(1) Further discussion on breaking superstition.

The First Ministry of Machine-Building issued a document—has it been circulated yet? It compiled short biographies of forty-one scientists and inventors, most of whom came from impoverished backgrounds. Among them, only seven were engineers with relatively higher social status; the rest were from poor backgrounds, of worker origin, or of peasant origin. For example, Watt was a worker. This batch of material is very useful and has already been distributed to comrades. I hope that every department will compile such material. This material starts from the 18th century—it covers over a hundred years. Whether covering over a hundred years or over two hundred years, no matter from when it begins, it is highly beneficial for breaking superstition and greatly helps us, helping us to break superstition and cast off our sense of inferiority. Workers, peasants, and petty intellectuals may have a sense of inferiority, which can be overcome. Last time, when discussing agriculture, forestry, and water conservancy (industry, transportation, and public health should also be included), agriculture, forestry, and water conservancy, politics, law, culture, education, and public health—all departments—can compile such material.

(2) Next, on the issue of presenting oneself as an ordinary laborer.

This issue is very important. The reason it is important is that some people act as if they are second to none under heaven, looking down on others. They do not treat others as equals, but rely on their seniority to get by, especially those who have become high officials, relying on their high office to get by, rather than presenting themselves as ordinary laborers. Raising this issue, and having the majority of people achieve this, would make things much easier. There have been many bureaucrats in the past who did not present themselves as ordinary laborers.

"You belong under my jurisdiction"—they get by on just this, which hinders the development of creativity. We must break this kind of thing and sweep away bureaucratic airs among the majority. Only see who possesses truth and obey them, regardless of whether they are night-soil carriers, coal miners, street sweepers, or poor peasants. Obey whoever holds the truth. No matter how high an official’s position, if the truth is not in their hands, there is no reason to obey them. Once the majority sweeps away bureaucratic airs, the remaining minority will be isolated and will not dare to make trouble. It should be said that bureaucratic airs are a form of low taste, not high taste, nor the communist spirit. On the contrary, presenting oneself as an ordinary laborer is high taste. In this way, the great-power chauvinism we need to guard against may be prevented. If the majority of the entire Party, especially leading cadres, are modest (scientific modesty), then it can be prevented. Even if it arises, it will not be frightening.

(3) Next, on the issue of laymen leading experts.

Laymen leading experts is a general law. It can almost be said that only laymen can lead experts. In the past, the rightists raised this issue and stirred up enormous turmoil, saying that laymen cannot lead experts.

Only laymen can lead experts—can this be said? On this issue, we were once in a passive position. In the past, newspapers’ criticism of the rightists on this issue was unsystematic and lacked thorough explanation. Why is it said that laymen leading experts is a general law? Because everyone is an expert, and everyone is a layman. In the world, there are ten thousand trades and ten thousand lines of science and technology. Each person is proficient in only one line. For example, Mei Lanfang could perform opera, but only in the role of the qingyi (a female role). Among female roles, there are qingyi, huadan (vivacious young women), and laodan (old women); in laodan, he was not as good as Li Duokui. In addition, there are other roles: laosheng (old men), xiaosheng (young men), and so on. Out of ten thousand trades, each person is proficient in only one. So it can be said that everyone is an expert, and everyone can become an expert, but at the same time, everyone is a layman in 9,999 trades. If a person is proficient in two or three trades, or four or five, that is already very remarkable. Even if someone is like Xue Rengui, skilled in all eighteen martial arts, they would still be a layman in 9,982 out of ten thousand trades. Different trades are like separated mountains—experts are few, laymen are many, so isn’t it true that everyone is a layman? In doing leadership work, besides one’s own trade, one should also know a bit about other trades, explore them a little, and be slightly familiar with one field—some common sense is necessary. For example, for those doing Party work, it is necessary to be familiar with industry, agriculture, and so on. But it is impossible to be familiar with many. I, for instance, can only ride in airplanes but cannot fly them. In middle school, there are over a dozen subjects; in university, even more. Many things are transformed from avocations. For example, Sun Yat-sen was initially looked down upon, working as a minor doctor. At twenty, he engaged in revolution, which was illegal. At first, in practicing medicine, he was an expert; engaging in politics was a sideline. Later, when he pursued revolution, politics became his main pursuit, and he stopped practicing medicine—medicine became a sideline, or he even abandoned it entirely, becoming a layman. Yet at that point, he was able to oversee doctors. Politicians deal with interrelations among people and practice the mass line. We should study this issue carefully. Because many engineers and scientists look down on us, and some of us also look down on ourselves, stubbornly insisting that it is very difficult for laymen to lead experts. We need some reasoning to refute this. I say that laymen leading experts is a general law. For instance, if Mei Lanfang were asked to serve as president, he would not be able to; he only knows how to perform opera.

