October 13, 1957

[Speech at the Thirteenth Session of the Supreme State Conference.]


A form has now been found for the rectification movement, namely, speaking
out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates and writing big-character
posters. It is a new form created by the masses which is different from other
forms employed by our Party in the past. True, there were a few big-character
posters during the rectification in Yenan, but we didn't encourage them.
Nor was this form subsequently used in the Three Check-ups and Three
Improvements. In the period of the revolutionary wars we received no pay
and had no ordnance factories, what our Party and army relied on were the
soldiers and the people in different localities, the masses. And so a democratic
style of work has evolved over the years. But in those days there was no
such form as speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates
and writing big-character posters such as there is now. Why? Because we were
then in the heat of war and the class struggle was very acute, and if we
had allowed a free-for-all within our own ranks, that would have been bad.
Things are different now. The war is over and the whole country except Taiwan
Province is liberated. Hence this new form. New revolutionary content must
find a new form of expression. Our revolution today is a socialist revolution,
its aim is to build a socialist country and it has found this new form. This
form can be speedily popularized, it can be readily picked up in a few months.

There are chiefly two fears when it comes to speaking out freely, airing
views fully, holding great debates and writing big-character posters. One
is fear of disorder. Are you afraid of disorder? I think many are. The other
is fear of not being able to get out of one's predicament. Those who serve
as factory or co-operative directors, college heads or Party committee
secretaries are all afraid that they won't be able to extricate themselves
once views are aired or fires lit. It is easy now to convince people not
to be afraid, but it was rather difficult in May. In Peking's thirty-four
institutions of higher education the free airing of views was not allowed
until after many meetings had been held. Why is there no need for fear? Why
is the airing of views to our advantage? Which is to our advantage -- airing
views in a big way, or in a small way, or not at all? No airing of views
is not to our advantage and airing views in a small way can solve no problems,
therefore views must be aired in a big way. First, this will not bring on
disorder and, second, it will not make extricating oneself impossible. Of
course, the case is different with certain individuals, for example, Ting
Ling cannot extricate herself, nor can Feng Hsueh-feng, who has lit a fire
to burn up the Communist Party. They are only a handful and are Rightists.
Other people need not worry, they should be able to extricate themselves.
At most they have such faults as bureaucracy, sectarianism or subjectivism,
and if they do, they need only correct them, so there is no ground for fear.
The basic thing is to have faith in the majority of the people, in the fact
that the majority are good. The majority of the workers are good, and so
are the majority of the peasants. And so are most members of the Communist
Party and the Youth League. None of them want to throw our country into disorder.
Most of the bourgeois intellectuals, the capitalists and the members of the
democratic parties can be remoulded. Therefore we need not be afraid, for
there won't and can't be disorder. We must have faith in the majority, and
by that do we mean 51 per cent? No, we do not, we mean 90 to 98 per cent.

The socialist revolution is new to us all. The revolution we carried out
in the past was only a democratic revolution, which was bourgeois in nature.
It only destroyed imperialist, feudal and bureaucrat-capitalist ownership,
but not individual ownership or national capitalist ownership. Thus many
people could pass the test of the democratic revolution. While some were
not really keen on a thoroughgoing democratic revolution and barely managed
to come through, others were willing to work hard for it and passed the test
all right. The test now is socialism, and it is hard for some people. Take
for example that Party member in Hupeh Province who was originally a farm
labourer. For three generations his family had to go begging. Liberation
brought him a new life, he grew well off and became a cadre at the district
level. However, he complained bitterly about socialism and strongly disapproved
of agricultural co-operation; he demanded "freedom" and opposed the state
monopoly of the purchase and marketing of grain. An exhibition about the
life of this man has now been organized to serve as class education. He wept
bitter tears of remorse, saying he would mend his ways. Why is the test of
socialism hard to pass? Because socialism means destroying capitalist ownership
and transforming it into socialist ownership by the whole people, destroying
individual ownership and transforming it into socialist collective ownership.
Of course, this struggle will go on for many years, and it is hard to say
for sure right now just how long the transition period will be. The struggle
this year is like a crest in the waves. Will there be such a crest every
year like those in the Yellow River? I am afraid not. Nonetheless there will
be some in the years ahead.

