Part 1 of 3:

Comrades:

Greetings to you all.

In late March this year, just one hundred days ago, I spoke here to comrades within the Party. At that time, I came to ignite a fire. Over these roughly one hundred days, the situation has undergone great changes, and the people's consciousness has been considerably raised. It was precisely because we fought a battle! We had anticipated these things back then—I spoke about it here—though at the time I did not use the phrase "ignite a fire." Instead, I said that when others criticize us, we must brace ourselves and listen. After listening for a period, we should analyze, respond, accept what is correct, and criticize what is incorrect. We must always believe that the majority of people are good. Whether in the whole world, among China's six hundred million people, within the Communist Party, the Youth League, the democratic parties, the intellectuals, the business circles, the students, or the workers and peasants (the workers and peasants are our basic masses), the majority are good people. Their hearts are kind and honest; they are not cunning or harboring ulterior motives. By "majority," I do not mean fifty-one percent, but over ninety percent. Take this instance, for example, among the students: Peking University has over seven thousand people, including professors and students, and the rightists among them are only one, two, or three percent. What does "one, two, or three percent" mean? It means the resolute core elements are just one percent—only about seventy individuals. Those who constantly stirred up turmoil numbered no more than fifty or so, less than one percent. They organized small groups, such as the "Hundred Flowers Study Society," the "Lovers of Wisdom Study Society," the "Hegel-Engels Study Society," and the "Confucius-Mao Zedong Study Society." Later, they felt these names were not quite appropriate and settled on the "Hundred Flowers Study Society." The student "leader" was named Tan Tianrong, who has now become a nationally known figure. This time, some heroes have emerged! Both the left and the right have produced their heroes.

Setting oneself on fire is no easy task. I hear that some people in your area have regretted it and did not burn fiercely enough. In my view, Shanghai burned fairly well, though it was still a bit insufficient, a bit unsatisfying. Had we known it would be so wonderful, why not open up wide? Let those poisonous weeds grow, let those monsters and demons come out—what is there to fear? At that time, we said there was no need to fear, yet some comrades within our Party, such as XXX and others, loyal and devoted to the Party and the country, were afraid of great chaos under heaven. They simply failed to see the broader picture, failed to realize that the vast majority—over ninety percent—are good people, people who stand with us, so there is no need to fear. They may curse us, but they do not strike us; they use their mouths to curse, not their fists to hit. As for those very few, such as the rightist core elements among Peking University students I just mentioned—less than one percent—there are also another one or two percent who applaud and support them. Among professors and associate professors, the situation is somewhat different: roughly ten percent are rightists, about ten percent are leftists, with the two sides evenly matched, and the middle-of-the-roaders account for around eighty percent. We need not fear these middle-of-the-roaders. Some of our comrades fear that the house will collapse or that the sky will fall. Since ancient times, only a few have feared the sky falling. There is the story of the "man of Qi who worried lest the sky fall"; apart from him, no one else feared the sky falling. Over ninety percent of the people are our friends and comrades—do not fear them. There is no reason to fear the masses. What are leading figures? Squad leaders, class monitors, school principals, professors, assistant instructors, lecturers, Party committee secretaries, Party committee members, branch secretaries—including ourselves—are all leading figures. We people all have a bit of political capital, meaning we have done some things for the people. Now, by setting the fire to burn, the aim is to refine us. Every one of us has some flaws, myself included. "Men are not sages; who can be without fault?" Therefore, we must periodically set fires. From now on, I think we should have one fire at least every three years, and another every five years—within each five-year plan, we should set fires at least twice. When Sun Wukong was tempered in the Supreme Lord Lao's Eight Trigrams Furnace, didn't he emerge even better? Aren't we always talking about tempering? "Forge" means to hammer iron; "smelt" means to refine iron in a blast furnace or steel in an open-hearth furnace, and the steel produced must still be forged. Those steam hammers are truly formidable—I saw thousand-ton and ten-thousand-ton steam hammers in the Soviet Union. We people also need tempering. Everyone says they want to be tempered; in ordinary times, talking about tempering feels very comfortable. "I have shortcomings and really want to undergo tempering." But when it comes to actually doing it, they back out. This time, we should undergo some tempering. Though it may not be a ten-thousand-ton steam hammer, it is at least five thousand tons! For a period, the sky was dark and the earth dim, with neither sun nor moon shining. This was a gust of wind: on one hand, the criticism from the majority of good people, which we welcome. They criticize the Communist Party's shortcomings and want the Party to reform. On the other hand, there are a very few rightists who are attacking us. The attacks from the majority are justified and correct—this is a form of tempering. The rightists' attacks are also a form of tempering for us. To speak truly of tempering, we must still thank the rightists for their attacks. For our Party, for the broad masses, for the various democratic parties, for young students, for the working class, and for the peasants, the rightists have provided the greatest education. Now, we are "encircling and suppressing" these rightists. Every city has some rightists, and they aim to overthrow us.

