This propaganda work conference has been conducted very well, raising many issues and enabling us to understand many things. It is impossible to resolve all these issues in a single meeting, though some can be addressed. Now, I will express a few points:

(1) At the last Supreme State Conference, I mentioned that a new issue has arisen before us. We are currently in a period of great social upheaval, a transformation that has been long in the making. The War of Liberation was a great upheaval; tracing back to the War of Resistance Against Japan, that too was a great upheaval. The War of Liberation overthrew the Chiang Kai-shek government, and now the change is even more profound as we carry out the socialist revolution. Several hundred million people have entered this movement, undergoing socialist transformation among this vast population. At the same time, the nation is extensively engaged in economic construction, establishing many factories, undertaking numerous water conservancy projects, expanding transportation and communication networks, and setting up many schools, scientific research institutions, and newspapers—things that did not exist during the base area days. Newspapers did exist in the past, but in the four years of the Five-Year Plan, especially in the last two years, schools and factories have suddenly multiplied. Such a massive transformation will inevitably be reflected in ideology, for existence determines consciousness, and the interrelations among all classes nationwide are changing. The bourgeois-democratic revolution brought changes to the Kuomintang government, with one group rising to power and another falling; the relationship between landlords and peasants shifted over the land issue, with one group rising up and the other stepping down. Enterprises once under Kuomintang rule and bureaucratic capital underwent changes; more recently, private industry and commerce have also changed. Several hundred million members of the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie are all undergoing changes, with individual ownership turning collective and private ownership becoming public. Various differing opinions reflecting in ideology are entirely understandable. Such a massive transformation is fundamentally healthy. Overthrowing an old system and establishing a new one is basically sound, but it will take several years to consolidate. We are now in a period without consolidation. For example, cooperatives will likely need about five years to become consolidated, requiring the completion of the Second Five-Year Plan—this year, plus five more years—for China’s socialist system to be firmly established. One cannot assume that merely establishing cooperatives means consolidation; that is impossible. Newly built factories all have a consolidation process, as do newly established schools, newspapers, and periodicals. However, we should recognize that consolidation will indeed occur. On the foundation of the new socialist system, building a great industrial nation—this prospect must be seen.

(2) Regarding the issue of intellectuals: there is no precise tally of how many intellectuals there are. Rough estimates suggest there are about five million of various kinds. A rough analysis can be made, categorizing them simply as left, center, and right. A minority are not so welcoming of socialism and even harbor hostile sentiments, believing the socialist system lacks superiority, are not so pleased about walking the socialist path, or even hold hostile views, doubting whether the socialist system can endure. They think it might fail or hope that one day it will revert to the capitalist system. Such people are very few; some say they account for 10 percent, but that is probably an overstatement—perhaps 1 or 2 percent, or even fewer. In short, such individuals exist. They all come from the old society. Beyond these, over 90 percent are patriots who support socialism. Yet many are still not entirely clear on how to work under the new socialist system, or how to resolve and respond to many new issues. Second, some are not entirely accustomed to Marxism-Leninism, not so enthusiastic, not so welcoming. But the majority wish to study Marxism-Leninism. So, among the roughly five million intellectuals, probably about 10 percent or so, including Communist Party members and non-Party individuals, are relatively familiar with Marxism and approve of and support it. Only about 10 percent or so—perhaps a bit more, perhaps a bit less, this is just an estimate—are, after all, a minority among the five million intellectuals. The majority wish to study, have studied a bit, but are not so familiar; some have certain doubts. Take patriotism, for instance—many do not endorse socialism or the Marxist worldview, but in the presence of foreigners, they are patriots. Another group is in an intermediate state, constituting the vast majority. A minority are opposed. Such dissenters will persist for a very long time. For example, religious believers may endorse socialism but not the Marxist worldview. We are atheists, but as long as religion exists, they remain theists. Some inwardly do not endorse the Marxist worldview, dare not say so openly, but in reality do not approve—they should not be forced to accept it and should be tolerated. Among the majority, the degree of approval varies: some approve, some approve to some extent, or some still have certain doubts. We must acknowledge that such a situation will persist for a very long period. Setting excessively high demands would not align with reality and would lower the effectiveness of our tasks. There is one Marx abroad—how could China produce several hundred million Marxes? If everyone were a Marxist, we would have no task of propaganda. We are holding a propaganda work conference; comrades all are engaged in propaganda work, and we have the task of propaganda, striving to carry it out well. In a few decades, when more intellectuals have accepted the Marxist worldview, through scientific research, production, and practical work, and come to understand a bit more Marxism-Leninism, that will be fine. But we cannot force others to accept it; we can only persuade them to do so.