How many people are there today in the whole country who do not approve of
socialism? Together with many comrades in the localities, I have made an
estimate. It shows that about 10 per cent of our total population disapprove
of or oppose socialism. The figure comprises the landlord class, the rich
peasants, part of the well-to-do middle peasants, part of the national
bourgeoisie, part of the bourgeois intellectuals, part of the upper stratum
of the urban petty bourgeoisie and even a few workers and poor and lower-middle
peasants. What is 10 per cent of a population of 600 million? Sixty million.
That's no small number and should not be underrated.

There are two underlying reasons for saying that we must have firm faith
in the majority of the people. First, 90 per cent of our people are in favour
of socialism. This comprises the proletariat, the poor peasants who are the
semi-proletariat of the rural areas, the lower-middle peasants and the majority
of the upper stratum of the petty bourgeoisie, the majority of the bourgeois
intellectuals and part of the national bourgeoisie. Second, among those who
disapprove of or oppose socialism, how many are the worst die-hards, namely,
ultra-Rightists, counter-revolutionaries, saboteurs, and those who, while
not engaging in sabotage, are most obstinate and are likely to carry their
ossified heads to their graves? Probably only 2 per cent. What is 2 per cent
of the total population? Twelve million. Banded together and equipped with
guns, these twelve million would make a sizable army. But why won't there
be any great disorder in the country? Because they are scattered in different
co-operatives, villages, factories, schools and branches of the Communist
Party, the Youth League and the democratic parties. Since they are scattered
all over the place and cannot band together, there won't be any great disorder.

What is the scope of the socialist revolution, what classes are involved
in this struggle? The socialist revolution is a struggle waged by the proletariat
at the head of the working people against the bourgeoisie. Though relatively
small in number, China's proletariat has allies in vast numbers, the most
important of whom are the poor and lower-middle peasants who form 70 per
cent or a little more of the rural population. The well-to-do middle peasants
make up about another 20 per cent. The present-day well-to-do middle peasants
may be roughly divided into three categories: those who are for co-operation,
40 per cent; those who are of two minds, 40 per cent; and those who are against,
20 per cent. Education and remoulding in recent years has brought about a
split among the landlords and the rich peasants, some of whom are no longer
entirely opposed to socialism. We should also take an analytical approach
towards the bourgeoisie and bourgeois intellectuals and not regard them all
as being opposed to socialism, because that is not the case. Ninety per cent
of our entire population are for socialism. We must have faith in this majority.
Through our efforts and great debates we may win over an additional 8 per
cent, which will bring the total to 98 per cent. The die-hards bitterly opposed
to socialism are only 2 per cent. Of course we must be on the alert, because
they are still a considerable force, as Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping put it just
now.

The rich peasants are the bourgeoisie in the countryside where very few people
listen to them. The landlords are still more discredited. The
comprador-bourgeoisie has long been discredited. As for the bourgeoisie and
the bourgeois intellectuals, the upper stratum of the rural petty bourgeoisie
(the well-to-do middle peasants), the upper stratum of the urban petty
bourgeoisie (the relatively well-to-do small proprietors) and the intellectuals
from these strata, they do have a certain influence. The intellectuals in
particular are much sought after, they are needed in every sphere. Universities
need professors, primary and middle schools need teachers, newspapers need
journalists, theatres actors and actresses, and construction projects scientists,
engineers and technicians. At present there are five million intellectuals
and seven hundred thousand capitalists, or together almost six million. If
each has a family of five, five times six million are thirty million.
Comparatively speaking, the bourgeoisie and its intellectuals have a high
level of education and technical know-how. That's why the Rightists are so
cocky. Didn't Lo Lung-chi say that the little proletarian intellectuals are
incapable of leading a big petty-bourgeois intellectual like him? He insisted
on saying that he is not bourgeois but petty bourgeois, a big petty-bourgeois
intellectual. In my opinion, not only the little proletarian intellectuals
but the workers and peasants who may know hardly any characters at all are
a great deal wiser than Lo Lung-chi.