Revolution is the people's revolution, the revolution of six hundred million people led by the proletariat. How can a single party carry out a revolution on its own? The democratic revolution was the cause of the people; the socialist revolution is the cause of the people; socialist construction is the cause of the people. They want to negate the achievements of the people's cause—that is the first point. Second, which direction to take: socialism or capitalism? Third, who should lead the socialist endeavor? Should it be led by the proletariat or the bourgeoisie? The proletariat is so numerous, and its vanguard is the Communist Party. The bourgeoisie also has its groups and organizes its own political parties. Is it the Communist Party that leads, or the rightists? Is the Communist Party good? Is it needed? The people say yes; the rightists say no. I think it is very good to conduct a great debate on these three questions. Was the revolution correct? Was construction correct? Have there been achievements? Are the achievements primary, or are the mistakes primary? This is the first question. Isn't a great debate now unfolding? This question has not been debated before. The democratic revolution underwent prolonged debate—from the late Qing dynasty, through the 1911 Revolution, to the opposition to Yuan Shikai, to the Northern Expedition, to the War of Resistance Against Japan, it was constantly debated. During the War of Resistance, the question of whether to resist Japan was also debated: one faction said we could not resist because China's guns were insufficient—this was the theory that weapons decide everything. Another faction said, do not fear; people are still the decisive factor. Though our weapons were inferior, we could still fight. Later, the Chongqing negotiations, the old Political Consultative Conference, and the Nanjing negotiations were all debates. Chiang Kai-shek never ceased wanting to fight, and the result of fighting was his defeat. So, that democratic revolution was debated and underwent long-term mental preparation. The socialist revolution was a swift and sudden assault; within six or seven years, the reform of the social system was basically completed, and the remolding of people was also partially accomplished, but it still falls short. Socialist transformation has two aspects: one is the transformation of the system, and the other is the transformation of people. The system includes not only ownership but also the superstructure—that is, the government, government organs, and ideology. For instance, newspapers belong to ideology. Some say newspapers have no class nature and are not tools of class struggle. This statement is incorrect. At least for these several decades, before imperialism is eliminated worldwide, such a claim is not good. Newspapers, as well as other things like philosophy and ideology, all reflect class relations. Schools, education, literature, and art are all part of ideology and the superstructure. Natural science is divided into two parts: pure natural science, which is not class-based, but the utilization of natural science—who uses it—has a class nature. Tan Tianrong, the leader of Peking University's "Hundred Flowers Study Society," is a fourth-year student in the physics department. Nowadays, there is a great deal of idealism among those who teach physics! In the Chinese and history departments, idealism is most prevalent, and those running newspapers also have the most idealism. Do not think it is limited to these areas; in the social sciences, philosophy, and political economy, there is also much idealism, and even within natural science, there is a great deal of idealism—their worldviews are idealist. If you ask what water is composed of, that is materialism—water is made of two elements, and they proceed according to actual facts. But when you talk about how to transform society or how the Communist Party should rectify its style, they want to eliminate the Communist Party. We say we want to rectify the Communist Party well; they say they want to eliminate it. At that time, our policy was this: we would only listen and not speak. For several weeks, we braced ourselves, stretched our ears longer, and said not a word ourselves. We did not notify Party members, branch secretaries, branch executive committees, or Youth League members. We let them fight chaotically among themselves, each making their own decisions. Within the Party committee of Tsinghua University, there were enemies. As soon as you held a meeting there, he would report to the enemy—such people were called "defectors." The matter of Communist Party members "defecting" pleased both sides. Among the student Party members at Peking University, five percent collapsed; within the Youth League, the collapse was somewhat greater, perhaps ten percent or even more. I say this collapse is entirely fair and reasonable. Whether ten percent, twenty percent, thirty percent, or forty percent—in short, they collapsed, and we are pleased. That kind of bourgeois ideology, idealism, infiltrated the Communist Party and the Communist Youth League. In name, it was communism, but in reality, it was anti-communism, or they were wavering elements. When they "defected," we were glad—we did not need to purge them; they ran out on their own. The enemy side was also very pleased. Once we encircled the rightists, the situation reversed: many who had ties with the rightists but were not rightists themselves came forward to expose them—wasn't that a defection? Some rightists will also defect. Now, the rightists find it hard to get by.

