Location: Huairen Hall, Zhongnanhai

I would like to talk about breaking down superstitions.

Some of our comrades have several "fears."

They fear professors, fear bourgeois professors. After the rectification movement, in recent months, this fear has slowly diminished. Some comrades, such as Comrade Ke Qingshi, accepted a letter of appointment to serve as a professor at Fudan University—this is a sign of no longer fearing professors.

Another kind of fear is the fear of proletarian professors, the fear of Marx. Marx lives in a very high building, and one needs a very long ladder to climb up to it. So some say: "I have no hope in this lifetime." Is this fear necessary? Is it appropriate? At the Chengdu Conference, I spoke about not fearing Marx either. Marx also had two eyes and two hands, much like us, only he had a great deal of Marxism in his head. He wrote many things for us to read; we don’t necessarily have to finish reading all of them. Is Comrade ××× here? (Answer: Yes.) Have you finished reading them? If you have, you’ve climbed up into the building; I haven’t finished reading, so I’m still at the bottom of the building. We who haven’t finished reading his works are all people at the bottom. But don't be afraid—there is so much in Marxism, and time is limited; you don’t have to read everything. Reading a few basic works is enough. In practice, we have done many things that surpass Marx. What Lenin said and did surpassed Marx in many respects. Marx did not carry out the October Revolution; Lenin did. Our practice has surpassed Marx. Practice is bound to produce its own logic. Marx’s revolution did not succeed; we succeeded. Such revolutionary practice is reflected in ideology, and that is theory. The Chinese revolutions of February and October succeeded; theoretically, there must be a reflection of this. Our theoretical level is not high—it is not high now—but do not be afraid; we can strive to improve. We must make an effort. We can build ladders, and we can even build elevators. Do not belittle or look down upon yourselves. China was oppressed by imperialism for over a hundred years. Imperialism propagated its own doctrine, demanding submission to foreigners; feudalism propagated its own doctrine, demanding submission to Confucius. "If not sage, then lawbreaker"—opposing the sages was considered a violation of the "constitution." Saying to foreigners, "I am incapable," and saying to Confucius, "I am incapable"—what kind of reasoning is this?

I asked the comrades beside me: "Do we live in the heavens, or do we live on the earth?" They shook their heads and said, "We live on the earth." I said, "No, we live in the heavens. If there are people on other planets, when they look at us, aren’t we also living in the heavens?" So I say, we live on the earth, yet at the same time, we also live in the heavens.

Chinese people like immortals and gods. I asked them (referring to the comrades beside the Chairman): Can we be considered immortals? They said, "No!" I said that’s wrong—we live in the "heavens," so why shouldn't we be considered "immortals"? If there are people on other planets, wouldn’t they see us as immortals?

Are Chinese people considered foreigners? Everyone says only people from other countries are foreigners; we are not foreigners. I say that’s wrong—we call people from other countries foreigners, but from the perspective of foreigners, aren’t we also foreigners?

There is a kind of microorganism called bacteria. I think bacteria, though small, are in some respects fiercer than humans. They have no superstitions; they are full of drive, faster, better, more economical, striving for the top, with no regard for anyone, fearing neither heaven nor earth. They want to eat people—no matter how big you are, even if you weigh over eighty kilograms, if you fall ill, they will devour you. Isn’t this spirit of fearing neither heaven nor earth stronger than that of certain people?

Throughout history, inventors and founders of new schools of thought were, at the beginning, invariably young, with relatively little learning, looked down upon by others, and oppressed. These inventors later became middle-aged, old, and learned people. Is this a universal law? One cannot be sure; it still needs investigation and research. But it can be said that the majority follow this pattern.

Why is this so? Because their direction was correct. No matter how much learning one has, if the direction is wrong, it is useless.

"Just as a man dreads fame, a pig dreads being fat." Famous experts are the most backward, the most afraid of trouble, and the least creative. Why? Because they are already famous. Of course, one cannot completely negate all famous experts; there are some exceptions.

Young people defeating old people, people with little learning defeating people with much learning—examples of this are numerous.

During the Warring States period, there was a person named Gan Luo in the state of Qin. Gan Luo became a chancellor at the age of twelve; he was just a "Red Scarf." His grandfather Gan Mao had no ideas, but he had ideas, and he went to the state of Zhao and resolved a problem.