The Rightists and the middle elements among the bourgeoisie and its intellectuals
and among the upper stratum of the petty bourgeoisie and its intellectuals
are not reconciled to the leadership of the Communist Party and the proletariat.
They say they support the Communist Party and the Constitution, in a way
they mean it and their hands are raised in favour, but at heart they are
not really reconciled. Here a distinction must be made between the Rightists
who are hostile and the middle elements who are half inclined to be reconciled
and half not. Aren't there persons who say the Communist Party is incapable
of leading this or leading that? This view is not confined to the Rightists
but is shared by some of the middle elements. In short, according to their
argument, our days are numbered, the Communist Party has no choice but to
move to another country and the proletariat to another planet. Because you
are no good at anything! The Rightists say, you are not fit for any trade
whatsoever. The main purpose of the current debate is to win over the
half-hearted middle elements so that they will understand what the law of
social development is all about and realize they'd better listen to the
proletariat which does not have a high level of education and to the poor
and lower-middle peasants in the countryside. Speaking of educational level,
the proletariat and the poor and lower-middle peasants are not as good, but
when it comes to making revolution, it is they who are really good at it.
Can this convince the majority of the people? Yes, it can. It can convince
the majority of the bourgeoisie, of the bourgeois intellectuals and of the
upper stratum of the petty bourgeoisie. And also most of the university
professors, primary and middle school teachers, artists, writers, scientists
and engineers. Those who are not quite reconciled will gradually become
reconciled, after some years.

With the majority of the people supporting socialism, the current appearance
of the new form -- speaking out, airing views and holding debates in a big
way and writing big-character posters -- is advantageous. This form has no
class character. The Rightists too can use it. We are indebted to the Rightists
for inventing the expression "in a big way". In my talk of February 27 this
year I didn't use this expression, I said nothing about speaking out, airing
views and holding debates in a big way. At a meeting here in May last year,
when we talked about letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools
of thought contend, we were referring to "airing views" and "speaking out",
and in neither case was the expression "in a big way" used. What is more,
letting a hundred flowers blossom was meant to apply only to the sphere of
literature and art and letting a hundred schools of thought contend only
to academic matters. Later on the Rightists called for extending the application
to political matters, in other words, they called for the airing of views
on all matters, for a "period of airing views", and, what is more, they wanted
them aired in a big way. It is evident that this slogan can be used by the
bourgeoisie as well as by the proletariat; it can be used by the Left, the
middle and the Right alike. Which class really benefits from this slogan
of speaking out, airing views and holding debates in a big way and writing
big-character posters? In the final analysis, the proletariat, not the bourgeois
Rightists. The reason is that 90 per cent of the population don't want disorder
in the country, they want to build socialism. Of the remaining 10 per cent
who disapprove of socialism or are opposed to it, many are of two minds,
and only 2 per cent are dyed-in-the-wool anti-socialist elements. How can
they possibly plunge the country into disorder? Therefore, in the final analysis,
the slogan of speaking out and airing views in a big way, the form or method
of speaking out, airing views and holding debates in a big way and writing
big-character posters, benefits the majority of the people and helps them
remould themselves. There are two roads -- the road of socialism and the
road of capitalism, and it is socialism that this slogan benefits.

We should not be afraid of disorder or of being unable to extricate ourselves.
On the other hand, the Rightists will find it difficult to extricate themselves,
although it will still be possible for them to do so. In accordance with
dialectics, the Rightists will, I think, split into two sections. Probably
quite a few of them, pushed by the general trend of events, will clarify
their thinking, change their stand, behave themselves and not be so stubborn.
When that happens, their Rightist label will be removed, they will no longer
be called "Rightists" and besides will be given jobs. A handful of the worst
die-hards may remain unrepentant to the end and carry the Rightist label
to their graves. It doesn't matter much, there will always be such individuals.

