Speech at the Third Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee
(October 7, 1957)

Source: Kau & Leung, The Writings of Mao Zedong 1949-1976, Vol. II
Pages 687-695
============================================================

OCTOBER ~— DECEMBER 1957 / 687

world peace. The Chinese people are moreover delighted at and inspired by every
one of the successes of the German people.

The relations of friendship and cooperation between the People’s Republic of
China and the German Democratic Republic have had new development in the past
year. We are confident that the further development of our two countries’ relations
of friendship and cooperation will not only benefit the Chinese and German
peoples, but is bound to make a powerful contribution to the great unity of the
socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union and in the cause of safeguarding world
peace.

Long live the unbreakable friendship between the Chinese and German peoples!
(Cosigned as Chairman of PRC with Liu Shaoqi as Chairman of Standing Committee of NPC and Zhou Enlai as Premier of State Council, dated)

Speech at the Third Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee
(October 7, 1957)

Source: Wansul (1969), pp. 122-126. Other Chinese Texts: URI (1976), pp.
339-342. Available English Translations: JPRS, Miscellany, I, pp. 72-76; URI
(1976), pp. 343-348.

By September 1957, the anti-Rightist campaign had been underway for some four
months. Much criticism had already been launched against the “bourgeois Rightists.” During this time, however, there had been several significant shifts tn the
campaign. Starting out as (1) a counterattack against “bourgeois Rightists’ who had
spoken out too vocally and too harshly against the CPC in the Hundred Flowers
Campaign earlier in the year; (2) an attack primarily on intellectuals; and (3)
criticism of people largely outside the CPC and in the democratic parties, the
campaign, by September, had become, in addition to all of the above, alsoa campaign
against people in positions of responsibility in government organs and in Industrial
and commercial circles, where class interests could be, and were, most directly tested,
as well as a campaign against certain as yet not fully or directly named persons and
groups inside the CPC. The idea that there were “allies” of the “bourgeois Rightists”
inside the Party, broached in Mao’ s essays of criticism in early to mid-July, was, by
September, a given in the campaign of criticism and exposure against such elements.
On the policy and strategy front, this “realization” paved the way for clearer
polarization and radical factionalization. It is this that set the stage for the radical
orientation of policy in the year ahead. Albeit that Mao and the Maoists may have
considered this phase, theoretically, still as a phase in the “unity-criticism-unity”
formula, clearly at this time, the primary responsibility was to carry through with the
criticism stage, and to draw as clearly as possible the distinction between the
“enemy” and “self.” The Third (Enlarged) Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee,
attended by the full and alternate members of the Central Committee and over 400
first secretaries of the provincial, municipal, and autonomous region Party commnut-


attention to articles on theory, and to gradually nurture interest in this area. Now
that we are more advanced in our age, it is the proper time for us to dig down and
study assiduously. The only thing is that we must watch out, and, on principle, not
allow that to impair our health. Please find for me a copy of Liu chao wenjte [An
Outline of the Literary Works of the Six Dynasties]? and some collections—of
various types—of the writings of people of the Six Dynasties.

Mao Zedong

October 2

Notes

1. See text Aug. 4, 1957.

2. This is a collection of seventy-two pieces of pianti (parallel-construction euphuistic)
writings of the Six Dynasties period (i.e., from the Eastern Jin dynasty to the Sui dynasty,
ca. A.D. 317-618) Most of the pieces were short and fairly well-known. Typically, pianti
writing is descriptive (often ornately so) and emotionally evocative and allegorical. The
selection and compilation of this set was done by Xu Lian in the Qing dynasty.

Telegram to the German Democratic Republic
(October 6, 1957)

Source: RMRB (Oct. 7, 1957), 1. Other Chinese Texts: XHBYK, 119 (Nov. 10,
1957), 120; URI(1976), p. 335. Available English Translations: NCNA, Daily News
Release (Oct. 7, 1957), 11; URI (1976), p. 337.

Comrade Wilhelm Pieck, President of the German Democratic Republic,
Comrade Johannes Dieckmann, Chairman of the Presidium of the People’s Chamber of the German Democratic Republic,

Comrade Otto Grotewohl, Premier of the German Democratic Republic,
Comrade Walter Ulbricht, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Socialist
Unity Party of Germany:

On the occasion of the eighth anniversary of the founding of the German
Democratic Republic, we extend sincere and warm congratulations to you and to
all the German people.