(4) Next, let’s talk about the issue of planting red flags and discerning the direction of the wind. The red flag is our five-star red flag. What flag should be planted? A red flag or a white flag? Except for the North and South Poles, flags are planted everywhere in the world—from the South Pole to the North Pole, flags must be planted. Now flags are being planted even at the North and South Poles: the United States has planted them, and so has the Soviet Union. It’s a pity we have not yet gone there. We have not been to the North Pole or the South Pole. Someday, we will also send a ship to the South and North Poles. Wherever there are people, flags must be planted—if not a red flag, then a white flag, or perhaps a gray flag. If the proletariat does not plant the red flag, the bourgeoisie plants the white flag. Around May and June of last year, in government offices, schools, factories, and certain cooperatives, what flag to plant was contested by both the rightists and us. The bourgeoisie wanted to plant the white flag; we wanted to plant the red flag. Today, there are still some backward factories, or workshops within factories, cooperatives, schools, military companies, or parts of them—what flag is planted there? If not white, then gray. We must go and take a walk there, go to backward places, mobilize the masses to speak out freely, put up big-character posters, and plant the red flag. Even a production team must have a flag planted there.

Vulgar modesty means not planting the red flag. Not planting the red flag is low taste, false modesty. "Tight-lipped Daoists" who do not blow their own horn—this kind of modesty should be criticized. There is a social consensus that rewards this style: not stepping forward boldly, not daring to think, speak, or act. This is learned from *The Scholars*. To plant the flag, we must heighten our sense of smell, learn to discern the direction of the wind, and see what wind is blowing. Either the east wind prevails over the west wind, or the west wind prevails over the east wind. This was said by Lin Daiyu, the Suzhou young lady. The world is always divided into parties. People in society are always divided into three categories: left, center, and right. Some are in an advanced state, some in an intermediate or backward state. The current task is to rely on advanced elements to win over those in the intermediate state and bring along backward elements. We must strive to win the intermediate elements to stand on the left—that is, to plant the red flag. The white flag planted by the rightists is the flag of the bourgeoisie. The flag planted by intermediate elements is gray or white. In the Tang Dynasty, there was a man named Liu Zhiji who said that those who write history must have three qualifications: talent, learning, and discernment. Talent refers to ability; learning refers to knowledge. Discernment does not refer simply to knowledge, but to being adept at discerning the direction of the wind. I particularly ask comrades to pay attention to the issue of "discernment"—not the first two. One must be good at discerning the direction of the wind and have the power of discernment. Discernment is of extreme importance. Although some people are very talented and learned, they are very slow in discerning the direction of the wind. Stalin said that one must have foresight. Foresight refers to discerning the direction of the wind—knowing when a strong wind will blow before it does or when there is only a light breeze—and standing on the observation platform. Not seeing anything is not good. Without foresight, when a situation is already quite widespread, one still fails to see it. This state of affairs gives the rightists an opportunity to exploit. If you cannot see it, positions will be occupied by them, and they will move in. We must refute the rightists and plant the red flag. Anytime, anywhere, do not fear planting the red flag. Wherever the red flag should be planted, go and plant it quickly. On every mountain, plain, and in every village, the red flag must be planted. Every Party committee, government office, army unit, factory, and cooperative should plant the red flag. Wherever there is no red flag, plant one. Now, many places are not entirely red; conditions are uneven. In some places, the red flag has just been planted, but after a few years, it is no longer red—it has become backward again, turning pale. Constant change is also a natural state. When the flag changes, it must be replaced.