Since the Rightists stirred up trouble, we have been able to do some
stock-taking: on the one hand, 90 per cent of the population are in favour
of socialism, and with some effort we can make it 98 per cent; on the other
hand, 10 per cent disapprove of socialism or are opposed to it, among whom
the worst die-hards dead set against socialism account for only 2 per cent.
With this stock-taking we know where we are. Under the leadership of the
political party of the proletariat and with the majority of the people supporting
socialism, we can use the method of speaking out freely, airing views fully,
holding great debates and writing big-character posters to avoid such incidents
as the one in Hungary and what is happening in Poland now. There is no need
for us to ban a journal as was done in
Poland,[1] all we have to do is to publish a couple
of editorials in the Party newspaper. We wrote two editorials criticizing
Wen Hui Pao. The first one was not thorough and did not hit the
nail on the head, but after the second Wen Hui Pao set about correcting
its mistakes. So did Hsin Min Pao. This could not happen in Poland,
for they have not solved the problems of counter-revolutionaries and Rightists
and of which road to take, nor have they put emphasis on the struggle against
bourgeois ideas. Consequently, banning a journal touched off an incident.
I think things are easier to manage in China and I have never been pessimistic.
Didn't I say there wouldn't be disorder and we shouldn't be afraid? Disorder
can be turned to good account. Wherever views are aired to the full, with
the worst types howling and growling and great disorder following in their
wake, things will be much easier to manage.

Before liberation China had only four million industrial workers and now
there are twelve million. Though small in number, the working class, and
the working class alone, has great promise. The other classes are all classes
in transition, they all have to make the transition towards the working class.
In the first step of this transition, the peasants become collective peasants
and in the second step workers on state farms. The bourgeoisie will be
eliminated, but not physically; the bourgeoisie will be eliminated as a class
but remoulded as individuals. The bourgeois intellectuals need remoulding,
and so do the petty-bourgeois intellectuals. They can be gradually remoulded
and eventually transformed into proletarian intellectuals. Once I quoted
the saying, "With the skin gone, to what can the hair attach itself?" If
the intellectuals do not attach themselves to the proletariat, they will
be in danger of "dangling in mid-air". Many people have now joined the trade
unions, and some ask, "Aren't we members of the working class now that we
are in trade unions?" No. Some have joined the Communist Party and yet they
are anti-Communist. Aren't Ting Ling and Feng Hsueh-feng Communists who are
anti-Communist? Joining a trade union does not automatically make a person
a member of the working class, for he has to undergo a process of remoulding.
Members of the democratic parties, university professors, men of letters
and writers have no friends among the workers and peasants. That is a serious
drawback. Fei Hsiao-tung, for one, has over two hundred friends among the
higher intellectuals in places like Peking, Shanghai, Chengtu, Wuhan and
Wusih. He simply cannot break away from the group and, what is more, he has
made a conscious effort to organize these people and has aired views on their
behalf. That's the source of his trouble. I would ask, can't you change a
little? Chuck your group of two hundred and seek another two hundred among
workers and peasants. In my opinion, all intellectuals should make friends
among the worker and peasant masses, where they can find true friends. Make
friends with old workers. Among the peasants don't too readily make friends
with the well-to-do middle peasants but seek your friends among the poor
and lower-middle peasants. For the old workers have a keen sense of orientation
and so do the poor and lower-middle peasants.