The Chinese people have always been deeply concerned about the arduous and
tremendous struggles carried on by the German people, under the leadership of the
government of the German Democratic Republic and the Socialist Unity Party of
Germany, for the sake of building a unified, peaceful, and democratic Germany,
for the completion of all sorts of socialist construction within the country, for the
consolidation of the unity of the socialist camp, and for safeguarding European and


world peace. The Chinese people are moreover delighted at and inspired by every
one of the successes of the German people.

The relations of friendship and cooperation between the People’s Republic of
China and the German Democratic Republic have had new development in the past
year. We are confident that the further development of our two countries’ relations
of friendship and cooperation will not only benefit the Chinese and German
peoples, but is bound to make a powerful contribution to the great unity of the
socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union and in the cause of safeguarding world
peace.

Long live the unbreakable friendship between the Chinese and German peoples!
(Cosigned as Chairman of PRC with Liu Shaoqi as Chairman of Standing Committee of NPC and Zhou Enlai as Premier of State Council, dated)

Speech at the Third Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee
(October 7, 1957)

Source: Wansui (1969), pp. 122-126. Other Chinese Texts: URI (1976), pp.
339-342. Available English Translations: JPRS, Miscellany, I, pp. 72-76; URI
(1976), pp. 343-348.

By September 1957, the anti-Rightist campaign had been underway for some four
months. Much criticism had already been launched against the “bourgeois Rightists.” During this time, however, there had been several significant shifts in the
campaign. Starting out as (1) a counterattack against “bourgeois Rightists” who had
spoken out too vocally and too harshly against the CPC in the Hundred Flowers
Campaign earlier in the year; (2) an attack primarily on intellectuals; and (3)
criticism of people largely outside the CPC and in the democratic parties, the
campaign, by September, had become, in addition to all of the above, alsoa campaign
against people in positions of responsibility in government organs and in industrial
and commercial circles, where class interests could be, and were, most directly tested,
as well as a campaign against certain as yet not fully or directly named persons and
groups inside the CPC. The idea that there were “allies” of the “bourgeois Rightists”
inside the Party, broached in Mao's essays of criticism in early to mid-July, was, by
September, a given in the campaign of criticism and exposure against such elements.
On the policy and strategy front, this “realization” paved the way for clearer
polarization and radical factionalization. It is this that set the stage for the radical
orientation of policy in the year ahead. Albeit that Mao and the Maoists may have
considered this phase, theoretically, still as a phase in the “unity-criticism-unity”
formula, clearly at this time, the primary responsibility was to carry through with the
criticism stage, and to draw as clearly as possible the distinction between the
“enemy” and “self.” The Third (Enlarged) Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee,
attended by the full and alternate members of the Central Committee and over 400
first secretaries of the provincial, municipal, and autonomous region Party comnut-


tees and personnel of positions of responsibility from the departments of the Central
Committee, culminated the three months of discussion begun at Qi nedao! and marked
a clear turning point toward the development of the Great Leap Forward, For
example, it “basically passed” the Revised Draft of the Forty-Article Twelve-Year
National Program for Agricultural Development, The plenum was held September 20-October 9, 1957. For basic information on the plenum, see RMSC
(1958), p. 182, and K. Lieberthal (1976), pp. 99-101. The major policy-document to come out of this plenum was Deng Xiaoping’s “Report on the Rectification Campaign” (see RMSC [1958], pp. 33-42; English translation in R. Bowie
and J. Fairbank, eds. [1962], pp. 343-363), which was presented to this plenum
on September 23.

While the plenum itself focused on specific policies regarding such issues as the
rectification movement, wages and labor insurance, the relationship between the
agricultural cooperatives and agricultural production and industrial, commercial,
and financial management, Mao's speech here, near the end of the plenum, focused
on a different level. Mao did not deal with specific policies but, rather, addressed the
issue of identifying the basic contradiction during the transition period—that between
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. By identifying the contradiction in this way he
rejected the formulation in the Resolution of the Eighth Party Congress that had stated
that the main contradiction was that between the advanced social relations and the
backward forces of production.2 Although Mao had mentioned his opposition to that
formulation previously in this speech he drove the point home more clearly, not
merely mentioning the error as he considered it to be, but beginning to draw out
the specifics of the error. Of particular interest here is Mao’s linking of the error
to Stalin’ s understanding of the relationship between the forces and relations of
production during the transition period, Although it is not clear why at this time
Mao began to link his criticisms of this error more directly to Stalin's earlier
error—whether the logic of furthering China’ s economic development forced him
to confront the previously developed doctrines and the issue, whether he turned
to. an analysis of Stalin's works in anticipation of his upcoming November trip to the
Soviet Union, or whether it was some combination of these and other factors is not
known—what is clear is that in the next few years Mao's criticisms of Stalin's
political-economic doctrines would become increasingly specific and increasingly
severe.