(5) Let’s talk about red and white happy events. Last time, regarding coping with possible disasters, the main discussion was about war and splits within the Party. Disasters can be large, medium, or small. What I spoke about was large-scale war and splits.

Chinese people call weddings "red happy events" and deaths "white happy events," collectively referring to them as "red and white happy events." I think this makes a lot of sense. The Chinese understand dialectics. Marriage can produce children: the mother splits off a child—it is a sudden change, a happy event. A mother divides into three or two, giving birth to a little person. A mother of many children splits off six, seven, eight, or even ten, like an aircraft carrier. I am not against birth control; I am talking about dialectics, about the emergence of new things, human reproduction—this is a happy event, a change, one becoming two, two becoming four. As for death, ordinary people also call it a happy event. On one hand, there are memorial meetings, weeping, and sending off the departed—normal human feelings. On the other hand, it is a happy event, and indeed it is a happy event. Imagine if Confucius were still alive today, attending a meeting at the Huairen Hall at over two thousand years old—that would be most awkward.

To speak of dialectics and yet not approve of perishing is metaphysics. Disasters are social phenomena. Catastrophic change is a fundamental law of the universe. Birth is a sudden change; death is also a sudden change. The decades-long gradual change from birth to death—if Chiang Kai-shek were to die, we would all applaud. If Dulles died, we would not shed tears. This is because the perishing of old social phenomena is a good thing—everyone hopes for it. The emergence of new things is good, but the perishing of new things is of course not good. For example, the defeat of the Russian Revolution in 1905, or the loss of our base areas in the south, like seedlings being beaten down by hail or rainstorms today—this is certainly not good, and then the issue of replanting seedlings arises. We Communists hope for things to change, hence the leap forward—different from the past... Sudden change is superior to quantitative change. Without qualitative change, there can be no sudden change. Without quantitative change, it won’t work either; negating quantitative change leads to adventurism. The disruption of balance is a leap forward. The disruption of balance is superior to balance. Imbalance, causing great vexation, is a good thing. For instance, the First Ministry of Machine-Building, the Ministry of Metallurgy, the Ministry of Geology, and others are having a hard time, with everyone pressing them hard—they must all develop tremendously. This is a good thing. Balance, quantitative change, and unity are temporary and relative. Imbalance, sudden change, and disunity are absolute and perpetual. Much disunity is overcome and turned into unity. The task of unity is put forward precisely because disunity exists. One person alone is united; two people may have disunity. Our Party has twelve million members, people from all sorts of backgrounds. We must hold meetings regularly to achieve unity. We had preparations like the Nanning and Chengdu conferences, and the water conservancy and fertilizer accumulation campaigns this past winter and spring. The Great Leap Forward, the integration of urban and rural areas, the simultaneous development of industry and agriculture, the simultaneous development of central and local industry, the combination of large, medium, and small enterprises—all have emerged. Therefore, we talk about unity every year precisely because every year there is disunity. Everyone has different ideas, and Party members have different levels of understanding, so meetings are necessary. The permanent representative system has been done correctly. In the past, there was no system of holding a congress once a year—other meetings were held instead. Now, holding one every year is excellent. If we don’t hold meetings, ideas diverge. At meetings, the more reasonable opinions are adopted, resolutions are made, reports are published, and the whole country becomes aligned. At such meetings, some prefectural Party committee secretaries and county Party committee secretaries participate, making our meetings even better; they contribute many good ideas.