(3) We are all educators of the people. Whether running schools, being scientists, journalists, literary figures, or artists, all are educators of the people, all are teachers of the people. These five million intellectuals are the wealth of our nation; without these five million intellectuals, we could accomplish nothing well. Though our country’s culture is not developed, with these five million intellectuals—these teachers who will instruct many students—our literary and artistic workers and their works, our scientific and technical personnel and their achievements, newspapers, university professors, and primary and secondary school teachers all constitute a very important part of us. Our nation consists of only three groups: workers, peasants, and intellectuals. Intellectuals serve the workers and peasants, are mental-labor workers, and are educators of the people. Therefore, they have a task: those who educate the people must first be educated themselves. Especially during this period of great upheaval, these five million intellectuals are a legacy of the old society and must receive education. Would it be appropriate to say there is no need for study? Some may think, "Socialist transformation means transforming capitalists and individual producers; there is no need to transform intellectuals." That is probably inappropriate. All of us have the task of studying. If Communist Party members do not study new issues, do not discard outdated and inappropriate things, do not embrace new realities and study new principles, then the task of educating others will be carried out very poorly. Can we affirm this: that everyone, including the five million intellectuals, must study? To claim one has already been transformed is incorrect; in my view, transformation is still needed. Even after several Five-Year Plans, transformation will still be necessary, because by then, changes will have occurred again, and many new issues will have emerged. During that period, Marxism will continue to develop, and those who understand Marxism well will still need to study. I believe the majority are willing to study. On this basis, with the kind assistance of others—not through forced study, as people fear large-scale ideological struggle in meetings—we encourage individual research and group assistance. One can only teach while learning, being both a teacher and a student simultaneously. Moreover, many things cannot be mastered solely from books. We must learn from workers, peasants, and students, and learn from those we educate. We must study through production and work.

(4) Rectification. Communist Party members must prepare for rectification. We conducted one over a decade ago, and later rectified several times, though those were of a work-review nature, not the kind of rectification carried out in Yan’an. Preparations will begin this year, with the Central Committee making decisions, conducting trials, and then promoting it universally next year. Non-Party individuals may participate voluntarily. During rectification, we will criticize subjectivism (mainly dogmatism). Next, we will address sectarianism—failing to assist and unite with people based on the scope of six hundred million people and five million intellectuals, or not proceeding from this actual situation, constitutes sectarianism. Another issue is bureaucratism, which is now quite serious. To overcome shortcomings and correct mistakes, we must foster an environment and habit of free criticism nationwide. The rectification method should be like that of Yan’an: studying documents, reviewing materials, and if one has errors or shortcomings, offering criticism. No matter who—including members of the Central Committee—if there are mistakes and shortcomings, speak about them. Do not use "great democracy," only "small democracy." In small group meetings, using very minor democracy is also acceptable: as gentle as a breeze and mild as rain, curing the sickness to save the patient, opposing the method of "knocking someone down with a single blow." It is precisely during rectification that we push Marxism-Leninism a step forward and study a bit more Marxism. Comrade Lu Dingyi recently wrote an article stating that the rectification movement is an ideological movement that can develop Marxism—this is entirely correct. On many issues, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin neither addressed nor foresaw them. We should not limit ourselves to the scope of what they discussed; we can develop ideas according to their fundamental principles, following their basic direction. Marxism must develop; it cannot stagnate, for without development, it has no life. Fundamental principles cannot be violated; violating them is revisionism. But standing still is dogmatism.

