On the afternoon of March 10, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., Chairman Mao held a discussion in his office with representatives from the press and publishing circles. Participants in this discussion included: Quan Zhonghua, representative of Shanghai’s *Xinwen Ribao* and China News Service; Wang Yunsheng, representative of *Dagong Bao*; and ××, representative of Shanghai’s *Jiahui Bao*... At the start of the conversation, the Chairman first invited non-Party figures from Shanghai to speak. The Chairman asked when Shanghai’s *Shen Bao* was abolished. Upon hearing the reply that *Shen Bao* had ceased publication after Liberation, the Chairman said: There was no reason to abolish *Shen Bao*—it was an old newspaper that had been published for decades! What does it do now? (Someone replied: It was changed into *Jiefang Ribao*.) The Chairman said: The change was not a good thing. But if we changed it back, it would look like a restoration. Still, this issue should be studied carefully.

Next, ××× from *Wen Hui Bao* raised a question. She said that after *People’s Daily* revised its format in July last year, newspapers in Shanghai also made some changes, but many problems remained after the changes. Everyone felt that their level of Marxism was low, and in running newspapers under a socialist society, they were operating without a clear sense of direction.

The Chairman said: Now you are without a clear sense of direction, but gradually you will gain one. At the beginning of any endeavor, there is always a lack of clarity. In guerrilla warfare, before we fought, we hadn’t even thought about it—we were forced onto Mount Liang, had no choice but to fight, and just had to brace ourselves and go ahead. Of course, fighting wars is no laughing matter, but as we fought on, we gradually became familiar with it. For newly emerging problems, who has a clear sense of direction? I, too, lack it. Take the Korean War, for example. Fighting U.S. imperialism was not the same as fighting others like Japan; at first we were also groping in the dark. After one or two battles, we gained some clarity. Now we have to handle the problem of contradictions among the people—it’s not like the class struggles of the past (though there is still some class struggle mixed in). It is very natural to be without a clear sense of direction at first. It doesn’t matter if you are—just study the problems carefully. Although many books have been published on socialism, there were no books teaching us how to carry out socialism in concrete terms at the time of the socialist revolution in Russia. There were also some books that laid out everything about socialism, but that was utopian socialism, not scientific socialism. Even though things can be predicted before they appear, that does not mean we can concretely propose the policies and methods to solve the problems.

Insufficient grounding in Marxism is a common problem. The only way to resolve this problem is to study well—and, of course, study must be voluntary. I hear that some writers deeply dislike Marxism, claiming that with it, novels become impossible to write. I see this as a kind of “conditioned reflex.” Whatever it is that belongs to old habits—when something new appears, it cannot penetrate because old thoughts push it back. Saying that studying Marxism makes novels hard to write probably stems from Marxism clashing with their old ideas, so they can’t produce anything.

We in China have about five million intellectuals. Having many intellectuals has both advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage lies in their crowding together. *People’s Daily* is like that—when intellectuals pile up, faults multiply. But there is also an advantage to piling together: knowledge is concentrated. It is very necessary to advocate that intellectuals study Marxism. We should advocate that everyone study it for ten or eight years. When their understanding of Marxism deepens, old ideas will be pushed out. But studying Marxism must also become a common practice; without such an atmosphere, it won’t be learned well.

At present, there are two tendencies in thought: one is the dogmatism represented by the likes of Chen Qitong and Ma Hanbing; the other is the right opportunism represented by Zhong Dianfei. Right opportunism strikes back at anyone who has doubts with a single stroke, affirming everything. I hear that Chen Qitong is not a bad person, but Ma Hanbing is very overbearing. He took an article to *People’s Daily*, shouted “The imperial edict has arrived,” and Deng Tuo fell to his knees. (×× interjected: At the time, when he brought the article in, as soon as he entered the door, he said they had some opinions and wanted to contend and air them, hoping the article would not be altered.) Ma Hanbing’s articles are thoroughly dogmatic; I just can’t bear to read them—they practically force you to undergo training. Zhong Dianfei—his name is very odd, but his articles are quite readable. Both dogmatism and right opportunism are one-sided; both use metaphysical methods of thought to observe and understand problems in a partial, isolated way. Of course, it is difficult to completely avoid one-sidedness, but partial and isolated ways of thinking are related to not having studied Marxism well. We should spend ten or eight years diligently studying Marxism to gradually cast aside metaphysical methods of thought. In that way, our intellectual outlook may undergo great change.

