Summary of a Conversation with Leaders of Democratic Parties
and Democratic Personages Without Party Affiliation
(April 30, 1957)

Source: Wansui (n.d. 3), pp. 172–175. Other Chinese text: Ziliao xuanbian, p. 184
(excerpt).

For the chronological context of this conversation, see text June 8, 1957(2), source note,
and text June 8, 1957(3), note 3.

We have been thinking of having a rectification for several years now but had
not found an opportunity. Now we have found [the opportunity]. In matters that

APRIL - JUNE 1957 / 507

involve a lot of people, you cannot get things going unless you promote [it as a]
movement. We need to create an atmosphere; without an atmosphere [things won't
work]. Today an atmosphere of criticism has been formed, and it should be
continued [so that we may] analyze contradictions in all areas, taking as a subject
[correctly] handling the contradictions among the people.1
In the past, what contradictions there were in the areas of industry, agriculture,
culture, and education had been blind. Now let us line up these contradictions, and
settle the account. In the past, whenever we mentioned contradictions, it sounded
terrible. Actually there is nothing so terrifying about it. Chiang Kai-shek's four
million troops, or [the fact that] the U.S. army reached the Yalu River; none of that
was too terrifying.2 We live amidst contradictions everyday. There are contradictions everywhere, and there are rival performances everywhere.3 It is just that
[people] simply won't admit [contradictions], or they confuse the two kinds of
contradictions.4 [We] have to acknowledge contradictions, and analyze them; [then
we] will find the solution. Now newspapers are discussing the matter of contradictions every day. Some people worry that the people's government will be
overthrown, but the situation has already lasted for two or three months, and the
government has not been overthrown. Furthermore, the more contradictions are
discussed and the more [the discussions are developed], the more consolidated the
people's government will become. Right now the departments of higher education
and education are attacked viciously. The more they are attacked, the better things
will be. Let us sort out contradictions into categories. [Those who want] to attack
should make use of this opportunity. As long as you can find evidence, you are on
solid ground. Some problems that have remained unsolved for years, even decades,
might be solved in a matter of months as soon as there is debate. Others have not
suggested that your rice bowl should be broken, nor have they wanted to kill you
off in one stroke of the cudgel.5 What they simply wanted is that there be an
improvement in the relationships. Let us sort out the contradictions into categories
in all aspects—higher education, general education, literature and art, science, and
so on. The [area of] public health also can stand being attacked a bit.6 Let's attack
a bit harder, and a bit in real earnest. If it is published in the newspapers, it could
catch the public's attention, otherwise bureaucratism7 will never be resolved. [If
we are] to find a method [to resolve it], we'll have to have [the people] inside and
outside the Party do things together at once. In the past, holding small meetings did not
work out. We need to hold a conference as large as the Eleventh Expanded Session of
the Supreme State Conference, and the Propaganda Conference.8 Party members
should attend the conference together with those outside the Party, so as to combine
two elements to make a chemical reaction, and then they will become yet another
[different] thing. Then [the rectification] will work. Each province and municipality
must hold [a conference of this kind]. It should be reported to the newspapers [so as
to] dispel the atmosphere of depression. Then, at that time, it would be more natural to
bring up [the subject of] rectification. The overall subject of the rectification is to handle
[correctly] the contradictions among the people, and to fight against the three isms.9
There is a special stipulation in the directive [issued] by the Central Committee
of the Chinese Communist Party that [cadres] should take part in labor.10 This rule