(5) The issue of serving the people. For intellectuals to serve the people means serving the workers and peasants. Apart from these two groups, there is no one else. Capitalists will become workers, and landlords will become peasants. We must now encourage intellectuals to go down to factories and villages. Recently, several comrades went to the countryside. Comrades Chen Boda and Deng Zihui spent several months living in rural villages, which was very beneficial—they saw many things. "Viewing flowers while riding past on horseback" is one method. Another method is "dismounting to view the flowers." Comrades Chen Boda and Deng Zihui dismounted to look; they conducted investigations over several months and made friends. Should our writers and artists go down? They should. It is not necessary for all scientific and technical personnel to go down—those in factories or laboratory researchers need not all go, but occasionally taking a turn through the countryside or factories has its benefits. Those whose families are in the countryside but never return home, never meeting workers or peasants in their entire lives—this is not good. I hope that of these people, seven out of ten will go to the countryside or factories to have a look around. The remaining three may be older or simply unwilling to go. If 70 percent go down to see and understand the situation—examining primary and secondary schools, incidentally looking at cooperatives, with people's representatives and political committee members all going down to observe—it would be excellent if this could be accomplished. It is not that after today's meeting, tomorrow 70 percent will all scatter, for then the cooperatives would be overwhelmed—there are so many journalists, they could not afford to host them. Gradually, within the span of three five-year plans, with eleven years still remaining, we must strive for intellectuals to have direct contact with workers and peasants: to look around, to move about, to mix with workers and peasants for several months, one year, two or three years, to live there, settle down and make a home, then return after two or three years. This was done in Yan'an—at that time there were many intellectuals, and for a period there was ideological confusion and strange arguments, causing great chaos. Later a meeting was convened, speeches were made, and a group of people went down; afterward things improved considerably. Intellectuals, strictly speaking, have no knowledge—they neither plow the fields nor make tables, chairs, and benches. Intellectuals only read books. Of course, books must be read; one can learn from predecessors' experience. But reading books alone cannot solve problems. One must have friends and also study current conditions. Nowadays some people go down to experience life; some achieve results, some do not. Workers and peasants do not speak truthfully to them. At a glance: "You are an intellectual, you are different from me. You've come to conduct an investigation, probably intending to find fault with me, right?" Then they will not speak truthfully to you. See what attitude you adopt? This is related to the Marxist-Leninist worldview. The Marxist-Leninist worldview is the proletarian worldview, not the petty-bourgeois or bourgeois worldview. Now, because of socialist transformation, the petty bourgeoisie has become collective laborers, and the bourgeoisie has become workers—this makes it possible to propagate to them the working-class worldview, the proletarian worldview. By their origin, many intellectuals are bourgeois intellectuals. Some attended bourgeois schools and learned the bourgeois worldview. For example, I attended bourgeois schools and learned the bourgeois worldview; Marxism was learned later. To change the old worldview and exchange it for the working-class worldview is not so easy. So if one just goes down for a spin, workers and peasants will not speak truthfully to them. We must create an atmosphere where 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent—somehow over many years reaching 70 percent—within eleven years, 70 percent of intellectuals will have contact with workers and peasants and study problems. In this way, the Marxism seen in books can be turned into genuine Marxism. What is seen in books often slips away, just as we forget what we read in the newspapers every day. Marxism is truly learned mainly through work and practice; only then can one truly understand it. If this is done—having read Marxism in books, having had contact with workers and peasants, and understanding the Marxist worldview through work—then many people will share a common language. If more people, within several five-year plans, not only share a common language of patriotism but also a common language of socialism, possessing the Marxist worldview, the communist worldview—if this is not the case, I think many problems will still be difficult to solve. And writings will still not be written well. Some say: "It is better to learn less Marxism; learning too much spoils one's writing instead." This is one opinion. Marx himself said that theory is a guide to action, not dogma. Saying that learning Marxism hinders creative work is an idea that resists the Marxist worldview. Such a person has an old worldview in mind, a bourgeois worldview, and does not approve of new things. This must change gradually, and it will take a very long time; an atmosphere must be created. We advocate the orientation toward workers, peasants, and soldiers in literature and art. If not this orientation, what other orientation is there? In Yan'an it was the orientation toward workers, peasants, and soldiers; today it remains so. If someone says it is not, then what is it? There is only the bourgeois orientation. Some say: "Among a hundred schools of thought contending, Marx is one school, and there are 99 others." In my view, there are only two schools: the proletarian school and the bourgeois school. The Western world is one school; we are one school. Also, nationalism is one school, in an intermediate position. What does "a hundred schools" mean? Journalism is one school, education is one school. In journalism, I run a newspaper this way, you run a newspaper that way—that makes two schools. In running schools, universities are one school, secondary schools are one school—but within universities there can be many schools! Within the Academy of Sciences there can be many schools, and among technicians there are also many schools. In fact, it is not just a hundred schools, but a thousand schools, ten thousand schools. The so-called "hundred schools" is simply a way of saying there are many. I say that basically there are only two schools in the world today: the proletarian school and the bourgeois school. Within Marxism-Leninism, there are also several schools: the Marxist-Leninist school is one, and revisionism can also be counted as one—they hang up the signboard of Marxism but actually oppose Marxism. For example, the Labour Party in Britain also talks about socialism. Besides that, dogmatism is also one school. That makes three schools.

