Annotations and Revisions to “An Unusual Spring” by Chuan
(June 1957)
To be delivered immediately to Comrade Qiaomu for implementation.


The rightists’ so-called “letting off steam” is aimed at attacking the socialist system and overthrowing the leadership of the proletariat and the Communist Party. Under these circumstances, the working class, the laboring people, and revolutionary intellectuals have no choice but to launch a resolute counterattack. Some argue: Hasn’t the Party been inviting others to help it conduct its rectification campaign? Why then has it turned its attention to criticizing others? Indeed, the Party will continue to solicit the broad masses to assist in its self-improvement; this is beyond doubt, must be upheld to the very end, and undoubtedly will be. But are the reactionary statements and actions of anti-socialist bourgeois rightists to be shielded from criticism as well? [1] “An Unusual Spring” was an editorial published in the People’s Daily on June 22, 1957. When reviewing the first and second proofs of this article, Mao Zedong made revisions each time. This document one consists of annotations written by Mao after he had marked up the second proof; documents two and three show the changes he made directly on the proofs. The text typeset in Song typeface represents additions and revisions penned by Mao Zedong.
[2] Qiaomu refers to Hu Qiaomu, who at that time served as an alternate member of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee and as Mao Zedong’s secretary.


Shall they go unchallenged? If revolutionary leaders from all sectors fail to remain vigilant and discerning in the face of anti-socialist rhetoric and actions—no matter under what ostensibly sacred pretexts they may cloak themselves—and if they do not strike back decisively, what sense of responsibility could such revolutionaries possibly have toward the people’s cause?


By now, ample evidence has emerged showing that certain individuals have long harbored ulterior motives. Not only do they oppose the socialist revolution; they have also, for quite some time, rejected a thoroughgoing democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism. Therefore, regardless of anything else, a debate is unavoidable. Given that such a debate is of a fundamental nature and admits of no ambiguity, would it be better to conduct it furtively behind closed doors, or openly and transparently? Clearly, the former approach is undesirable, while the latter is preferable. Attempting to evade this debate on the surface will by no means help us to build a socialist society smoothly. On the contrary, once this debate has taken place and revealed the true character of each side, it will serve to educate the broad masses. In this way, our understanding of socialism throughout the political, intellectual, and various social spheres will be greatly enhanced; unity within the ranks of the people will be strengthened more than ever before; and the socialist system itself will be consolidated to an even greater degree than before.