A few months ago, when I spoke here, it has not yet been a hundred days, and the situation has undergone such great changes. This struggle is primarily a political struggle, and its nature is class struggle. There are various forms of class struggle; this time, it is mainly a political struggle, not a military struggle or an economic struggle. Is there an element of ideological struggle? Yes, but political struggle occupies the primary component. The ideological struggle will come in the next stage and must be conducted like a gentle breeze and fine rain. The Communist Party will rectify its style, and the Youth League members will also rectify theirs. Through ideological struggle, we will advance a step, truly study Marxism-Leninism, and genuinely help one another. Is there subjectivism? Is there bureaucracy? Truly use your brains to think, write some notes, and spend a few months doing so, and you will raise your level of Marxism, political awareness, and ideological understanding by a step.

The struggle will continue for another month or so. If rightist elements are constantly published in the newspapers—published this year, next year, and the year after—that would make things difficult to handle, and there wouldn't be so much material to publish anyway. The rightists are only so many, and they have been published about enough. From now on, we will publish a bit covertly and a bit overtly—publish when there is something, and not when there isn't. July is an intense month for opposing the rightists; after July, when August arrives, it will be time for gentle breezes and fine rain. The rightists like violent storms best and dislike gentle breezes and fine rain most, whereas we advocate gentle breezes and fine rain. They say the Communist Party is unfair: "When you dealt with us before, it was with violent storms; now, when you deal with yourselves, it is with gentle breezes and fine rain." Even in the ideological remolding we conducted in the past, including the criticism of Hu Shi and Liang Shuming, the directives we issued within the Party all called for gentle breezes and fine rain. In this world, things always advance in a tortuous manner. Social movements always proceed in a spiral. We must still dig into the rightists—continue digging now and not slacken. At this moment, the rightists will clutch at any straw, because they are about to sink. Only now do they realize the benefits of gentle breezes and fine rain. Previously, they wanted a violent storm, saying that gentle breezes and fine rain—like the daily plum rains—would rot the seedlings, leaving no grain and causing disaster, and that a violent storm would be simpler and quicker. Now it is summer, the season of torrential rains. By August, we can have gentle breezes and fine rain, because there will not be much left to dig out.