doesn't suggest that all of you in the audience must go to work on a farm, but it
might be possible for you to go to clean the streets a bit. [Taking part in labor] is
mainly so that we can express an attitude, that we want to get rid of bureaucratism
and subjectivism. On top of that, it is [also] a way to be part of labor.¹¹ [You] always
have to mingle as one with the workers and the peasants, and take some part in
labor, no matter if it is more or less. The peasants said, you were with us during
[the period of] the land reform,¹² but now that you've become officials, you no
longer pay us any attention. The heads of the cooperatives did not take part in labor
in the past, and they were very unpopular. The masses were very unhappy. The
common people will not trust you and will not be frank with you unless you take
part in labor and blend as one with them.¹³ Now the cadres of districts and xiang take
part in production together with the masses, and at once the masses have become frank
with them. What the masses tell to the deputies of the National People's Congress and
the committee members of the CPPCC will never be the complete truth. In particular,
we are all intellectuals, and [as such] we are totally incompatible with the laboring
people. There is one way to become one with them, and that would be to take some
part in labor, whether it is for more or for less. For example, in the south it is not hard
to hoe the weeds or plant rice. Those who are aged and sick of course do not have to
go. Our country has a characteristic, and that is that there is a population of as many as
600 million people but there are only 1.6 billion mu of arable land. Unless we adopt
some special methods, I'm afraid this country may not get any better.

Rectification will have an impact on [people] outside the Party. We stipulate that
non-Party members participate [in the rectification] on a voluntary basis and may
withdraw from it similarly.¹⁴ In the past two months, this is precisely the form it has
taken. This is the means of rectification: I attack you, you [in turn] do it to me. If there
is any opinion, let it be expressed. Those in the Party become one with those outside
the Party.¹⁵ This is the rectification, which has already gone on for two months.

The contradictions in the work of the United Front,¹⁶ such as [on the subject that
people have] a position but actually no power, have remained unresolved for
several years. It was very difficult to resolve [these problems] in the past. Now we
have a possibility of resolving them. The chief reason that [the problems] were not
easy to resolve in the past is that we could not get through the ideological
difficulties. In the past, the members of the Communist Party had positions, powers,
and duties, while the democratic personages had positions but no powers or duty
[along with that]. Now it should be that everyone would have positions, as well as
powers and duties [to go along with that.] When they are put together with the
Communist Party, it is indeed difficult for democratic personages to be what they
are [supposed to be]; there are quite a few things that make them angry, and it is
not easy to get things done. Now [the relationship] between those in the Party and
those outside the Party should be transformed into a relationship of equality. [The
democratic personages] should have positions, and powers as well, not only formally
but in reality. From now on, no matter where, those who hold official positions should
be in charge of things. (Ma X X¹⁷ : I am fortunate that there was an organization in the
past. Everything about me is old; if I were really to take charge of things, the situation
would not be [the way it is] now.) What you said is not thorough. Contradictions do

APRIL — JUNE 1957 / 509

exist, [and you] won’t resolve [them] if you gloss over them. . . . [I] want Comrade
X X to be in charge of seeking out non-Party personages, and [the members of] the
Democratic League and the September Third [Society]18 to have a discussion
meeting with them and to solicit their opinion on the issues of having powers as well
as positions, and on [installing a] system of Party committees at the schools.
    Right now we should not [focus on] promoting materialist dialectics, let’s
promote a bit of political relations [first] and tackle the three isms. Don’t dig into
[the issues of] world view and methods of thought lest we dilute [the matter of]
political relations. We will focus on materialist dialectics later. This problem will
influence the democratic parties and the democratic personages. [On the subject
of] materialist dialectics, we cannot expect a large number of people to accept a
Marxist world view all at once, but we can hope that one-third of the five million
intellectuals, which means 1.5 million intellectuals, would accept materialist
dialectics in three five-year plans,19 and that would be very good. From now on,
when people study [materialist dialectics] they must do it on a voluntary basis. They
must study [it] by themselves, or they may, [again] voluntarily, form small [study]
groups. A textbook on materialist dialectics should be edited once every year. Some
[contents] have become dated, and something new has to be spoken on old subjects.
The [problem of] world view is a long-term [problem]. The five million intellectuals who served the old society in the past must now turn around to serve the new
one. What they hold is an old world view. Only a few of them have a new world
view. It is unnatural and impossible [to expect] that many [of them] will come to
believe in a new world view in a short time. We estimate that within the next ten
years, there will still be a little over one-third or a little less than two-thirds of the
intellectuals who will hold the old world view. But [as long as], first, they love the
country, and second, they believe in socialism, that would be all right. Some
professors talk about Marxism-Leninism in their lectures, but it is only for the
sake of their jobs. They know they don’t believe in dialectics. There is a Leftist
professor in Shanghai who said that he has been very disturbed in spirit since
Liberation, like “fifteen buckets fetching water, with seven going up and eight
coming down.”20 Those who teach social sciences are put in a passive position
everyday. History has to be rewritten and retaught. In the old society they just
needed to take the textbook out [to teach]. One textbook could serve many years.
Also they did not have so many meetings. [The situation with] the natural scientists
is a bit better. Intellectuals, especially in the social science areas, had a hard time
during periods of major social upheavals. There is a matter of the economic base
here. The economic base on which the five million intellectuals depended and to
which they were attached in the past has been destroyed. Imperialism, feudalism,
and bureaucratic capitalism have long been overturned,21 and even national capitalism has been fundamentally eliminated and the system of individual ownership
is already gone; where, then, is the duality?22 That is not right. “If the skin did not
exist, to what would the hair adhere?”23 When the old skin is no longer there, the
hair will have to adhere to a new skin; it cannot be suspended in midair. The hair
must attach itself to the skin of the working class. Today the five million intellectuals eat the rice of the workers and peasants; they eat the rice of the system of