China [has had] two revolutions. In the period of the democratic revolution;
[the struggle] was against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism.
The struggle against the capitalist thought of the national bourgeoisie was waged
only within the Party. At that time there were two roads, the road of liberation and
the road of colonialism. The socialist revolution, [on the other hand,] is [a revolution] to eliminate classes and to eliminate exploitation. It is a proletarian revolution.
I don’t believe there is any theoretical problem in saying that the primary contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.®

In 1953, at the Finance and Economic Work Conference, the general line was
set forth.7 Initially, however, we didn’t dare to propagate it throughout the entire
Party. At first we [only] discussed it down to the xian level. At the end of 1953 it
was openly discussed at the Political Consultative Conference, and following this,
the Propaganda Department drafted a program for the dissemination of the general
line. In the three and a half years since then, we have dealt the bourgeoisie a severe
blow and also struck a blow at the individual economy; therefore, this has been


| reflected in the Resolution of the Eighth Party Congress which declared that the
contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has been fundamentally
| resolved. This statement was not incorrect, [but] being fundamentally resolved is
not the same as being completely resolved. The problem of political power has
been resolved and the problem of the system of ownership has been fundamentally
resolved, but the economic and political [problems] have not been completely
resolved.

Among the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intellectuals, the Rightists in the
democratic parties,? and a portion of the well-to-do middle peasants, [there are
those] who stand among the people but who oppose [the people]. At one time this
was not completely seen with such clarity, but it wasn’t that we completely failed
to see it either. (At one time we did propose reform in any case.) At that time they
were obedient and compliant, so we said that [the contradiction] had been fundamentally resolved. [But] today because they want to rebel, we must emphasize this
contradiction. By [the time of] the Qingdao Conference!” this year, it could be seen
clearly, and [we] pointed out that in the cities and the countryside there was still a
struggle between the two roads. [Since] this type of class struggle has not been
extinguished and since the Rightists are making frenzied attacks this time, it should
be said that the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is the
primary one. But strategically, it is still better to deal with it in the way the Qingdao
document!! puts it; as long as those who are participating in the conference know
what is primary and what is secondary, it will be all right. We have not talked about
this for a long time, and if we now add it {to the agenda] we will create great havoc,
which would not be good. We should now continue to talk about it for three months

in the manner in which the Qingdao [document] has put it.

Bourgeois ideology also exists among the workers. We can hold the bourgeoisie
accountable for the three major “isms” within the party.!* [The contradiction
between] the two roads between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between
socialism and capitalism—is the primary contradiction in the period of transition. !?
For the time being, [however,] we will not mention this in the newspapers. If we
mention it, it would possibly dilute [our attention to] the many contradictions
among the people, wouldn’t it? Besides that, there are the problems of bureaucratism within [the Party], sectarianism, and subjectivism—the things Ren Baige!4
has talked about; we can write about this [general] problem from a theoretical point
of view.

The contradictions in the relationships among the working people—l[in the]
relationship between the Party and the masses, [in the] relationship between the
cadres and the masses, between the individual and the collective, between the
young and the old, and among the workers themselves—are phenomena that exist
in large numbers. If we suddenly declared that the contradiction between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat is primary, will that affect the blooming and
contending or not?!5 Not necessarily, but it will cause squabbling among the
laboring people. |

There are two groups among the people. One has exploited people and the other
hasn’t. One group has come under bourgeois influence slightly, while the other