(6) The issue of one-sidedness. There are two kinds of one-sidedness: dogmatism and right opportunism, or revisionism. Comrade Lu Dingyi's article addresses this issue. One kind affirms everything; the other negates everything. Dogmatism affirms everything—so-called 100 percent Bolsheviks, not 99.9 percent, but insistently claimed as 100 percent. After ten years of effort, from 1935 to 1945, when later examined, the "correctness" was gone. Dogmatism exists abroad as well; it makes Marxism one-sided, using metaphysical viewpoints to interpret Marxism. Toward one's own work, it affirms everything, allowing only praise and no criticism—only the good, not the bad. Recently, a "world war" broke out in Beijing: many people surrounded the young writer Wang Meng, and we relieved the siege for Wang Meng and rescued him. Although his works have shortcomings, they raise an important issue by exposing bureaucratism. In short, one cannot speak out—once spoken, military law is invoked, as if military law has been violated. During our past military period, when we engaged in class struggle, we had some knowledge and methods. But this produced simplification and administrative orders, because leading the people in struggle against the enemy meant that many matters could not be discussed at such leisure; speed was necessary. This cultivated a style of work built on a single experience, a single method. Applying this method in a new environment is wrong. People who have worked in the military for a long time are especially prone to simplification. Now those besieging Wang Meng also included the People's Liberation Army—they deployed several regiments and surrounded him. That is not good.

The other kind is right opportunism, which negates everything: nothing good. The cause of the workers and peasants, socialist transformation, socialist construction—the great struggle of hundreds of millions of people—having nothing good to say, utterly dark, causing people to lose confidence. This does not accord with the facts. That everything is good and there are no difficulties also does not accord with the facts. It is not that everything is good; analysis is needed. For example, Zhong Dianfei exposed shortcomings and errors in cinema, which should draw our attention. What he exposed should be corrected, mistakes should be criticized, and what is correct should be set right. But his criticism is one-sided, and Taiwan welcomes it. Chen Qitong and three others published a statement in the People's Daily on January 7. Some conveyed it incorrectly, saying that I agreed. I repeat: I strongly disagree. These comrades are utterly loyal, serving the Party and the country, wanting to defend the Party and safeguard the interests of the working class. However, they harbor this sentiment that poisonous weeds must be utterly eliminated. They believe that since "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend" was proposed, the benefits have been few and the harms many. By their estimate, achievements are too few and shortcomings too many. Wang Meng was released, and ox-demons and snake-spirits all emerged—the situation is so dire it seems impossible to get through the day. Their assessment of the situation is mistaken. The article appears to endorse the policy of "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend," but in fact opposes it. They do not accept this policy and have doubts about it. Their article is not persuasive; it lacks analysis, proceeds simplistically with abrupt assaults, and people will not be convinced after reading it. I was not convinced when I read it. I do not know Wang Meng, and I am certainly not his in-law, yet I was not convinced. Both factions are metaphysics, both are one-sidedness, both are poisonous weeds, and both must be criticized. But we must cure the sickness to save the patient and help them. In fact, within the Communist Party, some such individuals are merely representative of many others; it is not just a personal problem. Can it be that outside the Communist Party there are none? There is dogmatism and opportunism. Among the five million intellectuals there are also "leftists" and rightists—not genuine leftists, but those within quotation marks—some affirming everything, some negating everything. This is unavoidable. In reality, in work and in writing, it is impossible to be free of one-sidedness. To demand that writing be entirely free of the slightest one-sidedness—how many hundreds of millions of Marxes would that require? There cannot be that many. To demand that everyone be free of one-sidedness is excessive. In fact, when criticism is made, each person speaks from their own perspective, based on their own experience. But can we ask for gradually more dialectics? So-called one-sidedness violates dialectics; metaphysics also violates dialectics. Is it possible for dialectics to be gradually promoted, gradually become more widespread? Let us make this demand: year by year, day by day, look at some problems more comprehensively. With so many writers, teachers, journalists, and scientists all harboring one-sidedness, it would be hard to manage. Therefore, admitting that one-sidedness exists is a fact; we must admit it. That is the first point. Second, it must be gradually overcome. Even in ten thousand years there will still be one-sidedness; otherwise, all six hundred million people, the entire world's population, would become dialecticians—that could never be. Dialectics must be gradually promoted: analyze things, make writings persuasive, reason things out, not relying on bureaucratic airs to overawe others, not handling matters through administrative orders. Throw the whatever bureau chiefs, section chiefs, and ministers one has been for decades beyond the highest heavens. When writing, be equal with others. However high one's official position, if one's words are wrong, people will still criticize. Wasn't Stalin's position high? When he made mistakes, people still spoke up. "Old-guard credentials—'Where were you during the revolution? You were probably crawling under the table!' or 'You were with the Kuomintang.'" Trotting out this sort of thing—people simply do not want to listen. Dialectics should gradually become more for him, metaphysics gradually less, and the two kinds of one-sidedness gradually less.

