July 1, 1957

[Editorial written for the People's Daily.]


Since June 14, when our editorial department published "The Bourgeois
Orientation of Wen Hui Pao over a Period of Time", both Wen
Hui Pao and the Kuangming Daily have undertaken some self-criticism
on this question.

The staff of the Kuangming Daily held several meetings and severely
criticized its director, Chang Po-chun, and its editor-in-chief, Chu An-ping,
for their wrong orientation. This criticism was unequivocal and there has
been a basic change in stand, a change to the revolutionary socialist line
from the bourgeois line of Chang Po-chun and Chu An-ping opposing the Communist
Party, the people and socialism. As a result, the Kuangming Daily has
regained the reader's confidence and reads like a socialist paper. Only the
technique of its layout still leaves something to be desired. Technique in
layout and political slant in layout are two different things, and as far
as the Kuangming Daily is concerned, there is not enough of the
former but quite enough of the latter. Technique is something it is entirely
possible to improve. A change in the technique of layout would give the paper
a new look which its readers would be glad to see. Nonetheless it is not
easy; our paper has long set its mind on this, but its layout, though somewhat
improved, is still not up to expectations.

Wen Hui Pao has published its self-criticism, giving the impression
that a change has come about in its orientation, and it has carried many
news items and articles reflecting the positive line -- this of course is
all to the good. Still, there is something lacking. It is just like performing
on the stage, where some actors give fine portrayals as villains but never
look right in their roles as heroes, they are so affected and unnatural.
It is indeed difficult for them to be otherwise. Either the East Wind prevails
over the West Wind, or the West Wind prevails over the East Wind; on the
question of the two lines there is no room for compromise. Many editors and
reporters are used to the old and beaten tracks, and it is far from easy
for them to change all at once. But change they must, however grudgingly
and painfully, for this is dictated by the general trend. When people say
that the change is easy and pleasant, they are saying so merely out of
conventional politeness. This is only human and should be excused. As for
the editorial department of Wen Hui Pao, the matter is serious because
it was this editorial department which was in command during the period when
the paper kicked up a rumpus with its bourgeois orientation, and so there
is a heavy burden on its shoulders which cannot be easily thrown off. As
to whether there is another commander higher up, those who make this charge
say "yes", while those who speak for the defence say "no"; moreover, this
commander has been identified as Lo Lung-chi of the alliance of Chang Po-chun
and Lo Lung-chi. In between the two commanders, there is a third in the person
of Pu Hsi-hsiu, a capable woman of action in charge of the Peking office
of Wen Hui Pao. People say that Lo Lung-chi -- Pu Hsi-hsiu -- the
Wen Hui Pao editorial department represents the chain of command
of the Rightists in the Democratic League directing Wen Hui Pao.

The Democratic League has played a particularly vicious role in the course
of the contention among the hundred schools of thought and the rectification
movement. It operates in an organized way, complete with a plan, programme
and line which alienate it from the people and which are directed against
the Communist Party and socialism. Then there is the Peasants' and Workers'
Democratic Party which has played exactly the same role. These two parties
have made themselves particularly conspicuous in these days of violent storm.
It is the Chang-Lo alliance which has raised the storm. Other parties have
played their role, and some of their members are very vicious, too. But they
are smaller in number and their chain of command is not so obvious. As for
the rank and file of the Democratic League and the Peasants' and Workers'
Democratic Party, not all nor even the majority of them are involved. After
all, it is only a handful of individuals, namely, the leading bourgeois
Rightists, who summon the storm and churn the waves, plot in secret and incite
discontent among the masses, make contacts high and low and seek responses
far and near; it is only they whose estimate of the current situation is
that utter confusion everywhere will lead to their take-over and whose ultimate
aim is to complete their grand scheme by gradual steps. Among the members
of these parties some keep their heads, many are deceived, and a small number
make up the nucleus of the right wing. Few as they are, being the nucleus,
they have considerable power to manipulate. All this spring, the sky over
China suddenly became overcast with rolling dark clouds, and the source of
the trouble can be traced to the Chang-Lo alliance.