The rectification movement comprises four stages -- airing of views,
counter-attack, reform and study. This means the stage of free airing of
views, that of counter-attack on the Rightists, that of check-up and reform
and lastly that of studying some Marxism-Leninism and making criticism and
self-criticism in the manner of "a gentle breeze and a mild rain" in group
meetings. When "a gentle breeze and a mild rain" was first proposed in a
document on rectification issued by the Central Committee of the Chinese
Communist Party on May 1 this year, quite a few people, mainly Rightists,
took exception to the idea and wanted "a strong gale and a torrential downpour",
which has turned out to be advantageous to us. This is what we had expected.
For the same thing happened in the rectification movement in Yenan; instead
of the gentle breeze we had proposed, a strong gale arose, but in the end
it was the gentle breeze that prevailed. When big-character posters appeared
in their thousands in factories, people in positions of leadership had a
tough time. For ten days or so, some wanted to quit or resign, saying they
couldn't take it any more, couldn't eat or sleep. That was the case with
the secretaries of university Party committees in Peking, they lost their
appetites and couldn't go to sleep. The Rightists said they must have an
unrestricted airing of views and no rejoinders. We too said we would let
them shoot their mouths off and not answer. So in May we left them alone
and did not come out with any refutation until June 8, and thus all views
were freely aired. Roughly speaking, more than 90 per cent of the views aired
were valid and the Rightist ones were a tiny fraction. We just had to stick
it out and hear them through before hitting back. Each organization has to
go through this stage. The rectification has to be conducted in every factory
and agricultural co-operative. It is now being carried out in the army. This
is most necessary. If you skip it, the "free market" will expand. It is a
strange world, for if rectification is allowed to lapse for three years,
many queer arguments will crop up and bourgeois ideas will re-emerge in the
Communist Party, the Youth League and the democratic parties, and among
university professors, primary and middle school teachers, journalists, engineers
and scientists. Just as one's house must be tidied up and one's face washed
every day, I think rectification should, in general, be conducted once a
year and last a month or so. Perhaps there will be crests again. We are not
responsible for the current one, the Rightists are. Didn't we say that even
in the Communist Party we had Kao Kang? Could it be that there wasn't a single
Kao Kang in the democratic parties? I just don't believe that. Again, such
types as Ting Ling, Feng Hsueh-feng and Chiang Feng have been found in the
Communist Party, aren't their likes already found in the democratic parties
too?

The bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intellectuals ought to recognize the necessity
of remoulding themselves. The Rightists refuse to do so, and because of their
influence some others are also reluctant to accept remoulding, claiming they
have already been remoulded. Chang Nai-chi says remoulding is horrible, as
bad as having one's tendons pulled out and one's skin torn off. We say one
should cast off one's old self and he says that means having your tendons
pulled out and your skin torn off. Now, who is going to pull out that gentleman's
tendons and tear off his skin? Many have forgotten what our aim is, why we
want to do all this and what is good about socialism. Why is ideological
remoulding necessary? Because we want the bourgeois intellectuals to acquire
the proletarian world outlook and transform themselves into proletarian
intellectuals. The old intellectuals will be obliged to make the change because
new intellectuals are coming on the scene. In terms of knowledge you can
say that the new intellectuals haven't made the grade yet, but eventually
they will. The emergence of these new forces will pose a challenge to the
old scientists, engineers, professors and teachers and spur them on. We reckon
that most can make progress and some can remould themselves into proletarian
intellectuals.

The proletariat must build up its own army of intellectuals, just as the
bourgeoisie does. The regime of a given class cannot do without its own
intellectuals. How could bourgeois dictatorship be possible in the United
States without its intellectuals? Ours is a dictatorship of the proletariat,
and the proletariat must build its own army of intellectuals, including all
those intellectuals from the old society who truly take a firm working-class
stand after being remoulded. Probably Chang Nai-chi can be counted among
those Rightists who refuse to change. When urged to make the change into
a proletarian intellectual, he refuses, saying he made the change long ago
and is now a "red bourgeois". Well, let's follow the method of self-assessment
and public discussion; you can make the assessment yourself, but it has to
be put to the public for discussion. We say you are not up to the mark, Chang
Nai-chi, you are a white bourgeois. Some people argue for becoming expert
first and red later. To be expert first and red later means to be white first
and red later. Not red now but red in the future -- if they are not red now,
then what is their present colour? White of course. Intellectuals should
be at once red and expert. To be red, they must make up their minds thoroughly
to transform their bourgeois world outlook. They don't have to read a lot
of books, what they must do is to get a true understanding of the following
questions. What is the proletariat? What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Why is it that the proletariat alone has great promise while the other classes
are all classes in transition? Why must our country take the socialist road
and not the capitalist road? Why is the leadership of the Communist Party
indispensable?