Can the Communist Party lead science? People say: "The Communist Party can lead class struggle and handle politics, but it cannot manage natural science." Some are uncomfortable hearing this and feel uneasy. I think they are half right: currently, it both can and cannot lead. Because if you don't understand it, but he does, and he can speak on it, you cannot provide concrete leadership on the specific content of a science. You simply cannot articulate it! One cannot deny this fact. They are speaking in light of these facts. That's the reasoning behind my saying it's half right. The half that's wrong is that since the Party can lead class struggle, it can also lead the struggle against nature. If one says the Communist Party can only lead class struggle and cannot lead the struggle against nature, then this Party will perish. This requires a process. In the past, we were busy with class struggle; now, class struggle has basically concluded, though not entirely, and many issues still require his handling. It is said that with one million intellectuals joining the Party, one cannot keep up—now, attention must be paid to this issue. This situation must change, and it will take several decades, three or four five-year plans, to bring about change. To learn science, it takes a long time. Learning class struggle also took 24 years, from 1921 to 1945—24 years before we summarized it, developing a set of sciences, a set of strategies and tactics. Natural science may also require about that much time. It just means going through middle school, university; after graduating from university, studying for a period, working for a period, and then you will have learned it. Just as I couldn't conduct political struggles before, many people also couldn't handle military struggles, but later they were driven to revolt and learned as soon as they were taught. Handling natural science is the same: those who are not too old can all learn, and we can also transfer some people to study. Among students, there are also many Party members and Youth League members. With over a decade of effort, they will understand. A Party that has been able to lead class struggle to victory now has the task of waging the struggle against nature, that is, undertaking socialist construction. In another ten or twenty years, it can be learned. At present, scientists are the teachers; we must learn from them. Is it the students leading the teachers, or the teachers leading the students? Of course, it is the teachers leading the students. Because you are the student, and he is the teacher.

Should struggles among the people take precedence, or should class struggle? This question has been raised in several places. Many comrades insist on naming a primary one. I think it's fine not to. It seems that calling class struggle primary feels more comfortable, while saying that contradictions among the people are primary seems not so good. Coincidentally, I committed this taboo: the topic I spoke on at the Supreme State Conference was precisely this—how to handle contradictions among the people. Contradictions among the people include a portion of class struggle. There is struggle with the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. Some say it sounds better to call it petty-bourgeois ideology, unwilling to call it bourgeois ideology. In essence, the petty bourgeoisie belongs to the category of the bourgeoisie. This has been explained in detail in the "Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party." Under current circumstances, it is difficult to disentangle and separate. Besides proletarian ideology, there is petty-bourgeois ideology and bourgeois ideology. Tell me, which is primary? Apart from proletarian ideology, it is very hard to distinguish which is primary. The struggle of contradictions among the people is now very prominent. The Eighth Party Congress already concluded that large-scale class struggle in the country has basically ended, and what is now prominent are contradictions among the people. Petty-bourgeois ideology is an issue among the people, and bourgeois ideology is also to be handled as an issue among the people. At present, petty-bourgeois ideology and bourgeois ideology can sometimes be discussed together. Which ones belong to the petty bourgeoisie and which to the bourgeoisie—that is very hard to demarcate, though it can be done if one insists. The prominent issue today is a matter among the people. We must conduct concrete analysis and refrain from applying big labels. It seems that applying big labels makes things easier—just stick the hat of "bourgeois" on someone. Many articles apply labels, though of course not every article does so. People always have to wear hats; in winter, if you don't wear a hat and walk outside without catching a cold, I won't believe it. But everyone's hat must fit one's own head. Hats belonging to others haven't been measured for size, and often one is just picked up and stuck on.

