October 9, 1957

[Speech at the Enlarged Third Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee
of the Chinese Communist Party.]


This conference has been a success. With the participation of comrades from
the provincial and prefectural Party committees, such an enlarged plenary
session of the Central Committee is in fact a conference of cadres from three
levels and is good for clarifying policies, exchanging experience and achieving
unity of will.

Perhaps it is necessary to convene this sort of conference once a year. For
work is very complicated in a large country like ours. We did not call such
a conference last year; we suffered in consequence and a Right deviation
occurred. There had been a high tide the year before last, but last year
saw a let-down. Of course we held the Eighth Congress last year and didn't
have time. Next time such a conference is convened, a few secretaries of
county Party committees and of district Party committees in some large cities
may be included; for instance, it would be all right to have an additional
hundred or so. I suggest every province should also convene an all-province
conference of cadres from three or four levels, with some from the co-operatives,
to thrash out problems. This is the first point.

Second, a few words about rectification. Be bold, thorough and resolute in
letting people air their views and in making reforms. We must have this kind
of resolve. Then, is it necessary to add a campaign against the Rightists,
and a vigorous one at that? No, it isn't. Because the anti-Rightist campaign
is on the right track and in some places has already ended. Now the stress
should be on airing views and making reforms at the grass-roots levels, that
is, at the three levels of county, district and township. In some departments
at the central and the provincial and municipal levels, the airing of views
should continue but the emphasis should be on reform.

In the course of this year the masses have created a form of making revolution,
a form of waging mass struggle, namely, speaking out freely, airing views
fully, holding great debates and writing big-character posters. Our revolution
has now found a form well suited to its content. This form could not have
emerged in the past. Since we were then engaged in fighting, in the five
major movements [1] and the three great
transformations,[2] it was impossible for this
form of unhurried debate to come into being. It would have been impermissible
to devote a whole year to unhurried debate, to presenting facts and reasoning
things out. Now it can be done. We have found this form, a form suited to
the content of the current struggle of the masses, to the content of the
present class struggle and to the correct handling of contradictions among
the people. Grasp this form and henceforward you will find things much easier
to manage. Major and minor questions of right and wrong as well as problems
in revolution and construction can be solved through airing views and holding
debates, and more quickly. The Left should freely air views and hold debates
not only with the middle but also openly with the Rightists and, in the villages,
with the landlords and rich peasants. Not being afraid of "losing face",
we have published in our newspapers such nonsense as "the Communist Party
monopolizes everything", "the Communist Party should abdicate" and "get off
your sedan-chair". We have just got "on" our "sedan-chair", and already the
Rightists want us to get "off". Speaking out freely, airing views fully,
holding great debates and writing big-character posters are the form best
suited to arousing the initiative of the masses and enhancing their sense
of responsibility.

Our Party has a democratic tradition. Without this tradition it would have
been impossible to accept such free airing of views, great debates and
big-character posters. During the rectification movement in Yenan people
took notes, made self-criticisms and helped each other, seven or eight to
a group, and this lasted for several months. All those I have met are grateful
for that rectification, they say it was only then that they began to shed
their subjectivism. In the days of the agrarian reform, we consulted the
masses whenever problems arose in order to straighten out ideas. In our army
units, company commanders would personally see to it that their men were
properly covered at night and would have friendly chats with them on an equal
footing. Forms of democracy abounded in the rectification movement in Yenan,
in the agrarian reform, in the democratic life of the army units,
in the Three Check-ups and Three
Improvements,[3] and later on in the struggles
against the "three evils" and the "five evils", and in the ideological
remoulding of intellectuals. But the free airing of views and the holding
of great debates, to be followed by consultation and persuasion in the nature
of "a gentle breeze and a mild rain" -- it is only now that all this can
come about. We have found this form which will immensely benefit our cause
and make it easier for us to overcome subjectivism, bureaucracy and commandism
(by commandism we mean striking or cursing people or forcing them to carry
out orders) and for leading cadres to become one with the masses.