Many people take exception to what I said on April 30.
[2] "With the skin gone, to what can the hair attach
itself?" I said there used to be five skins in China. Three of them were
old ones, namely, imperialist ownership, feudal ownership and
bureaucrat-capitalist ownership. In the past the intellectuals depended on
these skins for a living. They also depended on national capitalist ownership
and on ownership by small producers, that is, petty-bourgeois ownership.
Our democratic revolution was aimed at removing the first three skins and,
counting from the time of Lin Tse-hsu, [3] it went
on for more than a century. The last two skins, namely, national capitalist
and small producer ownership, were targets of the socialist revolution. All
these five skins are now things of the past. The three older skins disappeared
long ago and now the other two are gone. What skin is there now? The skin
of socialist public ownership. Of course, this is divided into two parts,
ownership by the whole people and ownership by the collective. On whom do
they depend for a living? Whether members of the democratic parties, professors,
scientists or journalists, they all depend on the working class, on the
collective peasants, on ownership by the whole people and on ownership by
the collective, in a word, they live off socialist public ownership. With
those five skins gone, the hair is flying in mid-air and it won't stay put
when it comes down. The intellectuals still look with disdain on this new
skin, they have a very low opinion of the proletariat and the poor and
lower-middle peasants, who, they say, are as ignorant of astronomy as of
geography, and they think that people of all "three religions and nine schools
of thought"[4] are not fit to hold a candle to
them. The intellectuals are reluctant to accept Marxism-Leninism.
Marxism-Leninism was opposed by many people in the past. The imperialists
opposed it. Chiang Kai-shek opposed it, day in day out, saying "Communism
is not suited to China's conditions" and making people afraid of it. It requires
time as well as a socialist ideological revolutionary movement for intellectuals
to embrace Marxism-Leninism and transform their bourgeois world outlook into
the proletarian world outlook. The movement this year is meant to pave the
way.

After the counter-attack on the Rightists, all is calm now in some departments,
organizations and colleges; those in leading positions are having an easy
time and are unwilling to carry out the reforms called for by the many correct
criticisms put forward. Such is the case with some departments, organizations
and colleges in Peking. In my opinion, there should be another high tide
of airing views at the present stage of reform. Put up big-character posters
and ask, "Why don't you carry out reforms?" Challenge them! This challenge
can be very useful. The stage of reform should be allowed a little time,
say, a couple of months. It is to be followed by a period of study, to study
some Marxism-Leninism and to make criticism and self-criticism in the manner
of "a gentle breeze and a mild rain". That will be the fourth stage. Such
study of course is not simply a matter for a couple of months, what I mean
is that people's interest in study should be aroused as the movement draws
to a close.

The counter-attack on the Rightists will have to draw to a close. Some Rightists
have anticipated this. The storm will be over sooner or later, they said.
That's quite true. You can't attack the Rightists all the time, day after
day and year after year. For instance, in Peking the air is not as thick
with the dust of the battle against the Rightists as before, because the
counter-attack is nearly over. However, it is not quite over and we must
not relax our efforts. To this day, some Rightists obstinately refuse to
surrender, for instance- Lo Lung-chi and Chang Nai-chi. I think we should
try reasoning things out with them a few more times, and if they still refuse
to be convinced, what can we do -- call them to meetings every day? A number
of die-hards will never mend their ways, and we will just have to give them
up. They are only a handful, we'll leave them to their own devices and shelve
them for several decades. Anyway, the majority will press ahead.