In the Han dynasty, there was a man named Jia Yi. In his teens, he was summoned by Emperor Wen of Han. He was promoted three times in one day and later transferred to Changsha, where he wrote two fu poems, "Lament for Qu Yuan" and "The Owl Fu." Later, when he returned to the court, he wrote a book called "The Strategies for Public Order." He was a historian of the Qin and Han periods. He wrote dozens of works, but what remains are two literary works (the two fu poems) and two political works—"The Strategies for Public Order" and "On the Faults of Qin." When he died, he was only thirty-two years old.

Liu Bang was relatively old. Xiang Yu rose in arms at only twenty-four, and after three years he reached Xianyang. When the Hegemon-King bid farewell to his concubine, he should still have been young. When he died, he was only thirty-two.

Han Xin was also a person looked down upon by others. In his youth, he once suffered the "humiliation of crawling through someone’s crotch."

Confucius in the beginning had no status either. He worked as a musician for ceremonies and later taught. Although he once served as an official, acting as "Minister of Justice" in the state of Lu. At that time, Lu had a population of only a few hundred thousand—about the same as one of our county magistrates now. His "Minister of Justice" was equivalent to the judicial section chief of our present county government. He also worked as an "accountant" and held minor posts managing money, yet he mastered many skills.

Yan Yuan was a disciple of Confucius and was considered a "second-rank sage." When he died, he was only thirty-two years old.

When Sakyamuni founded Buddhism, he was only in his teens or twenties; he was from a people oppressed in India at that time.

Hong Niang is a famous figure. She was a young person, a slave. She helped Zhang Sheng do that sort of thing, which was in violation of the "marriage law." She was tortured, yet she did not yield, and when she resisted, she even scolded the old lady. Tell me, who had better learning, Hong Niang or the old lady? Who was the "inventor," Hong Niang or the old lady?

Xun Guan Niang of the Jin dynasty was a thirteen-year-old girl, at most of "junior high school level." She went to Xiangyang to seek reinforcements—see how great her ability was!

Li He, a poet of the Tang dynasty, died at only twenty-seven.

Li Shimin, Emperor Taizong of Tang, was only eighteen when he rose in arms and only twenty when he became emperor.

Li He and Li Shimin were both aristocrats.

Luo Shixin was a native of Shandong; he also rose in arms at twenty-four and fought very bravely.

The author of "Preface to the Pavilion of Prince Teng," Wang Bo, one of the Four Eminences of the Early Tang, was a young man.

Yue Fei, the famous general of the Song dynasty, was only thirty-eight when he died.

Comrade Fan Wenlan, are you here? Do you think I’ve spoken correctly? You are a historian; if I’ve spoken incorrectly, you can correct me.

Marx’s Marxism was not created in his middle or old age, but when he was young. When he wrote the Communist Manifesto, he was only in his twenties.

Lenin was also thirty-one (in 1903) when he created Bolshevism.

Zhou Yu and Kong Ming were both young men. Kong Ming became a military advisor at twenty-seven. Cheng Pu was an old general—he was not up to it. When Sun-Wu fought Cao Cao, they did not use him but appointed Zhou Yu as commander-in-chief. Cheng Pu was dissatisfied, but Zhou Yu won the battle. There was a Huang Gai, who was my fellow townsman from Lingling, Hunan; he also rendered meritorious service in that campaign. We fellow townsmen are also very proud of it.

Wang Bi of the Jin dynasty wrote commentaries on the Zhuangzi and the Yijing. He became a philosopher at eighteen. His grandfather was Wang Su. He died when he was only twenty-four.

The inventor of sleeping pills was not some specialist; reportedly, it was a pharmacist’s assistant. I read it in a pamphlet. In order to invent sleeping pills, he almost lost his life while conducting experiments. When the experiment succeeded, Germany did not support him, but the French took him in, held a celebration for him, and published a book about him.

Penicillin—the discovery of penicillin—was made by a dyer. Because his daughter fell ill and they had no money to go to the hospital, he grabbed a handful of earth from the edge of the dye vat, mixed it with something, and after she ate it, she recovered. Later, through chemical analysis, it was found that there was a substance in it—penicillin.