ownership by the state and that of the system of collective ownership. There are
now twelve million workers in industry, and fourteen million people working in
the Party, in government, in the armed forces, in education, and in economy work
(excluding the heads of factories and of cooperatives). That is a total of twenty-six
million. The fourteen million don’t directly take part in production; it is the other
twelve million that actually do. All of the others have to make a transition to
becoming workers.24 At the time of Liberation, there were only some 5 million
industrial workers; at the beginning, the Soviet Union also had only 3.5 million
[industrial workers.] Social progress is not determined by the numbers of people.
There are several hundred million peasants, but that doesn’t serve to decide whether
society progresses or not. The peasants ultimately will have to become agricultural
workers, and the cooperatives will become state farms.25 This could be something
that will take place in decades. The hair of the five million intellectuals must attach
to the skin of the twelve million [members of the] working class. It won’t do for
the hair to be separated from the skin; it has to eat someone’s rice. Right now the
intellectuals are not quite aware that the root of their wall (economic base) has long
been dug out [from under them] and is hollow. The economic base of the past [doesn’t
exist any more]; as soon as there was an earthquake, they became suspended in midair.
Their old economic base is no more, and yet their brains have not turned around yet.
Thought is a matter of creeping into [the brain] over many years. Now the hair is already
attached to the new skin and yet, in ideology, they still think that Marxism-Leninism
is no good. We must not force people to believe in a Marxist-Leninist world view; it
will take a process to get people to believe [in things]. In terms of the old world
view, the bourgeois [world view] and the petty-bourgeois [world view] are the same
thing. [Some people] say that the petty bourgeoisie produced a dualism whereas the
bourgeoisie produced monism.26 Some feel more comfortable if they are being
regarded as petty-bourgeois intellectuals but are uncomfortable being regarded as
bourgeois intellectuals. Actually this is a kind of blind faith, and a matter of social custom.
For example, I was a bourgeois intellectual and was influenced by bourgeois social
customs, as well as receiving a bourgeois education. I once believed in Buddhism, and
then Kant, and then anarchism. All these are idealist, so I was a bourgeois intellectual. A
petty-bourgeois intellectual is a bourgeois intellectual. There is only one old world view;
we cannot differentiate a so-called petty-bourgeois world view from it.27
People engaged in industry and commerce may learn from textbooks of general
political knowledge, but a book is a book; ideology is another thing altogether.
Some people will never be able to change; [that is a matter of] conditioned reflex.
Giving birth to a child is actually not painful, but public opinion in society says it
is painful, and so people feel that it is painful. To make the painful not painful, the
doctor will have to do a lot of work; another kind of conditioned reflex will have
to be produced. Don’t think that all the intellectuals, [people in the] democratic
parties, and [even] members of the Communist Party, believe in communism. Quite
a large number of people in the Communist Party do not believe in communism;
they may not even believe in socialism; rather, what they believe in is democracy.
They are not ready for the socialist revolution. Xue Xun, the former deputy chairman
of [the People’s Government of] Hebei Province,28 was against unified purchasing