Are we going to throw the Rightists into the sea? No, not a single one. The
Rightists are a hostile force because they oppose the Communist Party, the
people and socialism. But now we don't treat them in the way we treat the
landlords and counter-revolutionaries, and the basic indicator of the difference
is that they are not deprived of their right to vote. Perhaps a few will
have to be denied this right and made to reform through labour. Our practice
is not to make arrests and not to deprive them of their right to vote but
instead to give them some leeway, and this will help to split them. Didn't
I say a while ago that the Rightists are of two types? Type one are those
who, having mended their ways, will have the Rightist label removed and who
may return to the ranks of the people. Type two are those who will remain
incorrigible to the day they report to the King of Hell. They will say, "We
are not the surrendering type, Your Majesty. See what 'integrity' we have!"
They are the loyal servants of the bourgeoisie. The Rightists maintain ties
and identify with the feudal remnants and counter-revolutionaries and act
in concert with them. The landlords jumped with joy at that paper Wen
Hui Pao and bought copies to read to the peasants and
intimidate them. "Look here," they would say, "all this is printed in the
newspaper!" They wanted to retaliate. Then there are the imperialists and
Chiang Kai-shek who also identify with the Rightists. For instance, the
reactionaries in Taiwan and Hongkong stand four-square behind Chu An-ping's
allegation of the "monopoly of everything by the Communist Party", Chang
Po-chun's demand for a "political planning chamber" and Lo Lung-chi's call
for a "political rehabilitation committee". U.S. imperialism, too, is very
sympathetic to the Rightists. I once put it to you, "If the Americans invade
Peking, what will you do? What attitude will you adopt? What action will
you take? Will you join the United States in setting up a puppet regime,
or will you come along with us to the mountains?" I said then that my intention
was to take to the mountains, first going to Changchiakou and then to Yenan.
I was talking in extreme terms and considering the worst possibility--we
are not afraid of disorder. Even if the United States should occupy half
of China, it wouldn't frighten us. Didn't Japan have the greater part of
China under its occupation? And didn't we fight back and create a new China?
In conversations with some Japanese I said that we should thank Japanese
imperialism for its aggression because it did us a lot of good by arousing
the opposition of our whole nation and promoting the awakening of our people.

The Rightists are liars, they are dishonest and do bad things behind our
backs. Who would have thought Chang Po-chun would do so many bad things?
I think the higher the office these types hold, the greater their treachery.
The Chang-Lo alliance was delighted with the two slogans, long-term coexistence
and mutual supervision, and letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred
schools of thought contend. They used these two slogans to oppose us. We
said we favoured long-term coexistence but they tried to turn it into a
short-term one for us. We said we favoured mutual supervision and they rejected
any supervision. For a time they ran amuck and in the end they got the opposite
of what they wanted, turning long-term coexistence into a short-term one
for themselves. What about Chang Po-chun's ministerial post? I'm afraid he
can no longer keep it. Surely the people will not agree to a Rightist heading
a ministry! Then there are some well-known Rightists who are deputies to
the National People's Congress. What is to be done about them? I'm afraid
it is difficult to keep them in these posts. For instance, Ting Ling can
no longer be a deputy. In some cases, it may not be good if no posts or no
jobs are given them. For instance, Chien Wei-chang can perhaps still keep
his post as professor but not the vice-chancellorship. As for some other
professors, perhaps they should not continue in that capacity for the time
being because the students won't go to their lectures. Then what work can
they do? We can assign them some other jobs on the campus, let them reform
themselves in the meantime and take up teaching again after a few years.
All these questions need considering, it is a complicated business. Revolution
itself is a complicated business. So I would like you to discuss the question
of how the Rightists are to be dealt with and what arrangements are to be
made for them.

How do things stand with the various democratic parties and at the grass
roots? I'm afraid you who are in responsible positions haven't a very clear
idea. For a time die-hard Rightists may have muddied the waters in some
organizations so that we could not see to the bottom. Investigation reveals
that they actually account for only 1 or 2 per cent. Drop a little alum into
the water and you can see to the bottom. The current rectification is like
a dose of alum. After views are aired and debates held in a big way, we can
see through to the bottom. We have been able to see through to the bottom
of things in factories, villages and colleges, and get to the bottom of things
in the Communist Party, the Youth League and the democratic parties.