Darwin, a great inventor, was also a young man when he studied biology, traveling everywhere—North and South America, Asia—but he never went to Shanghai.

Li Zhengdao and Yang Zhenning, recently prominent, are also young.

Hao Jianxiu, a deputy to the National People's Congress, created an advanced method of spinning at the age of eighteen.

Nie Er, the great musician who composed the national anthem, was also a young man.

Nezha—the son of Li Jing, the Pagoda-Bearing Heavenly King—was also young; his abilities were by no means small!

The Prince of Lanling of the Southern and Northern Dynasties was also a young man; he was very skilled in warfare.

Now many of our outstanding township and commune cadres are young people. … The purpose of raising so many examples is to illustrate that young people will surpass the old, and those with little learning can defeat those with much learning. Do not be intimidated by the authorities, by famous names, or by great scholars. Dare to think, dare to speak, dare to act; do not be afraid to think, to speak, or to act. This kind of constrained and bound behavior is not good; we must free ourselves from it.

The initiative and creativity of the working people have always been very abundant. In the past, under the oppression of the old system, they were not set free. Now they are liberated and are beginning to burst forth.

Our current method is to lift the lid and break down superstitions. Let the initiative and creativity of the working people burst forth.

In the past, many people thought that industry was too lofty to reach, shrouded in mystery; they would say that engaging in industry is "not easy." In short, they believed there was a great deal of superstition about industry.

I also do not understand industry; I know nothing about industry myself. But I do not believe that industry is too lofty to reach. I have talked with several comrades in charge of industry. At first, they did not understand, but after studying for a few years, they understood. What is so remarkable about it? I think it will probably take only about a dozen years for our country to become an industrial nation. Don’t treat it as so formidable. First despise it, then take it seriously. …

"Make the high mountains bow their heads, tell the rivers to make way"—this saying is excellent. As for the high mountains, we want you to bow your heads; do you dare not bow? As for the rivers, we want you to make way; do you dare not make way?

Is it arrogant to conceive of this? No, it is not. We are not madmen; we are realists, Marxist-Leninists who seek truth from facts.

…

No Great-Power Chauvinism. Great-power chauvinism is an ugly act, a kind of low taste!

In the opera Famen Temple, there is a character named Jia Gui, who is a subordinate of Liu Jin. Liu Jin was a eunuch of the Ming dynasty, effectively the "Prime Minister of the Cabinet"—a man with great power. Once, Liu Jin asked Jia Gui to sit down. Jia Gui said: I’m used to standing; I dare not sit. This is slavishness. The Chinese people were slaves of imperialism for too long, and inevitably some vestiges remain. We must cut off this slavish tail, and must overthrow the style of Jia Gui.

There are two kinds of modesty: one is vulgar modesty, the other is modesty that corresponds to reality.

The dogmatists copy foreign countries exactly; this is excessive modesty. What are you doing yourself? You simply don’t use your own brains. In ancient Chinese poetry, there is a kind of imitative poetry—that is excessive modesty. Having no original style of one’s own, one just imitates others.

The revisionists are also excessively modest. For example, Tito merely copied Bernstein exactly, borrowing a few things from the bourgeois masters.

Dogmatism is the proletariat of one country copying exactly the proletariat of another country. They copy the good, but also the bad. This is not good. Copying is necessary, but what should be copied is the spirit, the essence, not the superficial details. For example, the nine-point common program of the Moscow Declaration (the "Second Article" said five points, while the Moscow Declaration was divided into nine points) is the common element for all countries; not one point can be missing. Universal truth must be integrated with China’s concrete practice. If it is not integrated and is simply copied, that is excessive modesty. What is not universal truth cannot be copied. Even things within the country cannot be simply copied. During the land reform, the central authorities did not particularly emphasize the experience of any one locality; this was precisely to avoid copying. In current work, we must also pay attention to this issue.

The revisionists are people who have turned bourgeois. They have copied the bourgeoisie; Tito copying Bernstein is one example.