At this point, the Chairman told ××× to continue. ××× said: Now it is also difficult to carry out criticism in newspapers; counter-criticism is often simplistic and too crude. When *Wen Hui Bao* launched a discussion on film issues, at first older actors and directors joined in the discussion with great enthusiasm. But later, when comrades from the film leadership departments wrote articles and shot down the criticism with a single shot, those people deeply regretted it, thinking they had been tricked into speaking out.

The Chairman said: This criticism of films has been very beneficial. However, the Film Bureau has not been open enough—their articles tend to affirm everything. The criticism has been very beneficial; as for films today, I don’t like watching them. Of course, there are good ones too—don’t deny everything. Where the criticism conforms to facts, the Film Bureau must accept it; otherwise they cannot improve. The articles published in your newspaper (referring to *Wen Hui Bao*), in the first period, featured more criticism; in the second period, more affirmation. Now you can organize articles to unify the two, affirming what is good and criticizing what is bad. It is wrong for the Film Bureau to ignore it. This debate has exposed problems and is beneficial to both the Film Bureau and those who wrote the articles. I heard that Zhong Dianfei has been dismissed from his post, is that so?

(×× replied: He resigned from his post as commentator for *Wenyi Bao* of his own accord.) The Chairman said: I think even such a dismissal is unnecessary. There were already many problems with films. The older actors and directors are full of grievances; they should be allowed to vent them.

(××× said: Regarding what newspapers publish, readers’ opinions vary. Some young people say *Wen Hui Bao* publishes things like music, chess, calligraphy, and painting—they don’t want to read that and have written letters of protest.) The Chairman said: Your newspaper is put together in a lively way; publishing things like music, chess, calligraphy, and painting—I don’t care to read them, and if young people don’t want to, they need not read them. Everyone has their own “conditioned reflex.” Not everyone enjoys the same things.

(Jin Zhonghua of *Xinwen Ribao* raised an opinion, saying: When tensions arise over daily life problems, the people voice many opinions. If newspapers don’t publish any of them, the people have grievances. If newspapers do publish them, the government and relevant departments have opinions, saying it stirs up the masses and creates even greater tension. What should be done?) The Chairman said: You can give it a try. (Meaning, you can publish some and see the reaction.) If the government and relevant professional departments have opinions, the newspaper offices can discuss and consult with them, then publish explanations in the papers, and see the results. Not publishing anything at all probably isn’t good—that way, the professional departments may become bureaucratic and not improve their work.

(The Chairman asked about the circulation of Shanghai’s newspapers. Jin Zhonghua replied: After *Xinmin Wanbao* expanded its coverage, its circulation increased significantly. At this point, someone in the room mentioned the “strange saying”: “With leadership in mind, editing a newspaper brings no freedom and readers don’t like it; without leadership in mind, editing a newspaper brings freedom and readers love it.” Wang Yunsheng then added: Calling this a strange saying is a mistake of principle.)

Chairman Mao said: This also requires concrete analysis. Newspapers must be led, but the leadership must suit objective conditions. Marxism acts according to circumstances, and circumstances include objective effects. If the masses love to read it, it proves the leadership is good; if they don’t, then perhaps the leadership is not so brilliant. There is correct leadership and incorrect leadership. Correct leadership acts according to circumstances, conforms to reality, and is welcomed by the masses. Incorrect leadership does not act according to circumstances, divorces itself from reality and from the masses, makes editors feel unfree, and produces newspapers the masses don’t want to read. That leadership must be dogmatist leadership. We must oppose dogmatism. The Chinese revolution was like this, too. If the Third International had not perished, the Chinese revolution could not have triumphed. When Lenin was alive, the Third International provided good leadership. After Lenin died, the leadership of the Third International was dogmatist. (The leaders Stalin and Bukharin were not very good.) Only under Dimitrov was the leadership good for a period. The report Dimitrov gave was very reasonable. Of course, the Third International also had merits—it helped various countries build their parties. Later, dogmatism disregarded each country’s specific characteristics and copied everything from Russia. China suffered a great loss. We spent more than ten years using the rectification method, criticized dogmatism, and acted independently and autonomously according to the spiritual essence of Marxism. Only then did we win the victory of the Chinese revolution. Lenin, too, refused to recognize the Second International, and the result was the victory of the October Revolution. We should not establish another international. After the Information Bureau came into being, it did only one thing: criticize Yugoslavia. (Kang Sheng: It also criticized France and Japan.) But that doesn’t mean we should never have such an organization. If we do, it would have to be like the early Third International—with each country independent and autonomous, acting according to its own circumstances, and not interfering in others’ affairs. I have spoken of these ideas with many Soviet comrades—with Yudin, with Mikoyan.