“


692 {/ MAO ZEDONG

The Resolution of the Eighth Party Congress declared that the primary contradiction is that between the advanced social system and the backward forces of
production, but we cannot reason this way. Today there are contradictions, and in
the future there will still be contradictions. When the cooperatives have all been
transformed into state farms36 that pay wages, there will still be contradictions.
Socialism is composed of two sectors: the system of public ownership and the
system of collective ownership.?’ In the future, contradictions will also arise
between the two. The socialist system and the forces of production basically
conform to each other, but there are still areas that do not conform completely;
there are still shortcomings; [thus] to speak of perfect conformity is incorrect. Once
Stalin mentioned complete conformity, problems emerged (page 14 of the report).*8
Religion as a kind of ideology, for example, is not in conformity with socialism,
but we still want to repair temples. Repairing temples is done to achieve the goal
of destroying temples. Why do we say that there is general conformity? Because
[under this system] the development of the forces of production is possible.
Through five years of development India increased its steel production by 300,000
tons. We have raised ours by four million tons.39 Our system does not impede the
development of the forces of production. After several decades, when the contradictions between the collective and the state-owned [sectors] are resolved, there
will still be new contradictions. When we arrive at communism we will no longer
need the law of value,?° nor will we need an army—the international environment
permitting, of course. The statement in the Resolutions of the Eighth Party Congress cannot be found anywhere in Marx, Engels, or Lenin, but there is no harm in
it either. The meaning [of the statement] is that we need.to develop production
quickly to strengthen the material basis of socialist society. It’s just that it was not
expressed clearly; it is characterized by a semantic error. [The statement] did not
conscientiously explain the contradictions clearly. This statement drew comparisons with foreign countries and with the future. But we don’t need to alter it now.
We don’t have to talk about this issue right now. [Indeed,] Lenin said that there
was a contradiction between the Soviet regime and backward technology. We
won’t discuss this now. It will be all right as long as this is explained clearly later.
Strictly speaking it is of course incorrect to say that the socialist system has not
conformed to the forces of production. In our case, it is precisely the socialist system
which has developed the forces of production. Many economists say that there is
a contradiction between our system and the forces of production. They say that the
socialist system has fallen behind the forces of production. This kind of talk is bad.*!

Notes

1. See text July 1957(1), source note.

2. By this we mean the CPC’s resolution on the Political Report of the Eighth National
Congress of the CPC held in September 15-27, 1956. See RMSC (1957), pp. 55-37. The
specific point here is in section | of the resolution (p. 55). An English translation of the
resolution is available in Eighth National Congress (1956), pp. 113-114. For more on the
congress, see text Sept. 15, 1956, source note, and K. Lieberthal (1976), pp. 85-86.

It is probably worth noting that the political report to that Congress was made by Liu


Shaoqi, who was chairman of the Standing Committee of the Central Committee of the CPC
at the time. The drafting of the resolution also bore the stamp of Liu Shaogi.

3, In particular, Mao discussed these contradictions, in terms of their “nature”
rather than their ordinal magnitude, in his speech “On Correctly Handling Contradictions Among the People” (see text Feb. 27, 1957). Implicit in Mao’s assertion here in
this speech, delivered in October 1957, that the essay of late February should not be
Studied singly, but would make sense only if considered together with the “Qingdao
document” of July (see text July 1957[1], source note), is the notion that since the last
half of 1956, and particularly from February 1957 onward, Mao had progressively
recontemplated the implications of the resolution of the Eighth CPC Congress on this
issue and had moved farther and farther away from the position of the resolution. See
also text Nov. 15, 1956, source note and note 1.

4. Here Mao is referring not to the old traditional notion of a democratic revolution,
which is an “old general type of bourgeois-democratic revolution,” but to “one of a special
new type” for which Mao coined the term “New Democratic Revolution.” See text Aug. 12,
1953, vol. I, note 2; see also text June 11, 1957, note 1, and text July 8, 1957(2), note 17.

5. See text July 9, 1957, note 63; see back to text Mar. 12, 1957, note 5.

6. Mao is setting the stage for the introduction of a new struggle between two roads,
or a two-line struggle,” the idea of which was suggested in July but is clearly consummated
here. See text July 1957(1), source note. See also text June 15, 1953, vol. I, source note.

7. See text June 15, 1953, vol. I, note 1; text Mar. 31, 1955, vol. I, note 8, and also text
July 8, 1957(2), note 37.

8. See note 2. In light of the source note commentary here, note 2, and text Jan. 9,
1957, note 13, Mao’s statements constitute an implicit criticism of Liu Shaogi.

9. See text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 1.

10. See note 1.

Ii. See, again, text July 1957(1), source note.