APRIL – JUNE 1957 / 511
and marketing29 and advocated free trade instead. We cannot do without promoting
unified purchasing and marketing, but to do too much of it is no good either. For
next year we are prepared to have most of the cooperatives deal with grain, oil, and
meat by themselves, except for some areas where economic crops [are produced].
A large number of [Communist] Party members don’t believe in socialism. When
they promote socialism, it’s just that they have been swept up by the mainstream
and they came in that way. I for one do not believe that [people in] the democratic
parties all believe in socialism. A large number of people do not believe in socialism
but would not admit that publicly. Some of the Communist Party [members],
[members of the] democratic parties, and [even] workers (the composition of the
workers is complicated too; their numbers have increased from five million to
twelve million; they are not of one mind) have yet to wait and see if socialism will
succeed and if the Communist Party is competent. [Furthermore, there are] quite a
large number of people who [feel that] now that they have boarded a pirates’ ship
(communism’s ship), they have no choice, and that whether or not the boat will
capsize depends on heaven.30 That is very natural.
What we did in the past was class struggle; this is true both during the period of
the democratic revolution and during the period of socialist revolution. That was
that human beings declared war on [other] human beings, fought against [other]
human beings, and there was rebellion among [the ranks of] human beings
internally. That took several decades of [people’s] energies, or, if you start with the
Opium War, it has been more than a hundred years.31 From the viewpoint of the
masses, the Opium War was a class-struggle; from the viewpoint of Lin Zexu, it
was a struggle between the Chinese exploiters and the foreign exploiters.32 We
have devoted our energies to this [i.e., to class struggle] for the last few decades—
since the establishment of the Communist Party it has been thirty-six years.33 Some
say that the Communist Party cannot lead in the area of science and is only good
at class struggle, that the Communist Party has only technique but no learning.34
This comment is [only] partly true. Whether or not [it can be said that] we have
only technique but no learning depends on what kind of learning you mean. For
instance, class struggle is a major field of learning; no one can say that we do not
have it. We have learned it from making mistakes over many years, and through
self-examination. There will still be class struggle in the future. Things such as the
war with imperialism and having diplomatic relations with capitalist nations are all
of the nature of class struggle. Now we are entering into another war—that is, we
are declaring war on nature. We have to understand the natural sciences; what can
we do without understanding them? In my article written in 1949 I said that what
we were familiar with would soon become useless, and that we must learn what
we do not yet know.35 If you do not know something, [admit that] you do not know;
don’t pretend to know [what you don’t know]. Study conscientiously and modestly;
it might take several decades’ time, just as when we learned class struggle in the
past. From the establishment of the Party to the Seventh Congress (1921–1945)36
it took twenty-four years; we shed so much blood and suffered so many setbacks
before we learned about class struggle. Today, as we learn the new war of
construction, we must start again from the very beginning. Can we learn it? I am


positive that we can learn it. There are many experts in some parties, such as the
Democratic League and the September Third Society; and there are quite a few in
the Association for Democratic Construction.37 In general, [we are faced with] a
new task in the new age: the class struggle is done, and we are [now] declaring war
on nature.38 It is still a transition period right now. The old relations of production
have been destroyed, [and yet] the new economic base has not been consolidated.
[Perhaps we] will have to fight this battle for several decades, approximately twenty
to thirty years. That is because we have no experience, and no cadres. We do,
[however,] have the experience of the Soviet Union as a precedent. Maybe we will
do a little bit better than the Soviet Union, or worse, or the same. People, I myself
included, have to wait to see how we do. We can’t boast that we are 100 per cent
correct. It was said that the Communist Party, especially the department of higher
education, changes policies in the evening that are made in the morning,39 and that
while the Kuomintang had too many taxes, the Communist Party has too many
meetings. It has to be changed if there are too many meetings. [The budget] for
basic construction this year has changed by some two billion [rmb]. The budget
should be decided by November of this, the first, year, and submitted to the
Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and then sent to lower
levels to be discussed in December. January of the following year would be time
for production. To submit [the budget] to the National People’s Congress is actually
to get post facto approval. We are in want of experience and have to study; [we
have to] study the natural sciences and planned economy, and we have to accumulate experience; we need to accumulate several decades of experience. That sometimes
we change policy too often is because we have no experience. In the beginning, in my
mind, I also did somewhat have a fondness for grandiose achievements,40 and it was
not until March and April last year that I began to change. I talked with comrades from
more than thirty departments, and then later I addressed the Supreme State Conference
about the ten major relationships.41 Five of those had to do with the area of economy.
Beijing is a nice place, but it is also a bad place. The people in positions of
responsibility in the Communist Party should stay in Beijing eight months out of
the year and go out of Beijing four months each year. You might do so too. The
characteristics of the central organizations are, first, that they are empty, and,
second, that they cover everything. The shortcoming is that they are hollow. It
becomes comfortable once you leave Beijing.