Two meetings were called by the Journalists' Association, the first a negation
and the second a negation of the negation, and the fact that this took place
in a little over a month indicates the swift changes in the situation in
China. The meetings were helpful. At the first meeting, "dark clouds bearing
down on the city threatened to crush it", as the reactionary bourgeois line
in journalism asserted itself. But at the second, begun the other day, the
atmosphere has changed and, although the Rightists are still stubbornly
resisting, most people can be said to have found the correct orientation.

On June 14, Wen Hui Pao made a self-criticism and admitted it had
made some mistakes. It is all very well to make self-criticism and we welcome
it. But we consider Wen Hui Pao's self-criticism inadequate. And
what is inadequate here is fundamental in character. That is to say,
fundamentally the paper made no self-criticism. On the contrary, in the editorial
of June 14 it tried to defend its mistakes. "We have one-sidedly and incorrectly
interpreted the Party's policy on the free airing of views, believing that
unqualified encouragement of the free airing of views would of itself help
the Party in the rectification movement, and that more space given to positive
views or criticisms to counter the wrong views would hinder the free airing
of views." Is that so? No. During the spring Wen Hui Pao pursued
the policy of the central authorities of the Democratic League opposing the
Communist Party, the people and socialism and launched violent attacks on
the proletariat, in diametrical opposition to the policy of the Communist
Party. It was a policy designed to topple the Communist Party and create
utter confusion everywhere to facilitate a take-over. Can this really be
called "helping in the rectification movement"? No, that is a lie, a downright
swindle. Was it wrong for a while to refrain from publishing any positive
views or to publish only a few and to let erroneous views go unrefuted? Between
May 8 and June 7, acting on the instructions of the Central Committee of
the Communist Party of China, our paper and all the other Party papers did
precisely that. The purpose was to let demons and devils, ghosts and monsters
"air views freely" and let poisonous weeds sprout and grow in profusion,
so that the people, now shocked to find these ugly things still existing
in the world, would take action to wipe them out. In other words, the Communist
Party foresaw this inevitable class struggle between the bourgeoisie and
the proletariat. The bourgeoisie and bourgeois intellectuals were allowed
to start this war, and for a time the press refrained from publishing any
positive views or published only a few and did not take any action to repulse
the wild attacks of the reactionary bourgeois Rightists, nor did the Party
organization in any of the departments and schools where the rectification
movement was in progress. The masses could thus clearly distinguish those
whose criticism was well-intentioned from those whose so-called criticism
was malevolent, and thus forces could be mustered to counter-attack when
the time was ripe. Some people say this was a covert scheme. We say it was
an overt one. For we made it plain to the enemy beforehand: only when ghosts
and monsters are allowed to come into the open can they be wiped out; only
when poisonous weeds are allowed to sprout from the soil can they be uprooted.
Don't the peasants weed several times a year? Besides, uprooted weeds can
be used as manure. The class enemies will invariably seek opportunities to
assert themselves. They will not resign themselves to losing state power
and being expropriated. However much the Communist Party warns its enemies
in advance and makes its basic strategy known to them, they will still launch
attacks. Class struggle is an objective reality, independent of man's will.
That is to say, class struggle is inevitable. It cannot be avoided even if
people want to avoid it. The only thing to do is to make the best use of
the situation and guide the struggle to victory. Why do the reactionary class
enemies bite the hook? As reactionary social groups blinded by the lust for
gain, they take the absolute superiority of the proletariat for absolute
inferiority. Fanning flames everywhere would stir up workers and peasants,
students' big-character posters would facilitate the taking over of schools,
free airing of views would touch off an explosive situation, there would
be instant chaos everywhere and the Communist Party would crack up at once--this
was how Chang Po-chun sized up the situation on June 6 for six professors
in Peking. Isn't this a case of being blinded by the lust for gain? "Gain"
means the grabbing of power. They have quite a few papers, one of them being
Wen Hui Pao. This paper operated in accordance with the reactionary
policy mentioned above, but on June 14 it tried to deceive the people, pretending
that it had acted with good intentions. The paper said, "And this incorrect
understanding is due to the remnants of bourgeois ideas of journalism in
our minds." No, here "remnants" should read "abundance". For several months
the paper served as the mouthpiece of the reactionaries who mounted unbridled
attacks against the proletariat, and it changed its orientation to one of
opposing the Communist Party, the people and socialism, that is, to the bourgeois
orientation -- could it manage all that with just some odd remnants of bourgeois
ideas? What sort of logic is this? A particular premise leads to a universal
conclusion -- this is Wen Hui Pao's logic. To this day Wen Hui
Pao is still not ready to criticize itself for carrying a host
of reactionary reports flying in the face of the facts, for printing a spate
of reactionary views and opinions, and for splashing the paper with a reactionary
layout as a means for attacking the proletariat. The case is different with
Hsin Min Pao; it has made many self-criticisms which are quite sincere.
Hsin Min Pao's mistakes were not as serious as Wen Hui Pao's,
and when it realized that it had made mistakes it started correcting
them in earnest; this shows a sense of responsibility towards the people's
cause on the part of those in charge of the paper and its reporters, and
thus in the eyes of the reader the paper has begun to free itself from its
predicament. Where on earth is Wen Hui Pao's sense of responsibility?
Just when will Wen Hui Pao begin to follow Hsin Min Pao's
example? Debts must be paid, and when will Wen Hui Pao begin
to pay its debt? In making self-criticism Hsin Min Pao has apparently
raised lots of awkward questions for Wen Hui Pao, and the reader
would like to ask, when will Wen Hui Pao catch up with Hsin
Min Pao? Wen Hui Pao is now in a bad fix. Before Hsin Min
Paomade its self-criticism, it seemed that Wen Hui Pao might
be able to muddle along for a while, but after that things have become difficult.
A bad fix can be turned into a good position, and that calls for a conscientious
effort to emulate Hsin Min Pao.