How should essays be written? Must they necessarily be one-sided? Earlier, I discussed that one-sidedness is unavoidable; one shouldn't demand such comprehensiveness, for that would hinder the expression of criticism. Whether long or short, one can require essays that do not carry one-sidedness. For instance, some of Lenin's articles are essay-like in nature, very much resembling Lu Xun's—some very sharp, very satirical. Who resembles whom, we need not bother. Can you say they are one-sided? Lu Xun targeted enemies; many of Lenin's essays targeted comrades, though some also targeted enemies. Can Lu Xun's approach to enemies be turned toward the people's internal matters? If Lu Xun were alive, I think it could. "Afraid to write articles, unable to probe the leaders' position"—I think the "position" is Marxism. What conforms to Marxism-Leninism is good. The current environment is not too bad, unlike during the Kuomintang period when there was censorship. Editorial departments want to revise articles, but some people's articles should not be revised. The government has not set up any censorship organs either. After the policy of "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend" was proposed, the atmosphere has become even more liberal. Yet there's a question—that is, a thoroughgoing materialist fears nothing, is dauntless, and must reason things out. A dialectical materialist is very revolutionary; why fear bureaucracy? I think one should not fear. Yet we cannot deny the environmental issue; the present environment still leaves some people afraid to write articles. Therefore, the Communist Party must carry out rectification. Those who think they are "number one under heaven" must be rectified to become a bit more modest, to view issues with an attitude of equality. Both authors and readers should adopt an attitude of equality. Lu Xun, precisely, treated readers and writers with an attitude of equality. Truly good articles will be welcomed by readers. A genuine Marxist fears nothing, wholeheartedly serves the people, and is determined to carry out reform. In the late Qing Dynasty, when writing articles, there were literary inquisitions. For example, Zhang Taiyan's "Book of Railing," "Eulogy to Heaven," and Zou Rong's "Fierce Four Heads" and "The Revolutionary Army" were all loved by the people. Yet Zhang Taiyan and Zou Rong both sat in jail at the same time. At that time, Zhang Taiyan was a materialist. Zhang Taiyan had much materialism; he wrote an essay refuting Kang Youwei, calling him "a petty clown from the South Sea who cannot distinguish beans from grains"—and for that served three years in jail. Zhang Taiyan had an essay called "Qiu Shu," which contained many things and directly cursed Emperor Kangxi. Zhang Taiyan's "Min Bao" was still published under all kinds of difficult conditions. Though we face paper shortages and our leadership has shortcomings, our conditions are much better than when Zhang Taiyan ran a vernacular newspaper. Now, to reform this country, we need such aspirations, need people of noble ideals and ambition, to transform our economically and culturally backward country for the better. Thinking along these lines, one need not be afraid of anything. Yet, wanting reform while also fearing it—that won't work. We must also create an environment that enables those who write to aspire to reform and have the conditions to do so.