This year has seen a great development in our democratic tradition, and
this form of speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates
and writing big-character posters should be handed down to future generations.
It brings socialist democracy into full play. Democracy of this kind is possible
only in socialist countries, not in capitalist countries. On the basis of
such democracy, centralism is not weakened but further strengthened, as is
the dictatorship of the proletariat. For the proletariat must rely on its
broad allies to exercise dictatorship, it cannot do so all by itself. The
proletariat in China is small in number, some ten million only, and it must
rely on the several hundred million poor and lower-middle peasants, city
poor, badly-off handicraftsmen and revolutionary intellectuals in order to
exercise dictatorship --otherwise it cannot. Now that we have aroused their
enthusiasm, the dictatorship of the proletariat is being consolidated.

Third, agriculture. The forty-article Programme for Agricultural Development
has been revised and will soon be issued. Comrades, please do a good job
of organizing debates and discussions on it in the villages. I have asked
some comrades whether prefectures should draw up agricultural plans. They
said yes. Should districts do likewise? Again the answer was yes. What about
the townships? Yet again they said yes. And the co-operatives too should
draw up such plans. Then there will be six levels in all, provincial,
prefectural, county, district, township and co-operative. Please take heed
and lose no time in drawing up these agricultural plans. A plan and a programme
are one and the same thing, and since we have been in the habit of using
the word plan, let's call it that. We must persist in making comprehensive
plans, giving more effective leadership, having Party secretaries pitch in
and having all Party members help run the co-operatives. Apparently not all
Party members helped run the co-operatives in the second half of last year
and Party secretaries rarely pitched in. This year we must persist in doing
what we had done before.

When will the plans be ready? I've asked some comrades and learned that they
are ready in some places and not quite in others. With stress now being laid
on the three levels of province, prefecture and county, can their plans be
ready this winter or next spring? If not, they must at all events be ready
in the coming year, and at all six levels. For we have had several years
of experience and the forty-article National Programme for Agricultural
Development is almost ready. This programme and the plans at the provincial
and other levels should all be discussed in the villages. But since it would
be too much to discuss all seven plans at the same time, it is preferable
to stagger the airing of views and debates by the masses. Here we are talking
about long-term plans. What should be done if a plan turns out to be unsuitable?
It will have to be revised after we've had a few more years of experience.
For instance, the forty articles will need further revision in a few years.
This is inevitable. I think they will probably need a minor revision every
three years and a major one every five years. It is always better to have
some plan than none. The programme covers a period of twelve years, and now
two years have passed, leaving only ten; unless we grasp the matter firmly,
there will be the danger of failing to fulfil the targets set in the forty
articles for the yields of grain per mou for the three different regions,
namely, four, five and eight hundred catties. Grasp the matter firmly and
these targets can be fulfilled.

In my opinion, China must depend on intensive cultivation to feed itself.
One day China will become the world's number one high-yield country. Some
of our counties are already producing one thousand catties per mou.
Will it be possible to reach two thousand catties per mou in
half a century? In future will it be possible for the region north of the
Yellow River to produce eight hundred catties per moo, that north
of the Huai River one thousand catties and that south of it two thousand?
There are still a few decades left before these targets are reached at the
beginning of the 21st century, or maybe it won't take that long. We depend
on intensive cultivation to feed ourselves, and even with a fairly large
population we still have enough food. I think an average of three mou
of land per person is more than enough and in future less than one mou
will yield enough grain to feed one individual. Of course birth control
will still be necessary, and I am not encouraging more births.

Please investigate how much grain the peasants actually consume. We must
encourage diligence and thrift in running the household and economy in the
use of grain so as to have reserves. When the state has a reserve and each
co-operative and family has one too, we shall be quite well off with these
three kinds of reserves. Otherwise, if all the grain is eaten up, what prosperity
will there be to speak of ?

