Concerning Disturbances Among Workers
(May 13, 1957)

Source: “Tan zhigong naoshi,” RMRB editorial (May 13, 1957), 1. Other Chinese
Text: Shengping ziliao, pp. 357–358 (excerpts).

This RMRB editorial was not published under Mao’s signature. Many scholars, however,
have attributed it to Mao. See text April 10, 1957, source note. The subject of Mao’s concern
here—disturbances in the midst of (and arising out of) the rectification campaign, and the

question of what the correct attitude toward these disturbances should be—were things that
began to emerge in Mao’s mind as far back as January 1957, and certainly became
sufficiently significant subjects by February for Mao to deal with them specifically in his
February 27 speech. (See text Feb. 27, 1957, section 9; also see text Jan. 27, 1957(1),
paragraphs 40–46.) Like the April 10 RMRB editorial (text April 10, 1957), this one largely
echoes Mao’s February 27 speech, but in this case there are fewer incidences of outright
verbatim repetition. The overall argument and the expressions used, nonetheless, clearly
follow upon those in the earlier speech. The term used in the title of this editorial is <i>zhigong</i>.
This term is today often translated as “workers and staff,” but at the time of this editorial’s
appearance, it was translated only as “workers.” What it does refer to, in either case, and
regardless of semantics, are people who work in the enterprises in society who are not
leaders (directors or managers). The term therefore includes both workers who are on the
line and those who engage in clerical and organizational work. The term is largely a
descriptive one and is not a “class term.”

Recently a number of incidents such as petitions and strikes have taken place
among the staff and worker personnel and the masses in some enterprises. Although
these incidents are very rare, and they are very small-scale when they do take place,
we ought to pay them attention and also learn in them the correct method of
handling the contradictions among the people.1
In our country, workers are the masters of the state. In our enterprises, the leaders
manage the enterprises on behalf of the state, which itself is led by the working
class. Therefore, the leaders’ and the workers’ fundamental interests are the same.2
There is no antagonistic contradiction between them. Naturally, contradictions
between correct and incorrect viewpoints, contradictions between partial and
overall interests, and contradictions between immediate and long-range interests
may exist between them, but they are all contradictions among the people. They
ought to be, and can entirely be, resolved through the method of “unity-criticismunity.”3 In that case, why have strikes and petitions occurred?
If we analyzed the causes of the disturbances, we would come to one conclusion:
The places where there have been disturbances have mainly been where there are
relatively severe cases of bureaucratism. The workers, when they were unable to
resolve problems through the normal method of “unity-criticism-unity,” were
forced to take to causing disturbances.
In the main, disturbances on the part of the workers have revolved around issues
of personal interest, such as the problems of wages, jobs, livelihood, etc. Such
problems are not difficult to resolve. Those demands by the workers that are
reasonable should be met, those that are unreasonable and that cannot be met should
be clearly identified as such and explained. If this were done, disturbances would
have been avoided. However, because some comrades have taken on bureaucratic
airs and practices, the problems have become complicated. With regard to reasonable and feasible demands, [some comrades] have failed to meet them because of
bureaucratism and because they do not feel the hardships of the masses personally.4
As for those that are unreasonable and impossible to meet, it is also because of
bureaucratism that they have failed to explain things clearly to the masses and in
such a way as to bring the masses into their confidence fully; on the contrary, they

have even lied to the masses or put them off with bureaucratic jargon. On critical
matters involving the major interests of the masses, the leaders have not been
consistent in word and deed and have not been fair in their handling of affairs. All
these circumstances are bound to incur the serious dissatisfaction of the masses.
When errors of bureaucratism happen here or there they are always in direct
contradiction with the interests of the masses. Nevertheless, when the masses are
dissatisfied with the bureaucratism of their leaders, they do not immediately create
a disturbance. In general they first submit their opinions, write things on the bulletin
boards or send letters of complaint to higher levels of authority; in any case, they
tend to hope that the problems may be resolved through the means of “unity-criticism-unity.” If the leadership was able, at such moments, to maintain a clear and
calm mind, and really listened to the masses’ opinions so as to conduct an earnest
review of its own work—if it were to admit and correct its own mistakes, or
earnestly explain to the masses where it does not [believe it] has erred, the problems
would easily disappear. But things are not so easy when you come up against a
bureaucratic person. Whenever such people hear opinions that contradict their
own, they have “conditioned reflexes,” they always feel that the people who raise
such oppositional opinions are “ideologically backward,” or even that