(7) To "let things out" or to "restrict things"? This is a question of policy. "Let a hundred schools of thought contend and a hundred flowers bloom" has been practiced for so long, and now some people want to tighten control. In the discussions, comrades did not favor tightening control, and this view is correct. The Central Committee is in favor of letting things out. Will this lead to chaos? Some people fear chaos, but chaos leads to order — one bout of chaos, one bout of order. Will it turn into another Hungary? It cannot, and even if it did, there would be nothing to fear. Hungary turned out well. If we were like Hungary, with so many mistakes, so many counterrevolutionaries, and imperialists directing things there, then let the change happen if it must — what use is fear? At the meeting of provincial and municipal Party secretaries on January 18, I spoke about truth, goodness, and beauty. Truth stands in opposition to fallacy, and even ten thousand years from now, erroneous ideas will still exist, and ugly, evil phenomena will always be there. Good and bad, beauty and ugliness, truth and falsehood are always relative. Without good, there would be no bad; without bad, there would be no good. Without great villains, there would be no great heroes. Fragrant flowers and poisonous weeds are opposed to each other. When poisonous weeds grow in abundance, someone will uproot them. Truth develops in the struggle against error. The struggle between good and evil, between beauty and ugliness, always involves comparison, and it develops through comparison. In society, through the struggle between good people and bad people, when good people increase, bad people decrease. Do not fear an abundance of poisonous weeds — when plentiful, they can fertilize the fields. What are poisonous weeds? I once asked Bulganin whether, a hundred years ago in Europe, tomatoes were considered poisonous weeds. He said yes, that was the case. What were poisonous weeds over a hundred years ago have now turned into fragrant flowers. I have spoken of Jesus, Martin Luther, Copernicus, Galileo, Sun Yat-sen, and the Communist Party. What one class considers a fragrant flower, another class may regard as a poisonous weed; what one class deems a poisonous weed, another may see as a fragrant flower. Dulles is a fragrant flower to the American bourgeoisie but a poisonous weed to the people of the world. Is Chiang Kai-shek a poisonous weed? Does he now seem a little fragrant? At one time he was fragrant, during the Northern Expedition. Later he opposed the people. During the War of Resistance Against Japan, people still shouted, "Long live Chairman Chiang!" He was an old friend and once lent us grain. Fragrant flowers and poisonous weeds represent the struggle of opposites, the unity of opposites. Only through comparison can we distinguish them, can there be development. Without it, there is no development. Marxism developed in the struggle against the bourgeoisie. Someone asked: Can Marxism be criticized? I say it can. If it is refuted by criticism, then it deserves to fall. But I think it is hard to refute through criticism. If it is refuted, it is not Marxism. If criticism were to bring down the People's Government and Chairman Chiang were to return, would the people be happy? Surely not. So there should be no fear of criticism. Recently I watched a film, *The Pickwick Papers*, based on Dickens's work, which criticizes the capitalist system of the first half of the 19th century. The bourgeoisie in its rising period did not fear criticism; in its declining period, it fears criticism. The British and French bourgeoisie in the 18th century did not fear criticism, and even in the 19th century, they were not very afraid of it. But from the latter half of the 19th century, they became afraid. Yet they could still tolerate people like George Bernard Shaw. By the 20th century, they became extremely afraid of criticism. In the 20th-century United States, criticism fills them with the panic of a bird startled by a bow. Those who have lived in the United States know how little freedom there actually is; they exercise very strict control. They permit only what fits with their system and does no harm to the overall structure — individual, non-political strikes, for instance, are allowed, but not general strikes. The People's Government has been established not long ago, and 70 to 80 percent — the majority — of the people support it. Ten percent — landlords, rich peasants, and special agents — oppose it, disapprove of it. There is no other way. Among the national bourgeoisie (well-to-do middle peasants), some are reluctant, as Comrade ×× put it, not entirely willing to accept socialism — that is, somewhat reluctant. Only after education do they become convinced. As for the five million intellectuals and those connected with them, it is unlikely that they are entirely convinced. What can we do? There are two approaches, two policies for leading this country: to let things out or to tighten control. Still, we let things out. If there are strikes, let them strike; if there are class boycotts, let them boycott. Where bureaucracy is rampant, if large-scale democracy is not permitted, and small-scale democracy is absent, and even the tiniest democracy is absent, then they are driven to revolt — what else can they do but strike or boycott? In such circumstances, it is a means of solving problems, a method of adjusting social life. In this way, 90 percent or even more — 99 percent — can be improved, and bureaucracy will be somewhat reduced. But 1 percent or even one-thousandth of one percent — I estimate that in any given year, there will always be some bureaucrats. The people resort to mass struggle only when driven to desperation by severe bureaucrats. Such a policy contributes to the consolidation of our country. "Let a hundred schools of thought contend" is a scientific method, a method for developing truth. "Let a hundred flowers bloom" is a method for advancing literary and artistic endeavors. Let monsters and demons all be brought onto the stage — a little of that is permissible. For decades, for centuries, we have not seen many people