This year there should be a little more accumulation wherever a good harvest
has been reaped or natural disasters have not occurred. It is most necessary
to make up for possible shortages with surpluses. In co-operatives
in some provinces, in addition to the accumulation fund (5 per cent), the
public welfare fund (5 per cent) and management expenses, production costs
account for 20 per cent of the total value of output and capital construction
expenditures in turn account for 20 per cent of production costs. I discussed
the matter with comrades from other provinces, who said these capital
construction expenditures were probably a bit too high. What I am saying
today is to be taken as suggestions, which you may carry out if feasible,
otherwise not. Moreover, it is not necessary for all provinces and counties
to act in exactly the same way, and I leave the matter to you for consideration.
The management expenses of co-operatives in some places have so far assumed
too large a proportion and should therefore be reduced to 1 per cent. They
consist of allowances to cadres of co-operatives plus administrative expenses.
They should be cut and capital expenditures on farmlands increased.

The Chinese people should have high aspirations. We should teach everyone
in the cities and villages of the country to have lofty aims and high
aspirations. To indulge in eating and drinking, to eat and drink everything
up, can this be considered a high aspiration? No, it can't. We should be
diligent and thrifty in running our households and should make long-term
plans. When people wear red or white, that is, at weddings or funerals, the
practice of giving lavish feasts can well be dispensed with. We should practice
economy in these matters and avoid extravagance. This is a matter of changing
old customs. To this end it is necessary to argue things out through airing
views in a big way, or maybe in a small way. Then there is gambling. In the
past it was impossible to ban this practice, which can be changed only through
the free airing of views and debate. In my opinion, changing old customs
should also be included in the plans to be drawn up.

Then there is the question of eliminating the four pests and paying attention
to hygiene. I'm very keen on wiping out the four pests, rats, sparrows, flies
and mosquitoes. As there are only ten years left, can't we make some preparations
and carry out propaganda this year and set about the work next spring? Because
that is just the time when flies emerge. I still think that we should wipe
out these pests and that the whole nation should pay particular attention
to hygiene. This is a question of civilization, the level of which should
be significantly raised. There should be an emulation drive; every possible
effort must be made to wipe out these pests and everyone should pay attention
to hygiene. Progress is liable to be uneven in different provinces and counties,
anyway let's see who is champion. China should become a country of "four
without's", without rats, without sparrows, without flies and without mosquitoes.

There should also be a ten-year programme for family planning. However, it
should not be promoted in the minority nationality areas or in sparsely populated
regions. Even in densely populated regions it is necessary to try it out
in selected places and then spread it step by step until family planning
gradually becomes universal. Family planning requires open education, which
simply means airing views freely and holding great debates. As far as procreation
is concerned, the human race has been in a state of total anarchy and has
failed to exercise control. The complete realization of family planning in
the future will be out of the question without the weight of society as a
whole behind it, that is, without general consent and joint effort.

There is also the question of comprehensive planning. I've just talked about
agricultural plans, but there are also plans for industry, commerce, culture
and education. It is absolutely necessary to make a comprehensive plan which
brings industry, agriculture, commerce, culture and education together and
co-ordinates them.

The cultivation of experimental plots is an experience worth spreading
everywhere. The leading cadres of counties, districts, townships and
co-operatives should each cultivate a small plot and experiment to see if
a high yield can be reached and what methods serve that end.

We must get to know farming techniques. It is no longer possible to engage
in agricultural work without acquiring these techniques. Politics and the
professions form a unity of opposites, in which politics is predominant and
primary, and while we must fight against the tendency to ignore politics,
it won't do to confine oneself to politics and have no technical or professional
knowledge. Whatever line our comrades are in, whether it is industry,
agriculture, commerce, or culture and education, they should all acquire
some technical and professional knowledge. I think a ten-year plan should
also be made here. Our cadres in all trades and professions should strive
to be proficient in technical and professional work, turn themselves into
experts and become both red and expert. It is wrong to talk about becoming
expert before becoming red, which is tantamount to being white before being
red. For in fact those who talk thus intend to remain white to the end, and
becoming red later is just empty talk. Nowadays some cadres are no longer
red since they have succumbed to rich peasant thinking. Some people are white,
like the Rightists in the Party who are politically white and technically
inexpert. Others are grey and still others pinkish. It is the Left who are
really red, blazing red, like the colour of our five-star red flag. But being
red alone won't do, one should have professional and technical knowledge
as well. At present many cadres are only red but not expert and lack professional
or technical knowledge. The Rightists say that we don't have the ability
to lead, that "laymen cannot lead experts". We rebut them by asserting that
we can. When we assert we can, we mean that politically we can. As for technical
knowledge, we still have a lot to learn, and we will certainly be able to
learn it.