(Someone asked whether newspapers should specialize.)

The Chairman said: Some specialization is also good. For example, during the period when the free market was opening up, I loved reading *Dagong Bao* because it published a lot of such content and published it fast. But too much specialization can sometimes make things dull, and people’s interest wanes. Professionals also need to see things outside their specialty. (Someone mentioned that the content in newspapers nowadays is too “hard,” reflecting some opinions discussed recently in Shanghai on newspaper issues—for instance, saying “more ideological content makes a newspaper less lively,” and some advocating the slogan “softer, softer, even softer.”) The Chairman said: Socialist countries’ newspapers are always better than capitalist countries’ newspapers. Although Hong Kong’s newspapers don’t have what we call ideological content, they are not very meaningful either; what they say is untruthful, exaggerated, and spreads poisonous weeds. Our newspapers contain little poison and are beneficial to the people. The call for articles in the newspaper to be “shorter, shorter, even shorter” is correct. But “softer, softer, and even softer” needs consideration. Don’t be too hard; if they are too hard, people won’t like to read them. You can unite both hard and soft. Articles written in a language that is accessible and warm, moving from small matters to large, from near to far, drawing readers in—that is very good. Do you approve of Lu Xun or not? Lu Xun’s articles are neither too soft nor too hard; they are not hard to read. Some say that writing essays in his style is difficult, and that’s precisely what makes it hard. Someone asked: What would happen if Lu Xun were alive today? I think if Lu Xun were alive today, he might dare to write or he might not. Under an abnormal atmosphere, he too might not write. But more likely, he would write. As the saying goes: “He who dares to risk being cut to pieces dares to pull the emperor off his horse.” Lu Xun was a true Marxist, a thorough materialist. A true Marxist, a thorough materialist, is fearless, and so he would write. Now some writers dare not write, and there are two kinds of situations: one, we have not created an environment where they dare to write, and they fear being rectified; the other, they themselves have not mastered materialism thoroughly. Those who are thorough materialists dare to write. In Lu Xun’s time, being rectified meant imprisonment and beheading, but Lu Xun was not afraid. As for how to write essays like his nowadays—there is no experience yet. I suggest we bring Lu Xun out, learn from him as everyone’s example, and study it carefully. His essays cover many areas—politics, literature, art, and so on—especially in his later period, when he wrote most on politics, only lacking discussion on economics. Lu Xun’s works were forced out of him. His Marxism was also learned under pressure. He came from a family of scholars. People called him a feudal remnant, said he was no good. People like my fellow townsman Cheng Fangwu treated him badly. The Kuomintang suppressed him, and we Communists in Shanghai also targeted him—pressured from both sides—yet Lu Xun still wrote. Now, essays on economics can also be written. Whether an article is good or bad depends on its results. From ancient times, conclusions have always been drawn based on results.

(At this point, the Chairman asked the representative from *Guangming Ribao* whether he was a Communist Party member. The comrade replied, “I am a Party member.”) The Chairman said: A Party member running a newspaper for a democratic party—that’s not good. The Chairman then said: Your newspaper is still quite readable; it has many supplements.

The Chairman then asked Comrade Zhu Muzhi of the Xinhua News Agency: "Are your news reports well received? I've heard that some people in your organization have raised the question of whether news agency dispatches have a class nature." After Comrade Zhu Muzhi replied, the Chairman said: Before classes are eliminated, whether it is a news agency or a newspaper, news always has a class nature. To claim "freedom of the press" is deceptive. Completely objective reporting does not exist. Even American news agencies and newspapers now occasionally report on the economic development of New China. The reason is that they want to do business, so they deliberately put on a show for people to see, because the economic crisis is pressing down on them. When necessary, won't Chiang Kai-shek also put on some postures? He, too, floats trial balloons about peace talks. Because the United States is pressuring him, wanting to replace him with even more pro-American figures like Hu Shi, he floats talk of peace so that the U.S. won't press him too hard. Now the U.S. has learned our old tricks. In the past, we united with democratic parties to isolate Chiang Kai-shek; now the U.S. is uniting with Hu Shi and others to isolate Chiang Kai-shek, pulling the rug out from under him. The situation has reversed, and now it's up to us to "protect" Chiang Kai-shek. It is better for Chiang not to collapse than to collapse. If he collapses, figures like Hu Shi, who are even more pro-American, would come to power, and that would be worse. Chiang Kai-shek floats talk of peace to resist American pressure. We should not expose or criticize him for it. If he talks, we can talk too. Of course, Chiang Kai-shek remains anti-Communist and will still denounce us—without doing so, he would have no political capital.