Now a few words about the forty-article Programme for Agricultural Development.
After two years of experience, the basic targets are still kept at four,
five and eight, that is, an annual yield of four hundred catties of grain
per mou north of the Yellow River, five hundred catties north of the Huai
River and eight hundred catties south of the Huai River. This goal should
be attained in twelve years, that's the essential point. Basically no change
has been made in the programme as a whole with the exception of a few articles.
Some questions have been solved, for instance, the question of co-operative
transformation has been settled in the main, and the relevant articles have
been revised accordingly. Previously some points were not emphasized, such
as farm machinery and chemical fertilizer, and since big efforts are going
to be made in these spheres, these points have now been stressed in the relevant
articles. Some readjustment has been made in the sequence of articles. After
due deliberation at the joint meeting of the Standing Committees of the National
People's Congress and of the National Committee of the Political Consultative
Conference, this revised Draft Programme for Agricultural Development will
be promulgated for discussion throughout the countryside, as was its previous
version. It may also be discussed in factories, various circles and the
democratic parties. This draft programme put forward by the Chinese Communist
Party was drawn up by our political planning chamber, that is, by the Central
Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, and not by the "political planning
chamber" envisaged by Chang Po-chun.

It is essential to get the entire peasantry to discuss this programme. We
must enhance the vigour and enthusiasm of the people. Enthusiasm flagged
in the second half of last year and the first half of this and then dropped
further because of the trouble created by the Rightists in town and country.
The rectification and the anti-Rightist movement have given this enthusiasm
a big push. In my opinion the forty-article Programme for Agricultural
Development is well suited to China's conditions and is not the product of
subjectivism. There was some subjectivism in the programme, but we have
eliminated it. Taken all in all, there is great hope for this programme.
China can be changed, ignorance can be changed into knowledge and lethargy
into vitality.

There is an article in the programme about doing away with the four pests,
that is, wiping out rats, sparrows, flies and mosquitoes. I'm very interested
in this matter, I don't know how you feel about it. But I assume you are
interested too. Doing away with the four pests is a big public health campaign
and a campaign to destroy superstition. Eliminating them is not easy. To
exterminate the four pests also calls for the free airing of views, great
debate and big-character posters. If the entire nation is mobilized to do
this and achieves some success, I believe there will be a change in the mentality
of the people and the morale of the Chinese nation will be given a big boost.
We must invigorate this nation of ours.

The prospects for the success of family planning are good. There should be
a great debate on this matter too, and there should be periods of trial,
expansion and popularization, each lasting several years.

There is much for us to do. Many things stipulated in the forty-article Programme
for Agricultural Development need to be done. That's only a plan for agriculture;
there are also plans for industry and for cultural and educational work.
The look of our country will change when the first three five-year plans
are fulfilled.

We estimate that the annual output of steel may reach 20,000,000 tons at
the end of the Third Five-Year Plan. With output this year at 5,200,000 tons,
the goal will probably be attained in ten years. India produced 1,600,000
tons of steel in 1952 and its current output is a little over 1,700,000 tons,
an increase of only 100,000 tons or so in five years. What about us? Our
output in 1949 was only 190,000 tons, it registered over 1,000,000 tons at
the end of the three-year rehabilitation period, and now five years later
it has reached 5,200,000 tons, an increase of more than 3,000,000 tons in
five years. Five more years and our output may top the 10,000,000 mark or
a bit more to reach 11,500,000 tons. Then, with the fulfilment of the Third
Five-Year Plan, can we make it 20,000,000 tons? Yes, we can.

I say this country of ours is full of hope. The Rightists say it is hopeless,
they are utterly wrong. They lack confidence; since they oppose socialism,
naturally they have no confidence. We adhere to socialism and we are brimming
over with confidence.

NOTES


1. In October 1957 the Polish Government banned the weekly
Po Prostu, which led to student riots.

2. This refers to the address by Comrade Mao Tsetung on
April 30, 1957 at a meeting of leading members of the democratic parties
and democrats without party affiliation on the rectification movement and
the ideological remoulding of intellectuals.

3. Lin Tse-hsu (1785-1850), Ching Dynasty viceroy of Kwangtung
and Kwangsi Provinces during the First Opium War, stood for resolute resistance
to British aggression.

4. In ancient China, the three religions were Confucianism,
Taoism and Buddhism, and the nine schools of thought were the Confucians,
the Taoists, the Yin-Yang, the Legalists, the Logicians, the Mohists, the
Political Strategists, the Eclectics and the Agriculturists. Later the "three
religions and nine schools of thought" took on a broader meaning to indicate
the different religious sects and academic schools. In the old society the
phrase was also used to mean people in dubious trades.

Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.