The proletariat cannot build socialism without its own vast contingent of
technicians and theoretical workers. We should form a contingent of proletarian
intellectuals within the next ten years (the plans for the development of
science also cover twelve years, and there are still ten years left). Our
Party members and non-Party activists should all strive to become proletarian
intellectuals. Plans for training proletarian intellectuals should be worked
out at all levels, particularly at the three levels of province, prefecture
and county, or else time will have passed with no such people trained. An
old Chinese saying goes, "It takes ten years to grow trees but a hundred
years to rear people." Let's subtract ninety from the hundred years and rear
people in ten. It's not true that it takes ten years to grow trees, since
it takes twenty-five years in the south and even longer in the north. But
it is quite possible to bring up people in ten years. We have had eight years
and if we add ten, we will have had eighteen years; it can be expected that
by then a contingent of working-class experts with Marxist ideology will
have basically been formed. After that for another ten years the task will
be to enlarge this contingent and raise its level.

Talking about the relationship between agriculture and industry, we should
of course concentrate on heavy industry and give priority to its development;
this is a principle about which there can be no question or wavering. But
with this pre-condition, we must develop industry and agriculture simultaneously
and build up a modern industry and modern agriculture step by step. We often
talk about making China an industrial country, which actually involves the
modernization of agriculture. The stress of our propaganda should now be
on agriculture. Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping has also spoken about this.

Fourth, concerning the two methods. There are at least two methods of doing
things, one producing slower and poorer results and the other faster and
better ones. Here both speed and quality are involved. Don't consider just
one method, always consider at least two. Take railway building for example.
There should be several plans, so that out of several routes one can be chosen.
There can be several, and at least two, methods for comparison. For instance,
should views be aired in a big way or in a small way? Should there be
big-character posters or not? Which of the two is better? Questions of this
sort are legion, but somehow no free airing of views has been allowed. None
of the authorities in the thirty-four institutions of higher education in
Peking have allowed this, or allowed it readily and unhesitatingly. For them
this is a matter of drawing the fire upon themselves! To make them let people
air views freely calls for plenty of persuasion and, what is more, considerable
pressure, that is, issuing an open call and holding many meetings, so that
they find themselves checkmated and "driven to join the Liangshan Mountain
rebels".[4] When we made revolution in the past,
diverse opinions arose in the Party with regard to this or that method and
this or that policy, but in the end as we adopted the policy best suited
to the prevailing conditions, greater progress was made in the periods of
the War of Resistance Against Japan and the War of Liberation than in the
preceding periods. Likewise there can be this or that policy for construction,
and here too we should adopt the policy best suited to the actual conditions.

The Soviet experience in construction is fairly complete. By complete I mean
it includes the making of mistakes. No experience can be considered complete
unless it includes the making of mistakes. To learn from the Soviet Union
does not mean to copy everything mechanically, which is exactly what dogmatism
does. It was after we had criticized dogmatism that we encouraged people
to learn from the Soviet Union, and so there was no danger. Since the
rectification movement in Yenan and the Seventh Congress, we have stressed
learning from the Soviet Union, which has not only done us no harm but has
proved beneficial. In revolution, we are experienced. In construction, we
have just begun and have had only eight years of experience. In our construction
the achievements are primary, but we are not free from mistakes. We shall still
make mistakes in the future, but we hope fewer. Learning from the Soviet
Union must include studying its mistakes. Having studied them, we need make
fewer detours. Can't we avoid the Soviet Union's detours and do things faster
and better? We should of course strive for this. In steel production for
instance, can't we reach 20,000,000 tons in a period of three five-year plans
or a bit longer? We can, if we make the effort. For this purpose we shall
have to set up more small steel plants. I think we should run more steel
plants that turn out 30,000 to 50,000 or 70,000 to 80,000 tons annually because
they are very useful. It is also necessary to set up medium-sized plants
with an annual capacity of 300,000 or 400,000 tons.