Shu Xincheng from Zhonghua Book Company (retired three years ago, recently returned to work) reported on the current situation in the publishing industry and what he observed during his inspection tour of Changsha, Hunan. He believes that people say current publications are both "scarce" and "excessive," but in reality, scarcity is the main issue. Therefore, he requested that the central government find a way to solve the paper supply problem. He also mentioned that now each central ministry is setting up its own specialized publishing house, handling editing, publishing, and the entire set of operations independently. He questioned whether this is necessary and suggested that perhaps they should only be responsible for editing their own ministry's professional books and periodicals, while unifying other operations to save manpower and material resources. Furthermore, he noted that large quantities of archives and old books are being collected and pulped for recycling in many places, destroying vast amounts of archival materials, books, and newspapers. The Cultural Relics Preservation Committee only looks after cultural relics and not materials. If this continues, it will be difficult to find past materials in the future.

On the paper supply issue, the Chairman said: Shouldn't the Ministry of Light Industry consider investing a bit more? This wouldn't be a losing investment. (A comrade from the Ministry of Culture said: We already asked the Premier for instructions, calculated once, and there's no possibility of increasing investment.) The Chairman interrupted him, saying: People are talking about needing paper, and you say there is no paper. No one wants to listen to that—just drop it. Regarding the problem of archives and old books being pulped for recycling, the Chairman said: This is a new form of book burning. If one province does this, others will follow suit. I'm afraid there is even more of it in Zhejiang and nearby. (Turning to ××, he said) This issue merits some attention.

At this point, ×× spoke. He said: The Chairman's conversation today with people from the publishing world will mark a new era in the study of Chinese newspaper history. He hoped the Chairman would give guidance on the fundamental issues of journalism. ××× believed that the key issue in newspaper work at present is how to correctly carry out criticism. He said this problem has long existed, but now, when handling contradictions among the people, whether criticism in newspapers is done well has a significant bearing on dealing with those contradictions. Therefore, could a few guidelines be devised to regulate it? Comrade Kang Sheng also interjected, saying that newspapers now encounter many difficulties in carrying out criticism. Isn't there a saying: "If you criticize the young, you are accused of suppressing the new forces; if you criticize veteran cadres, you are accused of being unsteady; if you criticize democratic figures, you are accused of undermining the united front"?

The Chairman said: When criticizing, you must prepare a way down for others. Otherwise, when the masses surround him, he won't be able to descend the stairs. The same goes for opposing bureaucracy. During the "Three-Antis" campaign, many ministers were helped down the stairs prepared for them by the Central Committee. In the early days of the "Three-Antis," it was said that so many "tigers" were uncovered, but later, upon investigation, it turned out to be only 2 to 3 percent. The elimination of counterrevolutionaries had a similar situation. The "Three-Antis" was actually about rectifying the Communist Party; the "Five-Antis" was about rectifying the capitalists. It was necessary to launch movements in the past; we couldn't do without them. But once launched, they hurt too many people. We should learn our lesson. Now, implementing major democracy is not in the interest of the vast majority of the people. If you try to overthrow the People's Government, Chiang Kai-shek will return. Some people always want to use major democracy against others, wanting to fix them, but end up fixing themselves. In that case, the less democracy the better. In my view, in matters of literature, journalism, and the like, we should use minor democracy. Add another "minor" to minor democracy—it's like a fine drizzle, falling constantly. The rectification movement will officially start next year. This year, we will first issue a directive so that everyone can prepare; there will be an informal period. In this informal period, if you examine yourself and find subjectivism, bureaucratism, or sectarianism, correct it, and afterward it will not be pursued. Not long ago, when Comrade Chen Boda returned to his hometown in Fujian for grassroots elections, that's how it was. Some cadres had embezzled, they were told to disgorge the money and admit mistakes to the masses. As a result, after the masses criticized them, the cadres were still re-elected. This is a very good experience. When the Communist Party rectifies, it will inevitably affect democratic figures, but we must absolutely avoid fatally harming anyone. We must use the method of small-scale democracy, rectifying the Communist Party first. Now, some of our comrades put on airs. They have no real "capital," yet they want to be officials and cannot do without swagger. Once the Communist Party rectifies, everyone will become modest.