Now to return to the term "bourgeois Rightists". Bourgeois Rightists are
the bourgeois reactionaries mentioned above who oppose the Communist Party,
the people and socialism; this definition is scientific and true to fact.
Only a handful, they are to be found in the democratic parties, among
intellectuals, capitalists and students and also in the Communist Party and
Youth League, and they have surfaced in the present great storm. They are
very small in number, but in the democratic parties, and particularly in
certain of these parties, they carry weight and should not be taken lightly.
This bunch have not only expressed themselves in words but also followed
up with deeds; they are guilty, and the principle of "blame not the speaker"
does not apply to them. They are not only speakers but doers. Are they to
be punished by law? There seems to be no need for that at present. For the
people's state is very secure and, moreover, many among them are prominent
figures. They can be treated leniently, without punishment. In general, it
is enough to call them "Rightists", not reactionaries. The only exceptions
are those who refuse to correct their mistakes after repeated warnings and
continue to engage in sabotage in violation of the criminal law; these will
have to be punished. Learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones, cure
the sickness to save the patient, transform negative factors into positive
ones--these principles still apply to the Rightists. Then there are Rightists
of another kind who have expressed themselves in words but have not followed
up with deeds. Their views are similar to those of the Rightists mentioned
above, but they have not engaged in disruptive activities. There should be
a greater degree of leniency towards them. Erroneous views must be repudiated
root and branch with no quarter given, but these individuals should be permitted
to reserve their opinions. The various types of Rightists mentioned above
are allowed their freedom of speech. For a great, secure nation, there is
little harm in keeping a small number of such people around when their mistakes
are known to the masses. It must be understood that Rightists are persons
who teach us by negative example. In this sense, poisonous weeds can
render service. They render service precisely because they are poisonous
and because in the past people were harmed by the poison they spread.

The Communist Party is continuing with its rectification and the democratic
parties have also begun theirs. Now that the Rightists' wild attacks
have been repulsed by the people, the rectification movement can proceed
smoothly.

Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.