that he was prepared to use his authority to hustle his colleagues down a road they were reluctant to travel.
peasants. In addition to these two kinds of people (workers and peasants), the third kind is the intellectual. Intellectuals serve the workers
and peasants. They themselves are also changing their very essence,
and will transform step by step into working-class intellectuals. There-fore, literature and the arts will certainly be for the workers, peasants,
and soldiers; there can be no other orientation. Can you still serve
the landlords, the bourgeoisie, or imperialism? These forces have
already disappeared from the political stage, and they have lost their
base in society. As regards the several hundreds of millions of pettybourgeois elements, they have collectivized and can no longer be
called bourgeoisie because they have become collectivized peasants
and collectivized handicraft workers. Of course, there remains in
their minds a petty-bourgeois tail, particularly in the case of the well-to-do middle peasants and upper-middle peasants. They still have
quite a strong sense of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology.
Those intellectuals who now doubt the orientation towards the workers, peasants, and soldiers actually reflect the ideology of the bourgeoisie and the rich section of the petty-bourgeoisie. Though both
bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie still have a tail left, however, no
matter how long the tail is, it will eventually vanish. So we have
every possibility to unite and win over the bourgeois and pettybourgeois intellectuals. But it takes time. The period will be at least
as long as ten or twenty years. We should not be imprudent or hasty.
Marxism can only be accepted gradually through persuasion, not
through cramming [it down people's throats]. Cramming it down cannot solve problems.

Currently, there is a theory popular among a section of the intellectuals, which says that the Communist party is not capable of leading science. Is there any truth in their claim? We think it is a half
truth. At present, there are indeed few party members among the
engineers, professors, doctors, and other high-level specialists. Gener-ally speaking, at the moment we actually don't understand science.
[307] In the past, our people had neither the time nor money to
attend universities and study abroad. Moreover, the imperialists and
the Nationalist party did not allow us to stay in the cities to study
science. Many intellectuals say that we are not capable of leading
science though we are good at politics as well as military affairs. Actu-ally, even this they were not willing to admit until recently. In the
past, before we had won our victory and when we were still engaging
in guerilla warfare, they did not speak in this way. At that time, they
thought we were good for nothing. In short, [they thought that] we
wouldn't get anywhere. People want to see results. Therefore, so long
as we still have not established our leadership of science, it is impossible for us to convince them that we are capable of such leadership.
However, what they say is only partially true. They have not realized
the other half [of the truth]. Although we now don't understand
science, we are using the state plan and politics to lead scientific enterprises. Under the leadership of the Communist party and the
People's Government, China's industry has developed, and science
has developed, too. Is this not a fact? In this respect, if scientists are
not working under the leadership of the Communist party and the
People's Government, then under whose leadership are they working? Besides, like politics and economics, science can be understood
through study. Now that we have grasped politics and military
affairs, we can also learn science. If in the process of political and military struggle, from 1921 to 1949, it took us as long as twenty-eight
years to win our victory, then it will not take us such a long time to
reach the level of the average [scientific] specialist. Fifteen years will
be enough—five years of university [training] plus ten year's working
[experience].

Another problem closely linked with the problems of the intellectuals and of science and the arts concerns the policies of “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend” and “Long-term
coexistence and mutual supervision.” We still need to do a lot of
work to explain this policy within the party. Some comrades think
the policy is too dangerous. If we let a hundred flowers bloom, may
we not let some devils out? As for the policy of “Long-term coexistence and mutual supervision,” they say, “What right do the democratic parties have to [be allowed] long-term coexistence with us? A short
time is quite enough!” [Others say,] “I can supervise you, but you are
not in the position to do that to me. Where were you democratic parties when we were fighting for power?” All these [308] viewpoints
oppose “blooming” and favor “reining in.” Are these viewpoints
correct?