Part 2 of 3:

We in China have always received education from two sides—positive education and negative education. Japanese imperialism was also the first great "teacher." Before that, there were the Qing dynasty, Yuan Shikai, the Northern Warlords, and later Chiang Kai-shek—all were very good "teachers" for us. Without them, the Chinese people could not have been educated. Relying on the Communist Party alone as the teacher is not enough. There are many things we say that the middle-of-the-road people won't listen to; they want to do things their own way. For example, "unity—criticism—unity"—they won't listen. For example, saying that the achievements in eliminating counter-revolutionaries are the main aspect—they won't listen. For example, talking about democratic centralism—they won't listen. Talking about the people's democratic dictatorship led by the proletariat—they won't listen. Talking about uniting with the Soviet Union, the socialist countries, and the peace-loving peoples of all nations—they won't listen. There is one more thing they especially refuse to listen to, and that is: "Poisonous weeds must be hoed out." Poisonous weeds must be hoed out; let the monsters and demons come out. Let everyone see them on display. After the display, everyone will think these monsters and demons are no good and must be overthrown. When poisonous weeds grow, they must be hoed. Peasants hoe weeds every year. Once hoed, they can be used as fertilizer. Haven't these words been spoken before? Weren't they spoken? Yet poisonous weeds still want to emerge. Peasants hoe weeds every year—that is speaking to them—but the weeds simply do not listen; they will grow again next year. Hoe for ten thousand years, and they will still grow for ten thousand years; for a hundred million years, weeds will grow every year. They think that we are the poisonous weeds and they themselves are the fragrant flowers. Therefore, they do not consider themselves among those who should be eliminated. They want to hoe us out; it never occurs to them that they are precisely the things that should be hoed.

Socialism came in a rush. The general line was studied in all respects, but there was no debate. There was no debate within the Party, and no debate in society either. It was like a cow eating grass—first swallowing it down, then slowly chewing the cud later. In our revolution, the system has already been basically reformed. First, the economic base, that is, the ownership of the means of production; second, the superstructure, that is, the organs of power, ideology, and so on. These have all been basically reformed, but no extensive debate was launched. This time, through newspapers, through forums, through mass meetings, and through big-character posters, a great debate has been unfolded. Big-character posters are a good thing; I think they should be passed down. Look, Confucius's *Analects* have been passed down, the *Five Classics* and the *Thirteen Classics* have been passed down, the *Twenty-Four Histories* have been passed down, *Fifteen Strings of Cash* has been passed down. I think big-character posters should also be passed down. For example, in the rectification campaign in factories, I think using big-character posters is good—the more, the better. If there are ten thousand posters, that is first-rate; if five thousand, second-rate; if only two thousand, third-rate; if just a scattered few, then it's a failing grade. Big-character posters have no class nature. It is the same as language having no class nature. Vernacular Chinese has no class nature—the proletariat speaks vernacular, the bourgeoisie also speaks vernacular. The proletariat has spoken drama, the bourgeoisie also has spoken drama, traitors had spoken drama, and during the anti-Japanese period there was spoken drama too. The proletariat can use big-character posters, and the bourgeoisie can also use them. We believe the majority of people stand on the side of the proletariat. Therefore, the tool of big-character posters is beneficial to the proletariat, not to the bourgeoisie. For a time, it seemed as if the sky was dark and the earth was black, the sun and moon had lost their light, as if it was beneficial to the bourgeoisie. This so-called "for a time" was two weeks, three weeks—just that little bit. The so-called "toughening one's scalp" was also just those two or three weeks, unable to sleep, unable to eat. Didn't you talk about being tempered? To have a few weeks in one's life when one cannot sleep or eat—that is tempering. It is not really sending you to be burned in a blast furnace. Many middle-of-the-road people wavered for a while; that is also very good. By wavering, they gain experience. The characteristic of the middle-of-the-roaders is precisely wavering; otherwise, why call them middle-of-the-roaders? On one end is the proletariat, on the other end is the bourgeoisie, and in between are many middle-of-the-roaders. The two ends are small, the middle is large. But in the final analysis, the middle-of-the-roaders are all good people, allies of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie wants to win them over as allies; for a time, it seemed somewhat like that. The proletariat wants to win them over as allies; for a time, it also seemed somewhat like that. The middle-of-the-roaders also criticize us, but it is well-intentioned criticism. The rightists' criticism uses this matter to create trouble. The middle-of-the-roaders then become confused. Just now I spoke of big-character posters; they are a matter of method, one of the weapons of combat—like rifles, pistols, machine guns, they are light weapons. Newspapers like *Wenhui Bao* and *Guangming Daily*, and some other newspapers, are airplanes and cannons. *Guangming Daily* and *Wenhui Bao* have received a very profound education this time. In the past, they did not know what a proletarian newspaper was and what a bourgeois newspaper was; what a socialist newspaper was and what a capitalist newspaper was—they could not distinguish clearly. Even if for a time they could distinguish clearly, the leaders of these newspapers wanted to run them as bourgeois newspapers. They hated proletarian newspapers and hated socialist newspapers. Does a school guide its students toward the socialist direction or toward the capitalist direction? Do industrial and commercial circles guide these industrialists and businessmen (big, medium, and small capitalists) toward the proletarian direction or toward the bourgeois direction? Is remolding necessary? Some people are very afraid of this remolding, saying that remolding brings a sense of inferiority—the more one is remolded, the more inferior one feels. I think it should not be interpreted this way. It should be: the more one is remolded, the more self-respect one has; it should be called a sense of self-respect. Because one has consciousness, one wants to be remolded. Some people think they have a very high class consciousness, think they do not need remolding, and on the contrary want to remold the proletariat, want to remold this world according to their own features. But the proletariat wants to remold it according to its own features. I think the majority, over ninety percent, are willing to be remolded. Of course, in between they go through a process of hesitation, consideration, constant indecision, and wavering. The more they are remolded, the more they feel the need to be remolded. The Communist Party's rectification is remolding. In the future, there will still be rectification—rectify once every three years, and again every five years. Do you say that after this rectification, there will be no more rectification? Can it be that after this rectification, there will be no more bureaucracy? After just two or three years, everyone will have forgotten, and bureaucracy will come back. People easily forget. So after a while, rectification must be done again. Do the intellectuals who came from the old bourgeois society not need rectification? Not need remolding? If you say not remolding, changing the name to rectification is also fine. Aren't the various democratic parties now conducting rectification? What is wrong with the whole society conducting rectification?