We must not only talk about unity every year but every day, because every day there is division. Cells divide; there is metabolism. If the old does not die, it is detrimental to a child’s development. Metabolism means the one surnamed Chen departs and the one surnamed Xin arrives—the new drives the old out. I’m not talking about driving out Chen Boda. The old bows and makes way; the new expels the old. As the Yangtze River’s back waves push the front waves, new people in the world replace the old. All things change; there is nothing that does not change. Now there are 102 elements, but originally there were not so many; they changed later. After tens of billions of years, it may no longer be 102—perhaps over a hundred kinds. Things will change and transform into their opposites. Among our twelve million Party members, every day some leave the Party, there are struggles, and some face criticism. In Hubei Province, a brother and sister put up a big-character poster. The elder brother, relying on seniority and bureaucratic airs, did not treat his sister as an ordinary laborer. The sister asked someone to write a big-character poster and had to put it up. The truth was with the sister, so the brother lost and the sister won. This shows that among the young and less learned, there is often more truth. In Zhejiang, a father and son argued about dense planting. The son was in favor, the father opposed. In the end, the father lost and the son won. This is a general law. Being an elder brother or father always carries considerable risk. If you lose the contest, it’s no big deal—there is only one way out: self-criticism and surrender. Then all is well, and unity is achieved. It’s nothing more than brother and sister clearing new land, with the brother losing in the contest. They unite. As for father and son arguing whether to adopt dense planting, in the end the father says: "I submit to you." Admit defeat to your sister, to your son. Present yourself as an ordinary laborer, so as to avoid danger.

What I am talking about is the need to prevent major disasters that would harm the people and the Party—such as a world war or a split within the Party. There have been four splits in our Party, like the ones involving XX and Gao Gang. The first was Chen Duxiu, the second Luo Zhanglong, the third Zhang Guotao, and the fourth Gao Gang. The Central Committee dealt with them and put them down. Wang Ming’s three “Left-leaning” lines emerged in a legal form, and we adopted an approach of curing the illness to save the patient, achieving unity through criticism. We allowed them to continue working. As long as the Party exists, new splits are possible. As long as the Party remains, splits can happen, and they may still occur a hundred years from now. Our method is unity—criticism—unity, learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones, and curing the illness to save the patient. This Party will last at most a hundred years or so—perhaps it will change in a few decades. Probably by the 21st century, and it is only 42 years from now to the 21st century, the world will have changed greatly. How much coal, steel, and electricity will be produced in 42 years? We must catch up with the United States in 15 years. There is also the Soviet Union surpassing the United States. I think the Soviet Union will not need 15 years.

Saying this might make everyone uncomfortable. I only feel comfortable after saying it. Once said, everyone will be mentally prepared. Didn’t Yugoslavia split? And there was Foster in the United States. In our past, Chen Duxiu, Luo Zhanglong, Zhang Guotao, and Gao Gang split the Party. Recently, there have been Ding Ling, Li Feng in Shandong, Gu Dacun in Guangdong, Chen Zaili in Guangxi, Li Shinong in Anhui, XX in Henan, Sun Zuobin in Qinghai, Lapuguyev in Xinjiang, and Sha Wenhan in Zhejiang—all engaged in splitting. The political and legal system in Beijing collapsed, and the engineers of the human soul in the literary and art circles collapsed even more severely. What is wrong with these collapses? There is always division in the world. It is a process of renewal—divisions occur every year, every month, every day, just like the death of cells; unity is achieved every year, every month, every day, just like the growth of cells. The First International, the Second International, and the Third International all underwent processes of emergence, development, and demise. The Information Bureau is also gone. Now it can be replaced by the Moscow conference approach: twelve countries agree, with the Soviet Union serving as the convener, and meetings are held when issues arise. A new method has emerged, with an internal agreement drafted, but Poland opposed its public release, so it was not announced. Thus, the first, second, and third Internationals all went through processes of birth, growth, and extinction.

(6) Establish opposites. There are two ways to set up opposites. One involves those that naturally exist in society. For instance, rightists have always existed—whether to let them emerge is a matter of policy. We resolved to let them emerge, through extensive contending and blooming, bringing them forth as opposites and mobilizing the people to debate and confront them, ultimately defeating them. Among primary school teachers, there are many rightists—100,000 out of 300,000 rightists. Opposites to these 300,000 rightists exist. Letting them emerge educated 600 million people, which is beneficial to us.

The other involves things that do not exist in nature and require material conditions. For example, when building a dam, we can artificially create opposites: raising the water’s position and then letting it flow, creating a drop that can generate electricity and enable navigation. Establishing factories is also an act of setting up opposites. The Anshan Iron and Steel Plant was built by the Japanese, while the Changchun Automobile Factory is new—these are artificially set opposites. What does not exist in nature can be artificially created, provided there is a material foundation. Sending a satellite into space is artificial—once the laws are grasped, it ascends.