poisoned to death by it. Letting them stir a little more — what harm is there? I once urged several of my children to seize the opportunity to have their fortunes told; after a few decades, there may be no such fortunes left to tell. They went once, but not in earnest, and even mocked the fortune-tellers. In Hangzhou, I wanted them to draw lots, so they went to some temple to draw lots. Some drew good ones, some bad ones. I said, a few decades from now, if you want to experience this kind of life, it will no longer be possible. To forbid people from coming into contact with ugly, evil phenomena, to forbid people from seeing monsters and demons, is not good. I am not advocating that every opera should feature monsters and demons, but a little of it is fine. Let it exist for a few years — can it throw the whole world into chaos? It has existed for so long, yet not many Chinese have been poisoned to death. In Sichuan Province, Liu Shahe wrote a poem called "A Chapter of Grass and Trees." That poem is a poisonous weed. Because one such piece emerged, people thought the world would descend into chaos. I say even a hundred such pieces would cause no chaos. If there were a hundred, the problem would be resolved. Have those present here read it? A good piece of writing! It can be reprinted again — better yet, have it printed tonight. Firing upon "A Chapter of Grass and Trees" is correct. The comrades in Sichuan are all wholly devoted, loyal to the Party and the country, but there are problems with the method of criticism. Comrades from Sichuan, do not think I am supporting "A Chapter of Grass and Trees" and opposing your criticism. What I am saying is that you could have let it be released for a while, sought readers' opinions, and let those who understand it go ahead with the criticism. At present, the releasing is insufficient, not excessive. Do not fear criticism, do not fear chaos, do not fear monsters and demons, do not fear poisonous weeds. Do not be afraid of making mistakes. "Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend" is for developing truth, for developing culture and the arts, for developing science — it is for making us commit fewer errors. It is dialectical. There are many things we do not know at first and cannot resolve; we can only learn how to handle them through debates and struggles. Regarding the many questions you have raised, I have only tried to answer a few of them. At present, the releasing is insufficient. With such a policy, we aim to unite the five million intellectuals and unite several hundred million people, change the current situation, and build socialism. The situation of the intellectuals today is both good and not good. The good part is that they are patriotic, willing to work and study. But it is not wholly good. Their acceptance of the Marxist worldview is still far off; in getting close to the workers and peasants, they are even further away. They are not familiar with Marxism-Leninism, nor close to the workers and peasants. This can be changed through education. The first requirement is that Communist Party members change their attitude — change their bureaucratic, doctrinaire, and sectarian attitudes — and turn to face the five million intellectuals and the hundreds of millions of people. Bureaucratism exists. Persuasion and coercion — one of the two must be chosen. Persuasion is needed. Coercion will not work; only letting things out will. To subdue people by force is no good; one must persuade them with reason. When dealing with enemies, you can use knives and guns — straightforward and clear. But when dealing with comrades, rough methods are inappropriate. Even regarding "A Chapter of Grass and Trees," since it is a matter of thought, do not use roughness. In the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, rough methods were used against the United States. Against Chiang Kai-shek, we also used rough methods. We fought Chiang Kai-shek for so many years, and rough methods meant war. But in dealing with the five million intellectuals, the hundreds of millions of peasants, the many national capitalists, and democratic personages, the method of force is unsuitable. Some comrades are used to that method — "You're still acting up!" That is a wrong method, a wrong policy. Therefore, we need a united front, to unite all forces that can be united, including the likes of "A Chapter of Grass and Trees" — including those with the deep enmity of a father, husband, or son killed, and those whose relatives, friends, or flesh and blood were suppressed. It is not easy to make such people entirely comfortable. Given any chance, like with "A Chapter of Grass and Trees," they will express themselves. That is why we propose a united front, uniting and educating.

(8) Suggestions for the provincial and municipal Party committees. I hope the provincial and municipal Party committees will also hold meetings like this one, to take up all ideological issues. At present, they have not taken them up. The problem is not a lack of time; it is about facing the five million intellectuals. They are the teachers of the people, and in our relations with them, many new problems exist — our relations are very abnormal. Internal contradictions are prominent and must be studied. Ideological issues must be taken up and placed on the agenda. The first secretary of the local Party committee should step forward. I myself am the first secretary. Comrade Lu Dingyi called me out and I spoke at length. I am not talking about the second secretary; I am talking about the first secretary. If you serve as first secretary, you have the responsibility to take this up. I hope you will also convene such meetings, with comrades both inside and outside the Party in attendance. Take back with you the issues that were not resolved this time. Such meetings have proven beneficial. In the past, meetings were held separately — Communist Party members held their own, non-Party members and democratic parties held theirs. This meeting is a third form, with Party and non-Party members meeting together. I hope local authorities will hold such meetings. Place ideological issues on the agenda.