Now the democratic parties are rectifying the question of line, rectifying the bourgeois rightist opportunist line. I think they are right to do so. For the Communist Party, it is not a question of line, but a question of work style. For the democratic parties now, the question of work style is secondary; the main thing is which road to take—the road of Zhang Naiqi, Zhang Bojun, Luo Longji, Chen Renbing, Peng Wenyin, Lu Zhi, Sun Dayu, or what road? First, this question must be clarified. These three questions must be clarified: the question of the achievements of the revolution and the achievements of construction—the things done by several hundred million people, have they been done well or not? The future direction—socialism or capitalism? If we are to take the socialist road, then under the leadership of which party? Under the leadership of the Zhang-Luo alliance, or under the leadership of the Communist Party? Let there be a great debate and clarify the line. Within the Communist Party, there is a question of line, and that concerns those "uprising elements." Those "uprising elements" are the rightists within the Communist Party and the Youth League; for them, this is a question of line. Dogmatism is not a question of line now, because it has not formed a line. In our history, there was a time when dogmatism formed a line, because it formed a system, formed policies, and formed a program. The current dogmatism has not formed a system, policies, or a program; it just has some rigid elements. Now, with a hammer blow and a blast of fire, it has softened a bit. In various organs, schools, and factories, aren't they talking about "coming downstairs"? Don't adopt the Kuomintang work style or the airs of a lord. Cooperative directors go to the fields and till the land together with the masses; factory directors and Party committee secretaries go into the workshops. In this way, bureaucracy is greatly reduced. Put up big-character posters, hold meetings, hold forums, and classify and solve the problems that should be corrected and criticized. Then study some more Marxism and raise the level a step higher.