Notes

1. See text Feb. 27, 1957, source note and note 3.
2. This, of course, refers to the U.S. counteroffensive in the Korean War. See text Sept.
12, 1953(1), vol. I, note 8.
3. The term Mao used here is dui tai xi. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 57, for meaning
and usage.
4. In the first part of this sentence Mao is implicitly referring to the question of
acknowledging that there are contradictions in socialist society. The second part refers to
the two categories of contradictions: those among the people, and those “between the enemy
and ourselves.” (See text Feb. 27, 1957, source note and note 3.) Mao dealt with these two

APRIL – JUNE 1957 / 513

questions similarly in the same breath earlier. See text Mar. 20, 1957(1), paragraph 13.
5. The Chinese idiom da po fanwan (translated as “breaking one’s rice bowl” here)
means to deprive someone of a job. On the meaning of yi gun zi dasi (kill someone off at
one stroke), see text Jan. 18, 1957, paragraph 11; text Jan. 27, 1957(1), paragraph 37; and
especially text Mar. 12, 1957, note 22.
6. See text 1953(1), vol. I.
7. See text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 61.
8. By the Eleventh Expanded Session of the Supreme State Conference, Mao is
referring to the conference held February 27–March 1, 1957, at which he delivered the “On
Correctly Handling Contradictions Among the People” speech. See text Feb. 27, 1957, source
note. By the Propaganda Conference, Mao is referring to the National Conference on the
Propaganda Work of the CPC, held March 6–13, 1957. See text Mar. 12, 1957, source note.
9. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), note 77.
10. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), note 79.
11. More often we would translate the phrase that Mao uses here, canjia laodong, as
“take part in labor.” However, in light of the repetition of the phrase in the sentence here and
the particular way in which Mao uses it, we have constructed this more peculiar and
unconventional translation at this point.
12. This may be a broad reference to land reform before 1949 (in the liberated areas) as
well as after 1949. See text June 6, 1950 (1), vol. I, note 7; text Mar. 12, 1950, vol. I, note
5; and text Feb. 18, 1951, vol. I, note 2. See also text Mar. 17, 1957(2), note 12.
13. The phrase here is da cheng yi pian, which we have sometimes translated as “forged
into one.” See text Mar. 18, 1957, note 59. Another phrase that Mao used earlier in this
paragraph, hun zai yi qi, conveys a similar meaning, but without as much of a “physical”
sense of solidarity. We have translated that as “mingle as one.”
14. See text Mar. 17, 1957(2), note 80, and text Mar. 12, 1957, note 20 and surrounding text.
15. The phrase here, again is da cheng yi pian. See note 13.
16. See text Nov. 1, 1951, vol. I, and text Feb. 18, 1951, vol. I, note 13.
17. This is most likely Ma Xulun. See text June 19, 1950 (1), vol. I, source note.
18. See text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 1. For the Democratic League, see text July 1,
1957, note 10. For the Jiu san xueshe, or the September Third Study Society, see text Mar.
20, 1957(1), note 78.
19. See text Feb. 10, 1953, vol. I, note 2.
20. See text Dec. 8, 1956, note 13. We do not know which Leftist professor in Shanghai
is Mao’s subject of discussion here.
21. See text Mar. 12, 1957, note 5.
22. Here Mao seems to be referring to a theory that the intellectuals, and their “class
character,” insofar as they can be identified with (though not as) a class, have a duality; that is,
they can be identified with the bourgeoisie in one sense, but also with the proletariat, or the
working class, in another. On “national capitalism,” see text Mar. 12, 1950, vol. I, note 3.
23. See text Apr. 1957(2), note 14. The “hair-skin” analogy that Mao uses here was
foreshadowed in texts Mar. 20, 1957(1) (see note 75 of that text) and Mar. 20, 1957(2), (see
note 18), and, one might argue, as far back as text Feb. 27, 1957 (see note 88). It was
apparently explicitly used for the first time, however, in Mao’s speech at the Hangzhou
conference, which is included as text Apr. 1957(2) in this volume. We have kept the
annotation to this saying in that text because the Hangzhou conference was in fact earlier
than Mao’s conversation with democratic personages.
24. This echoes, but does not directly reflect, Mao’s statements in paragraph 6 of text Mar.
20, 1957(2). In later writings in the summer of 1957, Mao would resume discussion of this point.
25. See text Mar. 19, 1953, vol. I, note 4.
26. See text Nov. 15, 1956, note 35; see also text Oct. 13, 1957, note 58.
27. See text Mar. 20, 1957(1), paragraph 20.
28. See text Jan. 18, 1957, note 28.
29. See text Nov. 4, 1953, vol. I, note 16; see also text Jan. 18, 1957, note 29.


