(September 2, 1958)
Comrades Liu, Zhou, Peng Zhen, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Li Fuchun, Bo Yibo, Li Xiannian, Huang Kecheng, Tan Zhenlin, Chen Boda, Lu Dingyi, Kang Sheng, and Hu Qiaomu:

I have read this document twice and remain quite dissatisfied with it; it will not be able to mobilize the masses. Among all the documents submitted to this meeting, those pertaining to rural affairs are by far the best: each point is clearly explained, the sequence of ideas is logical, the language is smooth, and the overall style is both vivid and precise. The one on people’s communes stands out as particularly exemplary. Next comes Comrade Lu Dingyi’s article on education,[1] though rather lengthy, it demonstrates a high theoretical level[2] and excels in logic, accuracy, and clarity. Following that is the resolution on the militia,[3] which is well written, engaging to read, and leaves one feeling satisfied upon finishing it. Documents related to commerce are also commendable—readable and worthwhile. By contrast, the industrial-related papers rank much lower. The only relatively good piece is that brief opinion paper,[4] which is easy to follow and presents a clear, concise outline. However, the “Key Points for Explanation” is the worst. I read it twice but still found it difficult to grasp; after finishing, no coherent image remained in my mind. It merely stitches together various viewpoints like gathering sand into a heap—lacking any logical structure, and showing neither accuracy nor vividness. Moreover, the prose itself is clumsy and inelegant, offering no sense of soaring momentum or unstoppable force. The root cause lies in an insufficient understanding of both dialectical and formal logic, as well as of grammar and rhetoric. I suspect the author lacks deep expertise in industrial matters and does not fully comprehend them. Were that not the case, he would surely be able to articulate his thoughts effectively in writing. Specifically regarding industry, this lack of understanding manifests as an inability to grasp the unity of opposites within industrial processes, the internal interconnections, and the distinction between principal and secondary contradictions. Consequently, any attempt to compose such a document cannot achieve the grand sweep or irresistible momentum of a mighty river. Despite repeated exhortations over the years, there has been no change whatsoever—the mind remains as solid as granite, and the pen seems frozen in ice. When, oh when, will there be even a slight thaw, so that readers might sense a hint of spring, thereby avoiding premature entry into paradise and perhaps extending their lives by another two years? I hold the author in high regard; judging from the content of his work, he is a fervent advocate for progress, firmly committed to striving upstream with speed, quality, and economy, and his political line is correct. What falls grievously short, however, are his theoretical insights and literary skill. My intent here is to deliver a sharp, urgent warning—let this serve as notice (and let my previous ten thousand similar admonitions be dismissed as nothing more than a northwesterly breeze). Should you disagree, feel free to engage in a public debate through correspondence. I am issuing this as a big-character poster; you, too, should put forth your views. If you concur, then please convene a discussion among yourselves. From what I observe, you treat these matters as trifles while focusing solely on the “watermelon”—namely, major policy issues. Yet the documents you produce are so unappealing that they actively discourage reading. Is it not deliberate on your part to ensure that no one wishes to read them?  Recommendation: Rewrite this document once, twice, three times, or even multiple times, until it reaches the same standard as the resolution on people’s communes.[5] Carefully examine your approach: although you possess a comprehensive plan for industrial development, you have failed to apply proper theoretical analysis, resulting in such subpar drafting. Further suggestion: Since you intend to formulate a ten-point program for industrial development, proceed without delay and craft a fine piece that articulates a clear vision—one aimed at bringing our country close to the United States within five years and surpassing it within seven.
Mao Zedong
9:00 a.m., September 2, 1958
“Key Points for Explanation,” without date or signature; its author remains unknown. Judging from the text, it appears that few, if any, besides the writer himself could possibly understand it. Why is this so?
If Comrades Liu Shaoqi and Zhou Enlai are still in Beijing, please forward this to them for review. Likewise, please present it to Comrade Peng Zhen.
Mao Zedong repeats himself.