We are optimists, unafraid of division. Division is a natural phenomenon. XX was helpful to the Soviet Union, and the splits caused by Chen Duxiu, Luo Zhanglong, Zhang Guotao, and Gao Gang were also helpful to us. The two Wang Ming lines, the three “Left-leaning” lines during the civil war period, and the Right-leaning line during the Anti-Japanese War all educated our Party. These many opposites are all beneficial. Of course, it is difficult to artificially create someone like XX, Chen Duxiu, or Gao Gang, and it is also unnecessary. As long as the climate exists, they will emerge, and there is nothing to fear. Should we hold celebrations for them if they appear? We will not. But when we overcome such revisionists, we will hold celebrations. We do experience some concerns when such things happen. At least, there is something worrying us every month.

Optimism is our dominant aspect, though there are also worries. When the rightists emerged, could everyone avoid feeling anxious? Ke Qingshi is an optimist—he does not panic when the rightists attack. I, on the other hand, tend to get a bit anxious, and when anxious, I think of solutions. If we were happy every day with nothing to worry about, we would be defeated by the rightists. This requires the art of leadership. With good leadership, division can turn from a bad thing into a good one. By foreseeing it early, we can even prevent it from occurring, nipping it in the bud. It is like weeding—farmers, with their accumulated years of experience, know deeply that for crops to grow well, weeds must be removed. Among the 12 million Party members, if 20,000 or 30,000 have higher awareness, we need not fear. Those present here number only over a thousand. By rallying more people around us—say 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000—with higher awareness, foresight can be achieved. With better preparations, we need not fear division. What is there to fear? Fear is useless. We must prepare for a world war and strive to avoid it, but if it comes, we will not fear it. After fighting, we will rebuild.

We adhere to the principle of learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones and curing the illness to save the patient. Those who make mistakes must be allowed to correct themselves, unless they reach the point of someone like Ding Ling. Pan XX committed a line error, but he must be allowed to reform. At present, we are very united, with no major issues; both the central and local authorities are in good shape. Through rectification, the problem of opposing rash advances has now been clarified. Starting from the desire for unity and through criticism, we achieve new unity on a new basis. To elaborate a little is to make everyone consciously aware and mentally prepared, drawing attention to the fact that we are optimists.

Yesterday, XX spoke very well about folk songs. From here down to every Party branch, each township could produce a collection. With 90,000 townships, 90,000 collections could be produced. If that is too many, producing fewer—say 10,000 or 20,000 collections—would be good. Publishing around 10,000 collections is necessary. Not only new folk songs but also old ones, revolutionary ones, and those popular in society should all be included. The method is to distribute paper, with each person given three sheets. If that is insufficient, give five sheets. If someone cannot write, they can ask an elder or younger sibling for help. If that fails, ask Ke Qingshi to write—he is an advocate of education and culture and establishes universities in every township. I say: industry, agriculture, military, education, commerce, and thought. It is fine for Heilongjiang to place the banner of thought first—thought is a reflection of reality. Use the abstract to guide the concrete, let politics guide professional work, and let red guide expertise. This is “thought, industry, agriculture, military, education, and commerce.” Stalin’s two slogans lacked dialectics: he spoke of “technology deciding everything,” but what about politics? He spoke of “cadres deciding everything,” but what about the masses? Lenin put it well: “Soviet power plus electrification equals communism,” which is correct. Soviet power is political authority—only with a people’s government is it possible. If Beijing were under Chiang Kai-shek’s regime, we would not be meeting here. Soviet power is politics, electrification is technology and a driving force. When Soviet power and electrification marry, when politics and professional work unite, the child they bear is communism. Politics and professional work are a unity of opposites, but once they wed, they produce a son. First, we will bear a son that surpasses Britain in seven years, and then another that surpasses the United States in eight years. The first son is called “Surpass Britain,” and the second is called “Surpass America.”

In these two months, we must focus efforts. Some provincial Party secretaries suggest not holding meetings in July but working on the 1958 plan, and then convening on August 5, which would be good—by then we can assess the success or failure of agriculture. The meeting could last half a month to twenty days, and then adjourn after three more days.