We must learn from Lenin, dare to plant the red flag—the redder the better—and dare to do what is new and different. There are two kinds of doing what is new and different: one that is proper, and one that is improper. Lenin did what was new and different vis-à-vis the Second International and planted another red flag; this was proper. The red flag, after all, must be planted. If you don’t plant the red flag, the bourgeoisie will plant the white flag. Rather than let the bourgeoisie plant theirs, it is better for us proletarians to plant ours. We must dare to plant the flag and leave no empty spots. Where the bourgeoisie has planted their flag, we must pull it up. Dare to plant and dare to pull up.

Lenin said: "Advanced Asia, backward Europe." This is the truth; it is still the case today. We are advanced, Western Europe is backward. …

We disdain the bourgeoisie, we disdain gods, we disdain God. But we must not disdain small countries, nor disdain our own comrades.

In fifteen years, we will have become a modernized, industrialized, highly cultured great power. At that time, tails may start to wag. We need not be afraid, but we should make things clear now. When a dog wags its tail, it does not necessarily need a beating—just dash a ladle of cold water over it. Sometimes we need to sprinkle a bit of cold water.

Improper self-confidence, vulgar self-confidence, false self-confidence—these are not permissible. Modesty not grounded in science does not deserve to be called modesty. True modesty must accord with reality. For instance, when we meet foreigners and tell them that China is still an agricultural country and industrial construction has just begun... that is reality, and yet foreigners call us modest. Generally, it is in conformity with reality.

There is also modesty that falls below reality—excessive modesty. Generally, it is in conformity with reality.

This way of speaking is similar to what Lu Xun said about satire. Lu Xun said: "To depict real things with concise or somewhat exaggerated language—that is called satire."...

The recent article by Comrade Fan Wenlan delighted me when I read it. (He then stood up to speak.) This article cited many facts, proving that valuing the present over the past is a tradition of our country. It cited Sima Guang... but unfortunately, it did not cite Qin Shi Huang. Qin Shi Huang advocated the principle that "those who use the past to denigrate the present shall be executed with their entire clan." Qin Shi Huang was an expert in valuing the present over the past. Of course, I do not necessarily approve of citing Qin Shi Huang. (Comrade Lin Biao interjected: "Qin Shi Huang burned books and buried Confucian scholars alive.") What was Qin Shi Huang? He only buried 460 Confucian scholars alive, while we buried 46,000. We carried out the suppression of counterrevolutionaries. Have we not executed counterrevolutionary intellectuals? I debated with democratic personages—you accused us of being Qin Shi Huang, which is incorrect. We have surpassed Qin Shi Huang a hundredfold. You call us Qin Shi Huang-style dictators, and we have always admitted it. The pity is that your criticism is insufficient, and we often have to supplement it ourselves. (Laughter.)

Things always tend to move toward their opposite.

Greek dialectics, medieval metaphysics, the Renaissance. This is the negation of the negation.

The same holds true for China. The contention of a hundred schools of thought during the Warring States period—that was dialectics. The study of Confucian classics in the feudal era—that was metaphysics. Now dialectics again.

Isn’t that so? Comrade Fan Wenlan, you are very familiar with these matters.

In my view, fifteen years from now, tails will surely begin to wag, and great-power chauvinism will emerge. But is there anything to fear from the emergence of great-power chauvinism? Should we cease striving to build socialism just because we might become great-power chauvinists? Even if great-power chauvinism appears in the future, it will move toward its opposite. Something correct will replace great-power chauvinism—what is there to fear? It is impossible for everyone in a socialist country to become a great-power chauvinist.

Lenin's dialectics, Stalin's partial metaphysics, and the dialectics of the present—this too is the negation of the negation.

Stalin was not entirely metaphysical; he understood dialectics but did not fully understand the creativity of the people, which is an objective reality. Setting up opposites is very important. Opposites exist objectively. For example, in dealing with the rightists, we let them speak out, let them talk. This was done deliberately, with the aim of setting up opposites. After rectifying the rightists, some comrades neglected reform and instead emphasized putting up big-character posters to launch the "double-anti" campaign*.* In this way, opposites were set up, resulting in a hundred million big-character posters, forcing reforms to proceed.

Setting up opposites does not mean creating something that does not objectively exist. So-called opposites can only be set up if they exist objectively. What does not exist objectively cannot be set up.

I have finished. This topic is called "Do Away with Superstition"—do not be afraid of professors, and do not be afraid of Marx.