Fifth, several things were swept away last year. One was the principle of
doing things with greater, faster, better and more economical results. The
demand for greater and faster results was dropped, and with it the demand
for better and more economical results was swept away, too. No one, I think,
objects to doing things better and more economically; it is just doing things
with greater and faster results that people don't like and some comrades
label "rash". As a matter of fact "better" and "more economical" are meant
to restrict "greater" and "faster". "Better" means better in quality, "more
economical" means spending less money, "greater" means doing more things,
and "faster" also means doing more things. This slogan is self-restricting,
since it calls for better and more economical results, that is, for better
quality and lower cost, which precludes greater and faster results that are
unrealistic. I am glad that a couple of comrades have spoken on this question
at the present session. Besides, I've read an article on it in the newspaper.
Our demand for greater, faster, better and more economical results is realistic,
in conformity with the actual conditions and not subjectivist. We must always
do our utmost to achieve greater and faster results; what we oppose is only
the subjectivist demand for greater and faster results. In the second half
of last year, a gust of wind swept away this slogan, which I want to restore.
Is this possible? Please consider the matter.

The forty-article Programme for Agricultural Development was also swept away.
These forty articles went out of vogue last year but are now staging a
"come-back".

Committees for promoting progress were swept away, too. I once raised this
question: Are the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the Party committees
at all levels, the State Council and the people's councils at all levels
-- in short, the multitude of "committees" among which the Party committees
are primary -- are all these committees intrinsically for promoting progress
or for promoting retrogression? They ought to be committees for promoting
progress. To my mind, the Kuomintang is a committee for promoting retrogression
and the Communist Party a committee for promoting progress. Can't we now
restore those committees for promoting progress which were swept away by
last year's gust of wind? If you all speak against their restoration and
are bent on organizing committees for promoting retrogression, then, with
so many of you for retrogression there is nothing I can do about it. However,
judging from the present session, everyone wants to promote progress and
there hasn't been a single speech in favour of retrogression. It was the
Rightist Chang-Lo alliance that wanted us to go backward. In those cases
where things are really moving too fast and beyond proper bounds, temporary
and partial retrogression is permissible, that is to say, we have to take
a step backward or slow down a step. But our general policy is always to
promote progress.

Sixth, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between
the socialist road and the capitalist road, is undoubtedly the principal
contradiction in contemporary Chinese society. Our present task is different
from that in the past. Previously the principal task for the proletariat
was to lead the masses in struggles against imperialism and feudalism, a
task that has already been accomplished. What then is the principal contradiction
now? We are now carrying on the socialist revolution, the spearhead of which
is directed against the bourgeoisie, and at the same time this revolution
aims at transforming the system of individual production, that is, bringing
about co-operation; consequently the principal contradiction is between socialism
and capitalism, between collectivism and individualism, or in a nutshell
between the socialist road and the capitalist road. The resolution of the
Eighth Congress makes no mention of this question. It contains a passage
which speaks of the principal contradiction as being that between the advanced
socialist system and the backward social productive forces. This formulation
is incorrect. At the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee
we stated that after nation-wide victory the principal contradiction would
be, internally, that between the working class and the bourgeoisie and,
externally, that between China and imperialism. Though we made no public
reference to this statement after the session, we have been acting on it
ever since, because our revolution has developed into the socialist revolution
and that is what we have been engaged in. The three great transformations
constitute a socialist revolution, a revolution mainly in the ownership of
the means of production; they have been basically accomplished. They have
all been sharp class struggles.

In the second half of last year there was a slackening in class struggle,
a slackening that was brought about deliberately. But once we allowed it,
the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois intellectuals, the landlords, the rich peasants
and part of the well-to-do middle peasants started the attack on us. That
was what happened this year. We allowed the slackening and they started the
attack--that suited us fine, we gained the initiative. As an editorial in
the People's Daily puts it, "The tree may prefer calm, but the wind
will not subside." [5] They wanted to raise a gale,
a typhoon of some force! Well then, we started building a "shelter belt".
This was the anti-Rightist struggle, the rectification movement.

