Annotations, Editorial Notes, and Revisions to the Article "Education Must Be Combined with Productive Labor" [I]
(August 1958)

Very good, publish in *Red Flag*. The title is exceptionally large; the full text should use a relatively large font size, such as size 4 or size 5, not new size 5. Whether this is appropriate, please let Boda [2] decide at his discretion.

Comrade Ding Yi:

Mao Zedong
August 16

[I]
[2]
The revisions are well done. In the section on the history of education, there should be criticism of Shilov [1] and Stalin, which would be beneficial to both China and the Soviet Union. The history of Chinese education has its positive aspects, and these should be mentioned; otherwise, it would be incomplete. [2] What do you think?

Mao Zedong
August 22

Regarding the section on the history of education in Ding Yi’s article, please print another copy for me to review. Someone has suggested that it might be more appropriate not to criticize Kairov and Stalin, and that part could be deleted.

Mao Zedong
28th

[1]
[2]
Annotations, Editorial Notes, and Revisions to Lu Dingyi’s Article "Education Must Be Combined with Productive Labor"

IV
Editor’s Note: Comrade Lu Dingyi’s article is based on the conclusions of the education work conference convened by the Party Central Committee. The Party Central Committee will soon issue directives on this matter to Party committees at all levels [1]. We hope that Party committees at all levels will discuss Comrade Lu Dingyi’s article in conjunction with the Party’s directives. When school Party committees discuss this matter, non-Party professors and teachers may be invited to participate.

V
If the study of the history of education is conducted using the Marxist viewpoint of historical materialism, it is certainly beneficial, as it can reveal the laws of education in the era of class society over thousands of years. However, it must be understood that the laws of education in the history of such class societies are not equivalent to the laws of socialist education, still less to the laws of China’s socialist education.

VI
The history of Chinese education has a dimension of affinity with the people. Confucius’s teaching without class distinction, Mencius’s valuing the people above the ruler, Xunzi’s belief that man can conquer nature, Qu Yuan’s criticism of the ruler’s evils, Sima Qian’s praise of resistance, the ancient materialism of Wang Chong, Fan Zhen, Liu Zongyuan, Zhang Zai, and Wang Fuzhi, the democratic literature of Guan Hanqing, Shi Nai’an, Wu Cheng’en, and Cao Xueqin, and Sun Yat-sen’s democratic revolution—these figures differ in circumstances, and many did not produce specialized works on education. Yet the above-mentioned elements could not but influence the education of the people. When discussing the history of Chinese education, they should be mentioned. However, from the principal aspect of the history of education, education over thousands of years was indeed a tool in the hands of the exploiting classes, whereas socialist education is a tool in the hands of the working class. The transition from a tool of the exploiting classes to a tool of the working class represents a qualitative leap in education and a great revolution in education itself.

VII
What are the characteristics of our country? First, our country is a socialist state; second, it has a large population and a vast territory; third, it is economically and culturally backward; fourth, it has the leadership of the Communist Party and the great leap forward in industrial and agricultural production; fifth, and this is the most important, our country is one that seriously carries out rectification and anti-rightist campaigns, a country of great airing of views, great blooming, great contention, great debate, and big-character posters. We should, in accordance with our country’s own characteristics, integrate the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete realities of our country to define our educational policy, educational guidelines, educational system, educational methods, and so forth.

VIII
We also earnestly study the experiences of fraternal countries and diligently study history, but the aim is not to copy or mechanically transplant them, but rather to understand historical conditions and grasp historical materialism in the realm of education, so as to draw lessons and, in light of our own circumstances, carry out our work well.

IX
During childhood, physical development is necessary, and such development must be sound. During childhood, it is necessary to cultivate communist sentiments, style, and the spirit of collective heroism—this constitutes the moral education of our era. These two are linked together with intellectual education. Both are connected to engagement in labor, and thus the principle of combining education with labor is immutable. To summarize the above, the "all-round development" we advocate aims to enable students to acquire relatively complete and relatively broad knowledge, develop sound physiques, and cultivate communist morality.

--- Notes

Items 1, 2, and 3 of this piece are three annotations written by Mao Zedong while reviewing and revising Comrade Lu Dingyi’s article "Education Must Be Combined with Productive Labor," who was the head of the Central Committee’s Culture and Education Group. Item 4 is the editor’s note written by Mao Zedong for the publication of Lu Dingyi’s article in *Red Flag* magazine. Items 5 through 9 are revisions made by Mao Zedong to Lu Dingyi’s article "Education Must Be Combined with Productive Labor." Lu Dingyi’s article was later published in Issue 7 of *Red Flag* on September 1, 1958.


Shilov should be Kairov, a Soviet educator who served as a member of the Central Inspection Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and president of the Academy of Educational Sciences of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and authored works such as *Pedagogy*.


Boda, namely Chen Boda, was then the editor-in-chief of *Red Flag* magazine.


On August 16, 1958, while reviewing the initial draft of "Education Must Be Combined with Productive Labor," Mao Zedong added a passage on the history of Chinese education, which is Item 6 of this piece. In addition to this passage, Mao Zedong also wrote a passage criticizing Kairov and Stalin, which reads in full: "In fraternal countries, such as certain educational theorists in the Soviet Union, like those theorists of idealist linguistics, their pedagogy is erroneous. I refer mainly to Kairov’s pedagogy. Yet the Chinese people have blindly believed in him, elevating him to the status of a deity, and the pernicious influence has been far from shallow. A portion of Stalin’s theories is also erroneous. He spoke little on education and more on political science, philosophy, and economics, and much of that was erroneous. He was not self-aware, and his methodology contained certain metaphysical elements, which inevitably affected educational theory, educational systems, and educational methods." This passage was later deleted in accordance with Mao Zedong’s instructions; see Item 3 of this piece.