12. This refers to the so-called three winds that were the targets of rectification in the
CPC earlier in 1957, namely, bureaucratism, subjectivism, and sectarianism. (See later in
this paragraph; see also text Mar. 18, 1957, note 2.)

13. See text July 1957(1), note 17.

14. Ren Baige was, at this time, mayor of Chongqing, deputy chairman of the Provincial
People’s Government of Sichuan, and first secretary of the Chongqing Municipal Party
(CPC) Committee. Ren was criticized during the Cultural Revolution and purged from the
CPC in 1968. He was then rehabilitated in 1975. For more biographical information on
Ren Baige, see Zhonggong renming lu, p. 147. We are not able to identify to what in Ren’s
writings, or speeches, Mao is referring here.

15. See text Autumn 1956, note 1.

16. This is an implicit criticism of the statement in the Resolution of the Eighth National
Congress of the CPC (see note 2) in which the “primary contradiction” in China is described
as the contradiction “between an advanced socialist system and backward forces of social
production.” (See RMSC [1957], p. 55.) The Maoists have accused Liu Shaoqi and Chen
Boda et al., of “sneaking” this “revisionist” theory into the Congress’s resolutions, thus
imposing a “revisionist” line on the entire Party. According to Ciyu jianshi (pp. 202-203),
Mao, on discovery of this “base” trick, “severely reprimanded” Liu and Chen, “pointing out
that this ridiculous argument was entirely anti-Marxist,” and he “sent circulars throughout
the Party to correct [the mistake].” We have not been able to ascertain what the “circulars”
were that are referred to here. On the whole, the political attitude adopted by Ciyu jianshi
itself is a Maoist one. See text Nov. 15, 1956, source note and note 1.

17. See text Feb. 27, 1957, text surrounding note 43. The same point was made by Mao
repeatedly in the March and April writings of 1957.

18. See text April 1957(2), note 59.

19. See text July 8, 1957(2), note 40.

20. Mao is referring to the fact that contending and blooming came as a result of the


692 {/ MAO ZEDONG

The Resolution of the Eighth Party Congress declared that the primary contradiction is that between the advanced social system and the backward forces of
production, but we cannot reason this way. Today there are contradictions, and in
the future there will still be contradictions. When the cooperatives have all been
transformed into state farms36 that pay wages, there will still be contradictions.
Socialism is composed of two sectors: the system of public ownership and the
system of collective ownership.’ In the future, contradictions will also arise
between the two. The socialist system and the forces of production basically
conform to each other, but there are still areas that do not conform completely;
there are still shortcomings; [thus] to speak of perfect conformity is incorrect. Once
Stalin mentioned complete conformity, problems emerged (page 14 of the report).*8
Religion as a kind of ideology, for example, is not in conformity with socialism,
but we still want to repair temples. Repairing temples is done to achieve the goal
of destroying temples. Why do we say that there is general conformity? Because
[under this system] the development of the forces of production is possible.
Through five years of development India increased its steel production by 300,000
tons. We have raised ours by four million tons.7? Our system does not impede the
development of the forces of production. After several decades, when the contradictions between the collective and the state-owned [sectors] are resolved, there
will still be new contradictions. When we arrive at communism we will no longer
need the law of value,*° nor will we need an army—the international environment
permitting, of course. The statement in the Resolutions of the Eighth Party Congress cannot be found anywhere in Marx, Engels, or Lenin, but there is no harm in
it either. The meaning [of the statement] is that we need to develop production
quickly to strengthen the material basis of socialist society. It’s just that it was not
expressed clearly; it is characterized by a semantic error. [The statement] did not
conscientiously explain the contradictions clearly. This statement drew comparisons with foreign countries and with the future. But we don’t need to alter it now.
We don’t have to talk about this issue right now. [Indeed,] Lenin said that there
was a contradiction between the Soviet regime and backward technology. We
won’t discuss this now. It will be all right as long as this is explained clearly later.
Strictly speaking it is of course incorrect to say that the socialist system has not
conformed to the forces of production. In our case, it is precisely the socialist system
which has developed the forces of production. Many economists say that there is
a contradiction between our system and the forces of production. They say that the
socialist system has fallen behind the forces of production. This kind of talk is bad.*!