As for running newspapers, the Communist Party is not as good as non-Party figures. Running a newspaper in Yan'an, our history was very short; in running a national newspaper, we have no experience. The same goes for running schools, publishing, and scientific research. There are about five million intellectuals in the entire country. Communist Party members are merely a little finger in comparison. Our trump cards are fighting wars and exercising dictatorship. In literature and art, we have a little, but not many people. When people say the Communist Party cannot lead science, there is a half-truth in that statement. Right now, we are laymen leading experts, engaged in administrative leadership and political leadership. As for specific science and technology, like geology, the Communist Party does not understand it. But the Kuomintang didn't understand it either. In more than twenty years in power, the Kuomintang only produced a little over two hundred geological talents. In the seven years since liberation, we have trained over ten thousand. Administrative leadership is just "one Li Xiannian plus one Li Fuchun"—one managing food supply, the other managing planning. We are in a transitional period and can only do it this way. This situation will change in the future. Now, we must strive to have more than 80% of the intellectuals in the intermediate state study Marxism. We should ask them to have a preliminary understanding of Marxism, not demand they completely master it all at once. The creator of Marxism, Marx himself, did not master it all at once. In 1848, the "Communist Manifesto" was published, marking the beginning of the Marxist system, not its completion. It is unrealistic to demand that intellectuals accept Marxism all at once. People claim to understand Marxism, but their degrees of understanding are actually different. I myself have not read many Marxist books. I don't know how many books they have written; probably we have translated less than half. (Comrade Zeng Yanxiu from the People's Publishing House said: About 47% has been translated.) As specialists, they need to read more; we don't have that much time, so reading less is fine. The key is to pay attention to research methods. Now many cadres have no habit of reading and spend their spare energy playing poker, watching theater, or dancing. People should not waste time.

You have raised many questions today. Everyone go back and study them, try seeking answers yourselves. When holding meetings, we should have people from inside and outside the Party together. The Communist Party should not hold meetings behind closed doors. Meeting together has advantages; it is dialectics. It can unify the views from both sides. (Comrade Kang Sheng interjected: Everyone is not yet accustomed to this kind of meeting format. Non-Party figures have some concerns, and those inside the Party tend to hem and haw. What the Chairman said is a good method.) The Chairman said: Go back and try it to see if it works. If it doesn't, I'll issue a coercive order. As for the numbers, I think non-Party figures can account for one-third, and Communist Party members two-thirds.

The articles by Ma Hanbing and the others were wrong in orientation and also wrong in method. Their orientation opposed the Central Committee's orientation. They used suppression, which cannot persuade people. (Kang Sheng: Currently, regarding this orientation of the Central Committee, there are also three factions. The articles by Chen Qitong and Ma Hanbing represent the "Left" faction, doubting that this orientation is good and arguing we should not promote it in the future. The Right faction, regardless of the circumstances, believes that making a fuss in the newspapers is beneficial. It is beneficial, but it depends on how the fuss is made. Then there is the middle faction, which acknowledges the orientation is good but is not quite sure in their hearts and harbors some apprehension about difficulties.) The Chairman said: What is there to fear? If criticizing the young helps the young, criticizing veteran cadres helps veteran cadres, and criticizing democratic figures strengthens the united front, isn't that very good? (Comrade Kang Sheng also said: Now, cadres in the military are ideologically confused about this orientation, believing that the military carries out positive education and can only allow fragrant flowers to bloom, not poisonous weeds to sprout.) The Chairman said: In fact, poisonous weeds exist, only they do not appear under that name. Because everyone presents their own opinions as fragrant flowers. Of course, the military should differ somewhat from other departments; the military operates by giving orders. But our military has always had democratic discussions; soldiers can criticize officers, and if the reply is unsatisfactory, they can criticize again. Doesn't the military also have corruption, waste, and warlordism? Therefore, the military also must undergo rectification. But things must not get disorderly; it should be carried out under leadership. During the "Three-Antis" in the past, a theater could put up a sign for "tiger hunting" and suspend performances for a few days, but a newspaper can't do that. If there are shortcomings, we can hold a meeting to discuss them, but it cannot cease publication tomorrow. (Comrade Kang Sheng interjected: For the military, we should "open avenues for speech and emphasize results.") The Chairman said: That's very good. We should do this everywhere.