We Chinese nation is a good nation. This nation is very reasonable, very warm-hearted, very intelligent, and very brave. We hope to create a situation that is both centralized and unified, and also lively and vigorous; with both democracy and centralism; with both freedom and discipline. Both sides, not just one side. Don't seal people's mouths shut, forbidding them to speak. We should encourage speaking; it should be lively and vigorous. For the majority of people, those who speak are not guilty—no matter how sharp, no matter how fiercely they scold, they are not guilty. They will not be subjected to rectification, nor will they be given "tight shoes" to wear. "Tight shoes" should be given to the rightists to wear. Don't be afraid of the masses; be together with the masses. Do you swim? Just persist for one hundred days, one hour a day, without interruption. Even if you originally could not swim at all, I guarantee you will learn to swim. You need no teacher, nor that rubber ring. With a rubber ring, you will never learn. The people are like water, to use an analogy. Leaders, from the heads of small groups at all levels up to comrades like us, are like swimmers. Don't leave the water, don't go against the water. You must go with the water, follow the nature of the water. Don't scold the masses; the masses cannot be scolded. Don't set yourself against the masses; always be together with the masses. The masses may also make mistakes. When they make mistakes, explain things properly. If they don't listen, then wait a bit, and speak again when there is an opportunity. Just don't detach yourself from them. It is just like when we swim, we must not leave the water, must not go against the water, but must follow the nature of the water.

Part 3 of 3:

All wisdom comes from the masses. I have always said that intellectuals are the most ignorant. When intellectuals get cocky, they think, "If I'm not number one under heaven, I'm at least number two." What are workers and peasants to them? You, these "Adou," can barely recognize a few characters. But it is not the intellectuals who decide issues; it is the laborers, the most advanced part of the working people—the working class—that decides. Does the proletariat lead the bourgeoisie, or does the bourgeoisie lead the proletariat? Does the proletariat lead the intellectuals, or do the intellectuals lead the proletariat? Intellectuals should become proletarian intellectuals; there is no other way out. I once said, "Without the skin, to what can the hair attach itself?" This was originally said by a capitalist in Shanghai; I extended his meaning. What he meant was different from what I mean. He said that since all his property had been handed over and joint state-private ownership had been implemented, "Without the skin, to what can the hair attach itself?" He was asking: Am I still a capitalist? Am I still an exploiter? Intellectuals coming from the old society lived off five kinds of skin. In the past, the hair of intellectuals was attached to these five skins: imperialist ownership, feudal ownership, bureaucratic-capitalist ownership, national-capitalist ownership, and small-producer ownership. In the past, they were attached either to the first three skins or to the latter two. Now, "without the skin"—the skin is gone. The imperialists have fled, and everything has been taken back. Feudalism has been overthrown; the land belongs to the peasants and now to the cooperatives. Bureaucratic-capitalist enterprises have been nationalized. National-capitalist enterprises have undergone joint state-private ownership and have basically become socialist. Small-producer (peasant and handicraftsman) ownership has also now changed, becoming collective ownership. Although it is not yet consolidated and will take a few more years to become so, especially the remolding of people—that will take even longer—because these five skins still influence these capitalists and these intellectuals. They always remember these things in their minds, even in their dreams. People who came over from the old track still cling to those old habits and ways of life; this is only human. On what skin are intellectuals now attached? They are attached to the skin of public ownership, to the proletariat. Who gives them their food? The workers and peasants. Intellectuals are teachers hired by the proletariat, but if you want to teach your own stuff—teach the eight-legged essay, teach Confucius, teach capitalism—and still expect to eat and draw a salary, the working class will not stand for it. Intellectuals have already lost their social and economic base; that is, those five skins are gone. Now they have no choice but to settle on a new skin. At present, some intellectuals are flying in the air, like drawing water with fifteen buckets—seven up, eight down. They touch neither the sky above nor the ground below; they are flying in midair. The five skins are gone, and they cannot return to their old home. Yet they are not willing to attach themselves to the proletariat. To attach themselves to the proletariat, they must have proletarian thinking, must have some feeling for the proletariat, must get along well with the workers, and must make friends with them. But they refuse; they still long for the old things. We are now trying to persuade them. After this great criticism, I think they will more or less come to their senses. We are now persuading those in the middle. Those in the middle should awaken; they should not be too cocky. Your knowledge is limited. You are intellectuals, yet not intellectuals; it is more appropriate to call you semi-intellectuals. Because your knowledge is only so much, and when it comes to major principles, you make mistakes. With all that knowledge, why do you make mistakes? Why do you waver? "A blade of grass on the wall sways with every wind." Why do you waver? I am not talking now about the rightist intellectuals—they are fundamentally wrong. The middle-of-the-road intellectuals also make mistakes. Their mistake is wavering, failing to see the direction clearly, losing their bearings for a time, and being unclear in their minds. This shows that your knowledge is not very great. In this respect, the workers have more knowledge. The former semi-proletarians among the peasants—they can see at a glance that Sun Dayu's stuff is wrong. They know it is wrong after just a few words. There is no need to write such long articles. So, whose knowledge is superior? It is the illiterate person whose knowledge is superior. It is the proletariat that decides the overall situation and the general direction. I am just such a person. When we people want to do something or decide on some major policy, we absolutely must consult them, must go around to various places, talk with them, see whether this matter can be done or not, discuss it with them, and consult with the cadres close to them. We must go to the localities. Beijing produces nothing; it has no raw materials. The raw materials are all taken from the workers and peasants, all taken from the localities. The Central Committee of the Communist Party is a processing plant. It is to process these raw materials well; if the processing is not done well, mistakes will be made. The source of knowledge lies with the masses. In the final analysis, it comes down to the four words: the mass line. What does it mean to truly resolve contradictions among the people? It means seeking truth from facts and following the mass line. It means not becoming divorced from the masses, just like the relationship between fish and water, or between a swimmer and water.