Notes

1. See text July 1957(1), source note.

2. By this we mean the CPC’s resolution on the Political Report of the Eighth National
Congress of the CPC held in September 15-27, 1956. See RMSC (1957), pp. 55-57. The
specific point here is in section 1 of the resolution (p. 55). An English translation of the
resolution is available in Eighth National Congress (1956), pp. 113-114. For more on the
congress, see text Sept. 15, 1956, source note, and K. Lieberthal (1976), pp. 85-86.

It is probably worth noting that the political report to that Congress was made by Liu


OCTOBER —~ DECEMBER 1957 / 693

Shaoqi, who was chairman of the Standing Committee of the Central Committee of the CPC
at the time. The drafting of the resolution also bore the stamp of Liu Shaogi.

3. In particular, Mao discussed these contradictions, in terms of their “nature”
rather than their ordinal magnitude, in his speech “On Correctly Handling Contradictions Among the People” (see text Feb. 27, 1957). Implicit in Mao’s assertion here in
this speech, delivered in October 1957, that the essay of late February should not be
studied singly, but would make sense only if considered together with the “Qingdao
document” of July (see text July 1957[1]}, source note), is the notion that since the last
half of 1956, and particularly from February 1957 onward, Mao had progressively
recontemplated the implications of the resolution of the Eighth CPC Congress on this
issue and had moved farther and farther away from the position of the resolution. See
also text Nov. 15, 1956, source note and note 1.

4. Here Mao is referring not to the old traditional notion of a democratic revolution,
which is an “old general type of bourgeois-democratic revolution,” but to “one of a special
new type” for which Mao coined the term “New Democratic Revolution.” See text Aug. 12,
1953, vol. I, note 2; see also text June 11, 1957, note 1, and text July 8, 1957(2), note 17.

5. See text July 9, 1957, note 63; see back to text Mar. 12, 1957, note 5.

6. Mao is setting the stage for the introduction of a new struggle between two roads,
ora “two-line struggle,” the idea of which was suggested in July but is clearly consummated
here. See text July 1957(1), source note. See also text June 15, 1953, vol. I, source note.

7, See text June 15, 1953, vol. I, note 1; text Mar. 31, 1955, vol. I, note 8, and also text
July 8, 1957(2), note 37.

8. See note 2. In light of the source note commentary here, note 2, and text Jan. 9,
1957, note 13, Mao’s statements constitute an implicit criticism of Liu Shaogi.

9. See text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 1.

10. See note 1.

11. See, again, text July 1957(1), source note.

12. This refers to the so-called three winds that were the targets of rectification in the
CPC earlier in 1957, namely, bureaucratism, subjectivism, and sectarianism. (See later in
this paragraph; see also text Mar. 18, 1957, note 2.)

13. See text July 1957(1), note 17.

14. Ren Baige was, at this time, mayor of Chongqing, deputy chairman of the Provincial
People’s Government of Sichuan, and first secretary of the Chongqing Municipal Party
(CPC) Committee. Ren was criticized during the Cultural Revolution and purged from the
CPC in 1968. He was then rehabilitated in 1975. For more biographical information on
Ren Baige, see Zhonggong renming lu, p. 147. We are not able to identify to what in Ren’s
writings, or speeches, Mao is referring here.

15. See text Autumn 1956, note 1.

16. This is an implicit criticism of the statement in the Resolution of the Eighth National
Congress of the CPC (see note 2) in which the “primary contradiction” in China is described
as the contradiction “between an advanced socialist system and backward forces of social
production.” (See RMSC [1957], p. 55.) The Maoists have accused Liu Shaoqi and Chen
Boda et al., of “sneaking” this “revisionist” theory into the Congress’s resolutions, thus
imposing a “revisionist” line on the entire Party. According to Ciyu jianshi (pp. 202-203),
Mao, on discovery of this “base” trick, “severely reprimanded” Liu and Chen, “pointing out
that this ridiculous argument was entirely anti-Marxist,” and he “sent circulars throughout
the Party to correct [the mistake].” We have not been able to ascertain what the “‘circulars”
were that are referred to here. On the whole, the political attitude adopted by Ciyu jianshi
itself is a Maoist one. See text Nov. 15, 1956, source note and note 1.

17, See text Feb. 27, 1957, text surrounding note 43. The same point was made by Mao
repeatedly in the March and April writings of 1957.

18. See text April 1957(2), note 59.

19. See text July 8, 1957(2), note 40.

20. Mao ts referring to the fact that contending and blooming came as a result of the