The Center considers that those favoring “reining in” are wrong.
“Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend” is the
basic policy for the development of science and the arts. It is not a
temporary policy. During the present transition period, the policy
has particular significance for uniting and educating intellectuals.
That is to say, as long as they are not counterrevolutionaries, people
should have the freedom to speak not only on purely scientific and
artistic problems, but also on matters of a political nature in terms of
right and wrong. What shall we do if they have said incorrect things?
Shall we use the method of coercion or that of persuasion? The Center considers that the method of coercion is not good. Coercion does
not involve convincing someone. It is impossible to convince someone with coercion. The contradictions among the people, the ideological problems, and problems involving the mind can only be dealt
with through persuasion, not through coercion. The dictatorship
exercised by the proletariat should be used only to deal with antagonistic classes and enemies, that is, imperialism abroad and the surviving domestic enemies. We must not use the measures of
dictatorship but those of democracy to deal with average people who
have said the wrong thing or who have made trouble. Here is an
important line of demarcation. In handling contradictions among
the people, some of our comrades nowadays are apt to resort to a “military solution.” This is very dangerous and must be firmly corrected.
What should be done if [some of us] don’t know how to persuade?
We must learn. We ought to learn how to argue, and we can do it.
What shall we do then, if, after using the method of persuasion, people still continue making trouble? Could it cause massive upheaval
throughout the land? I don’t think so. As long as we persist with our
explanations and explain fully, disorder will not come about. In addition, we shouldn’t fear trouble. A little trouble can do us some good;
for in this way, we will be able to gain experience. We should criticize
and struggle against poisonous writings and other harmful things,
but we needn’t be scared. In the struggle against those harmful
things, we will be able to strengthen ourselves and develop Marxism.
Marxism has grown up from the very beginning in the struggle
against antagonistic ideas.
In order to wage a struggle against antagonistic ideas, we must first
rectify our own shortcomings. We have achieved great successes. Our
party is a great party, a glorious [309] party, and a correct party. This
must be affirmed. But we also have a lot of errors. This fact must also
be affirmed. We should not affirm all that we have done, but only the
most important and correct things. At the same time, we must not
negate all we have done, but only some [of our] mistakes and shortcomings. Those who negate everything are opportunists while those
who affirm everything are dogmatists. Dogmatism is also a form of
metaphysics, because it affirms everything without analysis. If we analyze our work, we can see that our achievements are the most important aspect of our work, but that there are shortcomings. Therefore,
we need to promote rectification.
The Center has not yet made a formal decision on rectification.
We plan to do it in this way: making preparations this year, and getting the movement under way in the two following years.5 We will
adopt the measures of the Yan’an period, studying Marxism calmly
and unhurriedly and with the spirit of self-criticism. We will use
proper methods to criticize subjectivism, sectarianism, and bureaucratism in our style of work. Criticism will be carried out in small
groups, not in large meetings. Errors will be neither minimized nor
exaggerated, and [everyone will have an opportunity for] selfexamination with the help of one’ comrade. In sum, the method is
“unity-criticism-unity.” That is to say, we will begin with the desire
for unity and reach the result of unity by way of criticism; we will
learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones, and we will cure the
sickness in order to save the patient. We will adopt this attitude in
conducting rectification in order to raise the level of our Marxist ideology. Since the Yan’an Rectification [Movement], we in fact have not
had any systematic party-wide rectification in over ten years. I believe
the result of rectification this time will be to enable our party to
make substantial progress. Shall we lose our prestige if we ourselves
criticize our own bureaucratism, subjectivism, and sectarianism? I
don’t think so. On the contrary, I think our prestige will increase.