Rectification consists of two tasks: one is to fight against the Rightists,
including the fight against bourgeois ideology, and the other is to carry
out reforms, which also entails a struggle between the two lines. Subjectivism,
bureaucracy and sectarianism are all bourgeois phenomena whose presence in
our Party should be blamed on the bourgeoisie. Will it still be possible
to blame it on the bourgeoisie a century or two hence? That would be rather
difficult, I'm afraid. Will there still be bureaucracy and subjectivism then?
Yes, there will, but the blame will be placed on backwardness. In society
there will always be the Left, the middle and the Right, and there will always
be the advanced, the middling and the backward. By that time, if you are
guilty of bureaucracy and subjectivism, you will be backward.

The rectification movement will go on till May 1 next year, there is that
much time for it. Is there going to be a slackening again after May I? I
think yes. Can such a slackening be called a Right deviation? I think not.
Take a meeting for example. If it goes on and on, night and day for six months
on end, I'm afraid many people will simply disappear. Therefore we should
do our work according to circumstances, now speeding it up, now slowing it
down. Last year we scored such a big victory that the capitalists beat drums
and struck gongs to show their allegiance; if we hadn't allowed a slackening,
we would have found it hard to justify ourselves, as there was no adequate
excuse. We have said that the problem of ownership is solved basically but
not completely. Class struggle has not died out. Hence slackening is not
a concession in principle but is called for by the circumstances.

I think that the rectification should go on till May 1 next year and that
it should stop in the latter half of the year. We shall see then whether
there is any need for another rectification or another debate in the countryside
and shall discuss the matter next year. Anyway, there must be another
rectification the year after next. If we do not launch one then, or worse
still, for several years, the old and new Rightists and the ones currently
emerging will, start wriggling again; besides, some elements to the right
of centre, some middle elements and even some on the Left are liable to change.
There are some queer characters in the world whose Right deviationist sentiments
will surface and who will come forward with unwholesome comments and Rightist
observations if you slacken for any length of time. It is also necessary
to carry out constant education in our army units on the Three Main Rules
of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention. If you suspend it for a
few months, morale will slacken. Morale should be boosted several times a
year. Education should be conducted among the new recruits. Even the ideology
of veterans and senior cadres would change without rectification.

A word in passing about our differences with the Soviet Union. First of all,
there is a contradiction between us and Khrushchov on the question of Stalin.
He has drawn such a black picture of Stalin, and we do not agree with him.
He has made Stalin so terribly ugly! This then is no longer a matter that
concerns his country alone, it concerns all countries. We have put Stalin's
portrait up in Tien An Men Square. This accords with the wishes of the working
people the world over and indicates our fundamental differences with Khrushchov.
As for Stalin himself, you should at least give him a 70-30 evaluation, 70
for his achievements and 30 for his mistakes. This may not be entirely accurate,
for his mistakes may be only 20 or even 10, or perhaps somewhat more than
30. All things considered, Stalin's achievements are primary and his shortcomings
and mistakes are secondary. On this point we take a view different from
Khrushchov's.

Next, we also disagree with Khrushchov and his associates on the question
of peaceful transition. We maintain that the proletarian party of any country
should be prepared for two possibilities, one for peace and the other for
war. In the first case, the Communist Party demands peaceful transition from
the ruling class, following Lenin in the slogan he advanced during the period
between the February and October Revolutions. Similarly we made a proposal
to Chiang Kai-shek for the negotiation of peace. This is a defensive slogan
against the bourgeoisie, against the enemy, showing that we want peace, not
war, and it will help us win over the masses. It is a slogan that will give
us the initiative, it is a tactical slogan. However, the bourgeoisie will
never hand over state power of their own accord, but will resort to violence.
Then there is the second possibility. If they want to fight and they fire
the first shot, we cannot but fight back. To seize state power by armed force
-- this is a strategic slogan. If you insist on peaceful transition, there
won't be any difference between you and the socialist parties. The Japanese
Socialist Party is just like that, it is prepared for only one possibility,
that is, it will never use violence. The same is true of all the socialist
parties of the world. Generally speaking, the political parties of the
proletariat had better be prepared for two possibilities: one, a gentleman
uses his tongue, not his fists, but two, if a bastard uses his fists, I'll
use mine. Putting the matter this way takes care of both possibilities and
leaves no loophole. It won't do otherwise. Now the Communist Parties in a
number of countries, the British Communist Party for example, only advance
the slogan of peaceful transition. We talked this over with the leader of
the British Party but couldn't get anywhere. Naturally they may well feel
proud, for as their leader queried, "How can Khrushchov claim to have introduced
peaceful transition? I advanced it long before he did!"