come its bureaucratism. This is the key to resolving the problem.
    Naturally, where the masses are in error it should also be pointed out. The facts
prove that the masses are reasonable. If their errors are correctly analyzed the
masses are willing to admit them. On the other hand, if there are individual bad
elements among the masses who deliberately cause trouble, their faces will be
exposed and will be recognized by the masses.
    Disturbances can [be used to] resolve contradictions, to overcome bureaucratism, and to educate both the leadership and the masses. Therefore while
disturbances have their bad aspect, they also have a good side.5 However, we
must also say that under normal circumstances, problems within the people’s
state and the people’s enterprises can and should be resolved without disturbances. The leaders of all enterprises should take a lesson from the incidents of
strikes and petitions, should improve their own work, and should try to avoid
having such things recur.
    To avoid such recurrences we must first of all overcome bureaucratism, and to
do so we must expand the democratic management of the enterprises and strengthen
the masses’ role of supervision. We intend to take another opportunity to discuss
this question. However, even with a good system we must have a good work style.
We will here make a few preliminary suggestions about the work style of the
leadership:
    First, the leadership must lay down its airs and go to the masses to share their
fortunes. When one assumes the post of a leader and gets involved in leadership
work, and thereby stands at a position apart from that of the masses, one’s
greatest danger is then to become divorced from the masses, to not understand
the living conditions of the masses and the conditions that influence their way
of thinking. If the leaders paid constant attention to linking up with the masses,
and, instead of imposing leadership on the masses from above, went among the
masses to lead the masses; if the leaders were not only caring about the masses’
hardships but shared their fortune and hardship, the masses would be content
with such leaders and the leaders would at all times be informed of the masses’
opinions. Then the separation between the leaders and the masses would not
occur so frequently.6
    Second, the leaders must see the masses as their own people. Many comrades
in leadership positions have their “difficulties that cannot easily be discussed.”
Look, many things are difficult and impossible to achieve, yet they dare not say
so. Things may be quite obviously impossible to get done, yet they go ahead
with their promises. Things may be obviously difficult, but they say that
everything is all right. As a consequence, things fall apart and the masses say
that you cheated them. And in truth that is exactly what happened. Why do they
not dare to tell the masses their difficulties? If there are difficulties, by all means
speak up. If something cannot be done, say it cannot be done. The workers’
masses are your own people. If you treated them as such, and made a clean
breast of everything, the masses are reasonable and capable of thinking things
through. Isn’t there a case where many workers originally petitioned for new

housing but later withdrew their petitions when they heard that the state was in
difficulty? Didn’t many technicians go to do manual labor when there was a
reduction in jobs?
Third, one must be modest and careful, and be willing to listen to opposing
opinions. In the old society there was a saying, “No parents in the world can be
wrong.” As far as their behavior toward the masses is concerned, some comrades today appear to believe that “no leaders in the world can be wrong.” The
truth is the very opposite: There are no leaders in the world who can be totally
immune from error. The intelligent leader may be able to make fewer errors or
to avoid making big mistakes. To do so he or she must constantly listen to
opposing opinions and thus discover errors in his or her own decisions and
correct them in time. All opposing opinions are valuable, whether they are
publicly raised in meetings or revealed behind one’s back in private grumblings.
If an opposing opinion was a correct one, it would help the leadership to correct
its own mistake; if it was a wrong one, it nonetheless reflects some of the true
conditions of the ideas among the masses, and would allow [the leadership] to
apply a remedy befitting the symptoms;7 in what sense, then, can it be bad?
The socialist social system has liberated the forces of production from the
old relations of production and has endowed our enterprises with the most
powerful life force. In the last few years, the rapid development of production
and construction in our country is evidence of the superiority of our social
system. It also shows that the relationship between the leadership personnel and
the workers’ masses in our enterprises is on the whole normal. We are confident
that as long as we promote democracy and strengthen the link between the
leaders and the masses, we will overcome bureaucratism, and effectively
resolve the contradictions that exist within socialist enterprises. In this way the
[problems of the] opinion of the workers’ masses will be correctly resolved at
all times, by means of the approach of “unity-criticism-unity,” and they will
not be accumulated to erupt eventually as disturbances. In this way, too, the
workers’ masses’ activism will be given full play, and the cause of socialist
construction will also develop even more speedily.

Notes

1. See text Feb. 27, 1957.
2. By definition, this is the fundamental criterion for the term “contradiction among the
people.” See text Feb. 27, 1957, notes 3 and 4.
3. See text Feb. 27, 1957, note 22.
4. Here is an echo of a sentiment expressed by Mao in January and February 1957. See
text surrounding text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 83, and text Feb. 27, 1957, note 102. On the
subject of bureaucratism, see text Jan. 27, 1957(1), note 64, and text Feb. 27, 1957, note 94.
5. See text Feb. 27, 1957, section 10, especially paragraph 4.
6. Here the classic principles of the “mass line” are reiterated. See note 4, and also text
Mar. 1, 1957, note 15.
7. This is an aphorism, dui zheng xia yao, derived from the preface to the poem “For Li
Muzhou” by the Tang-dynasty poet Liu Zongyuan.