Regarding the question of speed in news reporting, news workers participated in the discussion at this propaganda conference. On this issue, the Chairman said: Concrete issues must be analyzed concretely, and the speed of news is also like that. For example, regarding news about the anti-opium campaign, it was not a question of publishing it quickly or slowly, but a matter of simply not publishing it. Because at the UN General Assembly, the United States slandered us by saying we sell opium. If we published it, wouldn't we be providing them with propaganda material? The same goes for news about land reform; we do not publicize it in newspapers, to avoid disseminating immature and erroneous experiences. At the end of the year before last, Beijing achieved full-scale joint state-private ownership of all industries and trades within a few days and declared entry into socialism. Originally, such news should have been carefully considered. Later, after Xinhua News Agency broadcast it, (Comrade Zhu Muzhi from Xinhua General Agency said it was the radio station that broadcast it first,) every locality, disregarding its own specific conditions, rushed to do the same, and we ended up in a passive position. Another example is during the Hungarian incident when Nagy came to power. We did not know the situation clearly, yet we lacked composure and published the news three days early. As a result, on the first day, the news published did not say whether he was good or bad; the second day, the news said he was good; the third day, it said he was bad. The masses were bewildered. Therefore, since the situation was unclear, we could have simply not published it at all. On this point, the French Communist Party was cleverer than us. L'Humanité is published in Paris, surrounded by bourgeois newspapers. When it hadn't clarified the situation, it simply didn't publish.

When the conversation turned to training more people to write articles, the Chairman said: We must definitely find people who can write articles, and we have already found some. As for whether articles criticizing matters within the people should be sharp, the Chairman said: When criticizing within the ranks of the people, the edge can also be sharp. I would also like to write some articles for the newspapers, but I would have to resign from the post of Chairman first. I could open a special column in the newspaper and become a columnist. Articles must be sharp; a knife must be sharp to cut paper. But sharpness must help people, not wound them.

Regarding whether one can criticize local policies, the Chairman said: Some can be criticized. I heard that in a county town in Xinjiang, the commercial system alone opened 24 companies. *Ta Kung Pao*, aren’t you involved in business reporting? You could pick a few typical cases and criticize them. (×× from *People’s Daily* said: Newspapers handle issues involving contradictions among the people poorly, and the impact is negative. But we lacked experience in this area in the past, and our writing style was rigid. Now the situation is different, and the writing style cannot keep up.) The Chairman said: It hasn’t been adapted for a long time. Some articles make people uncomfortable to read; they don’t reason things out but come across as overbearing. (×× continued: This, of course, is related to the ideological methods and work style of our newspaper comrades. Winds are often stirred up by newspapers. Newspapers themselves are aware of this and are trying hard to avoid stirring up winds and one-sidedness. For example, in promoting birth control and late marriage this time, *People’s Daily* was mindful from the outset to prevent one-sidedness, but once too many news reports and articles were published, problems arose at the grassroots level.) The Chairman said: Once there are too many articles, people assume the marriage law is being revised and rush to get married. In that case, running a newspaper is truly difficult. In the old society, what appeared in newspapers was seen by ordinary people as if they hadn’t seen it at all. Now, the moment something is published in a newspaper, the circumstances are very different. (×× added: For instance, on the issue of "letting a hundred schools of thought contend," some think that contention should mainly be limited to academic ideas, while practical work is not suitable for discussion. The relationship between the two can easily be confused. For example, in discussions about the labor and defense system and teaching according to aptitude, once too many articles appeared in the newspapers, some students' and teachers' thoughts became confused. Perhaps a scope should be delineated.) The Chairman said: For purely academic matters, no matter how much debate there is, it will have no impact. As for policy-related ones, it might be necessary to differentiate circumstances, but delineating a scope is also difficult because there are so many policies. If some adverse effects arise from the promotion of birth control and late marriage, then the newspapers can publish articles to explain and clarify. Our articles are often untimely. As for how to delineate the scope, each newspaper can study it on its own after returning.