Besides, the Soviet comrades do not understand our policy of letting a hundred
flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend. What we want is
to have a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend
within the framework of socialism, within the ranks of the people and with
the exclusion of counter-revolutionaries. Of course, realignment may take
place among the people themselves, a section of whom may turn into our enemies.
Take the Rightists for instance. In the past they were among the people,
but now it seems to me that they are one-third people and two-thirds
counter-revolutionary. Shall we deprive them of the right to vote? On the
whole, it is preferable not to do so, except for those few who are to be
punished by law or reformed through labour. Some of them may even be allowed
to sit on the National Committee of the Political Consultative Conference,
because anyway it is all right for the committee to have about a thousand
people. In appearance the Rightists are still in the ranks of the people,
but in reality they are our enemies. We openly declare that they are our
enemies and that the contradiction between us and them is one between the
people and the enemy, because they are against socialism, against the leadership
of the Communist Party and against the dictatorship of the proletariat. In
short, their words and deeds do not conform to the six criteria!
[6] They are poisonous weeds. A few poisonous weeds
will always crop up among the people, no matter when.

Lastly, we should bestir ourselves and make arduous efforts in our study.
Mark these three words, "make", "arduous" and "efforts". We must bestir ourselves
and make arduous efforts. Now many of our comrades do not make arduous efforts,
and some comrades devote their surplus energy after work chiefly to playing
cards and mahjong and to dancing, and this I think is bad. We should devote
our surplus energy after work chiefly to study and should make study a habit.
What then should we study? For one thing, we should study Marxism-Leninism,
for another, technology and for a third, natural science. Besides, there
is literature, and especially the theories of literature, which leading cadres
must know something about. They should also have some knowledge of journalism
and education. In short, there is a very wide range of knowledge, of which
we should get some general understanding. For we are supposed to exercise
leadership over these matters! What kind of specialists can people like us
be called? We can be called political specialists. How can we carry on without
knowing about these matters and exercising leadership over them? All provinces
have their own newspapers, which were neglected in the past, and their own
literary and art journals and organizations, which were also neglected, as
were the united front and the democratic parties, and as was education. All
these things were neglected, and so it was precisely in these fields that
rebellion erupted. But once these things were attended to, the whole situation
changed within a few months. Lo Lung-chi asked, how could little proletarian
intellectuals lead big petty-bourgeois intellectuals? He was wrong there.
He says he is petty bourgeois but actually he is bourgeois. The "little
intellectuals" of the proletariat will do precisely that -- exercise leadership
over the big bourgeois intellectuals. The proletariat has had a group of
intellectuals in its service, the first of whom was Marx, then there were
Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and now there are people like us and many others.
The proletariat is the most advanced class, it will lead the revolution all
over the world.

NOTES


1. The five major movements were the agrarian reform, the
movement to resist U. S. aggression and aid Korea, the elimination of
counter-revolutionaries, the movement against the "three evils" and the "five
evils", and the ideological remoulding.

2. This refers to the socialist transformation of agriculture,
handicrafts and capitalist industry and commerce.

3. "The Democratic Movement in the Army", Note I,
Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Vol. IV.

4. Liangshan Mountain in Shantung Province was a rebel
peasant base in the Sung Dynasty. Most of the rebel leaders in the classical
novel Water Margin were forced to take refuge on Liangshan Mountain
as a result of oppression by the authorities or despotic landlords. The
expression "driven to join the Liangshan Mountain rebels" has since come
to mean that one is forced to do something under pressure.


5. Han Ying (Western Han Dynasty), Commentary on the
Book of Songs, Chapter 9.

6. See page 412 above.


Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.