Should the rightists be finished off with a single blow? What should be done with people like Sun Dayu? It is necessary to strike them a few blows. Attack them until they think of turning back, attack them earnestly, isolate them completely, and then it may be possible to win them over. Because they are still intellectuals, and major intellectuals at that. Winning over such people is useful; they can more or less do some work. Moreover, once they turn back, they will have helped us greatly by serving as our "teachers," educating the people. They have educated us in a negative way, from the opposite side. We do not intend to throw them into the Huangpu River; we still want to cure the sickness to save the patient. Perhaps some of these people are unwilling to come over. If they are unwilling, so be it; then let them take it to their graves. How old is Sun Dayu now? Suppose he lives to be a hundred; he still has fifty years. If he resolutely refuses to change, remains thoroughly entrenched, and this fortress cannot be breached, then so be it. We do not have so much energy to keep attacking him. We have things to do now. Attacking him every day for fifty years—how could that be managed? If there is a group of people who refuse to change, let them take it to their graves and go see the King of Hell. They can tell the King of Hell: "I have backbone; I am a steadfast adherent of the 'five skins.' I fought against these bastards, the Communist Party, the Chinese left wing, and the broad masses. They wanted me to make a self-criticism, but I resisted it all." But now even the King of Hell in the underworld has changed. The first King of Hell is Marx, the second is Engels, and the third is Lenin. Now there are two hells: the old one in the capitalist world, and in the socialist world, these people serve as the Kings of Hell. I think when these people go before the King of Hell, they will still be dealt with.

I have spoken too much; I will stop here. Thank you for listening to my speech.

Compiled by the General Office of the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China, July 10, 1957

(Reprinted from a copy reproduced by the "Radar" Combat Team of New Peking University)