(Comrade Zhu Muzhi from the Xinhua News Agency’s head office said: There are many issues now. Could we possibly convene a special meeting to discuss and summarize them?)

The Chairman said: This time we are only raising questions. There will be another meeting for discussion later. This meeting is also a "five lakes and four seas" gathering; we will see the results in the future. The issues I discussed in my speech at the Supreme State Conference had actually been accumulating in my mind for a long time. I spoke about them several times last year, and later observed some things and read the articles by Chen Qitong, Ma Hanbing, and others. I thought some people might assume their articles represented the opinions of the Central Committee, so I felt it was necessary to talk things through thoroughly. Because *More on the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat* only addressed international issues. Now, domestically, the large-scale, tempestuous class struggle has basically ended, and contradictions among the people have come to the fore. Consequently, there arose a gust of wind saying there is too much criticism, that the people are causing disturbances, and everyone is anxious and fidgety. Yet some others feel it’s still not enough. Some want to retract, some want to expand. What exactly is the Central Committee’s policy? Everyone wants to probe for the bottom line. Actually, the Central Committee doesn’t have any other bottom line; the policy is just that one, but new issues have emerged. Strikes and school boycotts are all problems among the people. The school boycotts happened because too many students were recruited last year. With so many recruited, some worried they couldn’t fill the quotas and thus resorted to deception. Deception naturally left the students dissatisfied. When problems pile up, they appear serious. Such things will continue to occur in the future. Among the people, the vast majority are petty bourgeoisie, a portion are national bourgeoisie, and there are many democratic parties, as well as democrats with no party affiliation. We are now in a period of great social upheaval, and ideological confusion reflects this upheaval; it would be incomprehensible if it were not reflected. Bureaucratism is the direct cause of disturbances, because if bureaucratism refuses to change, the masses will cause disturbances. The Chinese people are the most disciplined. When the supply of non-staple foods in Shanghai was extremely tight, we laid out the situation, explained the reasons clearly, and asked everyone to think of solutions. As a result, didn’t this year's Spring Festival turn out well? The transition period has not yet ended, and problems big and small will arise every day. (××× said: We haven't had enough contact with the press circles in the past.) The Chairman said: It's not that there’s been no contact, is it? From now on, we’ll hold a meeting every year. We are still doing relatively well today. In the Soviet Union, after the October Revolution in 1917, things were still very chaotic by 1927, literature and art were even more chaotic, they were poorer, and intellectuals complained even louder. After thirty-nine years now, their goods are not necessarily more plentiful than ours. At this point, someone raised the question of whether there was one-sidedness in our past propaganda about the Soviet Union. The Chairman said: Of course, the Soviet Union has its shortcomings; we should not publish them. India’s shortcomings, we also do not publish. At present, it is the Western capitalist countries that disseminate propaganda. Regarding these, we just need to be one-sided. Some people say West Germany’s production is faster than East Germany’s, and why do you always say West Germany is inferior to East Germany? But in our propaganda, we should still not say West Germany is better than East Germany, though we also should not say East Germany is better than West Germany in every way. Our socialist countries also have shortcomings, because our history is short. Marxism first achieved revolutionary victory by breaking through at the weakest link in the capitalist chain. I once told comrades from Germany that now Marx is very busy in the East and cannot return for the time being, so their revolution there cannot succeed. Now Asia is politically more advanced than Britain and the United States because the living standards of Asians are much lower than those in Britain and the United States. We were exploited in the past and very poor; being poor necessitates revolution. They have high living standards and high cultural levels, yet they just do not undergo revolution. Naturally, the United States also has its advantages—short history and no historical burdens. When they study history, it’s not as taxing as it is for us, and they don’t need to discuss the issue of historical periodization. Sometimes bad things can turn into good things. Now, the East is advanced and the West is backward. In a few decades, when Eastern countries have thoroughly expelled Western imperialists, at that time, they will have no colonies to exploit, profits will dwindle, while we Eastern countries will have grown rich. Their living standards will drop. The people will then progress. Now Asia is stirring, Africa is stirring. If Latin America also stirs, then things will be much easier to handle.