30. Mao is using here a colloquial and somewhat vulgar saying, <i>shang liao zei chuan</i>,
which refers to people who have unwittingly boarded a ship that turns out to be steered by
pirates or dishonest sailors whose intentions are to rob or even murder the passengers. The
saying has come to mean finding out that one has put oneself in a perilous position or even,
more specifically, unwittingly put in one’s lot with people, or a faction, with whom one
does not have common cause, and yet being unable to do anything about the mistake. We
have not been able to trace the origin of the saying.
31. See text May 20, 1951, vol. I, note 3; text Feb. 14, 1957, note 1; and text Mar. 20,
1957(1), note 15.
32. On Lin Zexu, see text Feb. 14, 1957, note 1.
33. See text Mar. 18, 1957, note 39, on the founding of the CPC.
34. Mao is here playing on the aphorism <i>bu xue wu shu</i>, which is used to describe people
who are lacking both in learning and in skills (here, “technique”). The phrase that Mao uses
is <i>you shu wu xue</i> (have skills, but not learning). The aphorism is derived from the ancient
history <i>Han shu</i> (History of the Han Dynasty), where it was originally used in reference to
Huo Guang (d. A.D. 68), a famous official of the time of Emperor Wudi of the Han dynasty.
On the criticism that the Communists cannot lead in the area of science, see text Jan. 27,
1957(1), paragraph 35, and text Mar. 20, 1957(2), note 19 and surrounding text.
35. See text Mar. 20, 1957(1), note 111.
36. See text Mar. 31, 1955, vol. I, note 3; text Aug. 30, 1956, note 2; and text Jan. 1957,
note 9.
37. See text Nov. 1951–Mar. 1952, vol. I, note 7, and text Jan. 27, 1957(2), note 63; see
also note 18 here.
38. See text Feb. 27, 1957, source note; text Mar. 17, 1957(2), source note; text Mar.
18, 1957, paragraph 21; and text Mar. 20, 1957(1), source note and note 7.
39. This is an aphorism, <i>zhao ling zhi gai</i>, that describes inconsistency and whimsical inconstancy in policymaking. The saying is derived from an essay written by Chao
Cuo (200–154 B.C.), a grand minister of the Western Han dynasty of Emperor Jingdi’s
time who was famous for his agronomistic policies.
40. The phrase that Mao uses here is <i>hao da xi gong</i> (having a hankering for great things
and for achievements). It is derived from the Ming-dynasty opera <i>Wansha ji</i> (Tale of the