5As these translations reveal, on 8 March, 10 March, 17 March, and, as we see here, as late
as 20 March, Mao apparently still envisaged holding the Rectification Campaign in 1958,
with a preparatory (zhunbei) or informal (fei-zhengbai) period in 1957. In fact, the campaign
was formally launched on 30 April 1957. For a discussion of the importance of the rescheduling of the campaign, see Origins 1, pp. 177–83, 207–10, where it is incorrectly suggested
that the decision to advance the timetable was probably taken in February, before Mao
made his “Contradictions” speech, but that the actual launch date was not settled until after
22–23 April. This new evidence suggests that even then Mao apparently still envisaged holding the Rectification Campaign in 1958, with a preparatory (zhunbei) or informal (fei-zhengbai) period in 1957. In fact, the campaign was formally launched on 30 April 1957. For a discussion of the importance of the rescheduling of the campaign, see Origins 1, pp. 177–83, 207–10, where it is incorrectly suggested that the decision to advance the timetable was probably taken in February, before Mao made his “Contradictions” speech, but that the actual launch date was not settled until after 22–23 April. This new evidence suggests that even then Mao was not taken until late April, or that if Mao had taken the decision already, he was not yet
prepared to tip his hand. Either way, the decision-making process would serve to underline
the foot-dragging antagonism Mao faced on rectification, and would indicate that he nevertheless considered the issue so important—presumably out of a concern to avoid East
European-type unrest in China—that he was prepared to use his authority to hustle his colleagues down a road they were reluctant to travel.
The Yan'an Rectification proved this.⁶ It increased the party's prestige, our comrades' prestige, and the veteran cadres' prestige; the new
comrades were also educated. Which of the two fears criticism, the
Communist party or the Nationalist party? It is the Nationalist
party which fears criticism and forbids it, but they still could not
save themselves. The Communist party does not fear criticism, [310]
for we are Marxists and truth is on our side, and the workers and peasants and the masses at large are on our side. If we can rectify our
errors, we will be able to exercise more initiative in our work and we
will increase our capabilities. In addition, we will be more modest.
Those of us who in the past did not know how to persuade people
will learn how to do it bit by bit. Non-party personages may also be
allowed to participate in the movement on a voluntary basis. We will
initiate rectification, and they will join in later. If about 60 to 70 per
cent of the intellectuals took part in the movement, that would be
very good.
One of the duties of rectification is to carry on the tradition of
hard struggle. Owing to the victory of the revolution, some comrades' revolutionary will has been somewhat sapped and their revolutionary enthusiasm has been waning. An increasing number of
people now pay more attention to remuneration and seeking ease
and comfort. We should make them regain ardor through rectification. After the long span of the revolutionary struggle, feeling somewhat tired and desiring some relaxation is understandable. We are
not opposed to going to the theater or to dancing or to dressing up in
colorful clothes. What we oppose is the pursuit of position and privilege, extravagance and waste, and distancing [oneself] from the
masses. In our work and our life, we must cut down on all things
which can and should be cut down. Class struggle and several decades
of revolution have combined to pave the way to construction. In
order to construct, we must use manpower and material resources
sparingly. Construction takes a long time and it is another kind of
war. We hope that before too long China will become better, richer,
and stronger than it is now. The revolution was for this purpose.
That battle was in order to fight this battle, and that war was in order
to fight this war. This war is more arduous and will be much longer;
for example, it may be at least ten thousand years long. To construct
faster and better, we must continuously adhere to the work style of
hard struggle, maintain close ties with the masses, and oppose such
bad practices as extravagance and waste, the pursuit of privilege, the
putting on of airs, and so forth.
We should make further progress in our relationship with nonparty personages. This is also one of the tasks of rectification. It is
necessary to have a line of demarcation between party and non-party
personages. It is inappropriate to make no distinction. So, there must
be some difference. That's the first point. Secondly, there should not
be a deep trench between them. The present situation is that the
trench between the party and non-party personages is too deep in
many places. The trench must be [311] filled. We should tell nonparty personages the whole truth, not half the truth, keeping the
other half within the confines of the party. They will thus be enabled
to make faster progress.
Will the party's leadership be weakened if we adopt the aforementioned policy? In the article “More on the historical experience of the
proletarian dictatorship,” there are the following words: “But such
criticism should be made only for the purpose of consolidating democratic centralism and of strengthening the leadership of the party. It
should in no circumstances bring about disorganization and confusion in the ranks of the proletariat, as our enemies desire.”⁷ I have
just now said that it does not matter if there are a few disturbances or
a few incorrect articles published. We can gradually criticize and educate and argue. Does this view point contradict that of the article?
What the article discusses is the principle, and what I am now talking
about is flexibility. The principle should be applied with flexibility.
Otherwise, whenever there is a strike, we would rush there and
shout, “Hey! You are destroying the party's leadership!”; [or] if intellectuals criticize us, we would reproach them, “Do you want to
weaken the proletarian ranks? Do you want to destroy the party's
leadership, and thus harm the system of democratic centralism? Do
you want only democracy but no centralism? Is it right to use this
article as a shield everywhere? No, it is not. We in principle do not
encourage strikes, class boycotts, harmful essays, plays with poison-

⁶Indeed, the 1942–44 Party Rectification in Yan'an is generally considered one of the key
contributors to the CCP's success in 1949. For a positive description of the Yan'an Rectification Movement, see Mark Selden, *The Yenan Way* (Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 1969).

⁷Mao cited the same passage in his Nanjing speech the previous day; see p. 338.
ous elements, and so forth. But if in fact a few strikes or class boycotts have occurred, if a few incorrect articles have appeared in the
newspapers, and if a few bad plays have been staged, then we'd better
adopt the policy of "blooming" and use methods of persuasion and
education regarding such matters. [This policy] will not cause any
great trouble; on the contrary it will be helpful, whereas the policy
of suppression would actually be harmful. With this policy it is
easier to adjust the social order and the relations between the leaders
and the led, between the government and the people, as well as
between the party and the people. The result of such an adjustment
will consolidate the party and the system of democratic centralism.
We hope to make ours a lively country, where people dare to criticize, dare to speak, dare to express their opinions. [We] should not
make people fearful to speak. People like us must correct our errors
and shortcomings whenever we find them. It will not do otherwise,
because it would be unreasonable. Whether inside or outside the
party, we should not practice bureaucratism nor force people to do
[312] unreasonable things. If we adopt such a policy, I am sure that
the people's political conditions and relations between the people
and the government, between the leaders and the led, and among the
people themselves, will become reasonable and lively. Thus, our culture, science, economy, politics, and our whole country will surely
develop and prosper more quickly.

Transcript of a Talk to a Gathering of
Responsible Persons from Various Democratic
Parties and Non-party Democratic Personages

30 APRIL 1957

[146] For several years [we've] all been thinking of rectification, but
haven't found the opportunity. Now [we] have. Anything that
involves a large number of people cannot be done without a campaign. [We] need to create an atmosphere; it won't work without an
atmosphere. Now an atmosphere of criticism has been created. This
atmosphere should continue; [and] with handling contradictions
among the people as its subject, [it should] analyze various aspects of
[these] contradictions.

Sources: 10:146–52; alternate text 1:316–22, with extra sentence, p. 321. This is the long-suspected, but officially unacknowledged, talk Mao gave at a hastily called session of the
Supreme State Conference in Beijing following his provincial tour. Because there was much