The meeting went very well. The main focus was on methodological issues: first, materialism; second, dialectics. Yet many of our comrades do not treat these principles with sufficient respect. The anti-“leftist” overambition campaign is not a matter of assigning blame, so let us drop it. I myself am no longer interested in discussing it. We should avoid endless self-criticism; however, if we discuss it as an example of methodology, that is acceptable.

Materialism is both a worldview and a methodological approach. Our subjective world can only be a reflection of the objective world. Accurately reflecting reality is no easy task: it requires vast amounts of empirical evidence, repeatedly verified through practice, before one can form sound judgments. It is tempting to grasp at one or two ideas at first glance, but without a solid foundation of facts, such views are unstable. Only by accumulating copious evidence can we truly understand problems. When drafting reports, we must reflect the opinions of cadres and the masses below; this necessitates thorough investigation and research. Provinces should represent the conditions prevailing at the prefectural and county levels. To rush out a report without carefully listening to their input would be highly dangerous. One must first learn before one can teach. We need to humbly listen to the people—especially those at lower levels—engaging in individual conversations within small groups (at the county, commune, or factory level). In addressing major issues, the provincial party committees should proceed in this manner, and going forward, whenever the central leadership encounters significant challenges, it should hold consultations with several provincial party secretaries. The mistake made during the anti-“leftist” overambition campaign lay precisely in failing to seek the views of provincial party secretaries as well as various ministries. This approach was fundamentally flawed. At the central level, industrial departments tended to advocate for more aggressive targets, while financial and trade agencies favored a more cautious stance. Such divergences not only alienated the provinces but also most of the other ministries.

The anti-“leftist” overambition campaign itself was an objective reflection—a reflection of general versus particular, of the whole versus the part. It involved mistaking the particular and the specific for the universal and comprehensive, relying solely on the opinions of a narrow circle while ignoring the broader sentiments of the masses. Treating the special as if it were the general led to an ill-conceived push against “leftist” exaggeration.

The directive on eradicating the Four Pests was initially drafted by the Ministry of Health. It was utterly unusable. This serves as an example from last year: the document had no connection whatsoever to the actual situation over the past few months. Hence, it could be said that the Ministry of Health was the least sanitary of all. Later, Comrade ×× convened a roundtable discussion with several colleagues, and after repeated deliberations, they produced a much better directive. Otherwise, nothing meaningful could have been achieved. If a policy directive fails to take effect, it is best not to issue it at all. The same applies to written articles: if they are poorly crafted, no one will even bother to read them. How then can we possibly guide practical work? Therefore, moving forward, we must diligently study materialist dialectics and promote respect for these principles.

Those who genuinely respect materialism and dialectics encourage open debate and the consideration of opposing viewpoints. By bringing issues into the open and exposing contradictions, we can arrive at more balanced conclusions. At the January 1957 conference of provincial and municipal party secretaries, Comrade Huang Jing raised concerns about economic matters. At the time, my attention was primarily focused on ideological questions, and I did not give sufficient weight to his points. As a result, some of the substantive debates that ought to have taken place at that meeting never fully unfolded.

Dialectics involves examining the interplay between the mainstream and the marginal, between essence and phenomenon. Contradictions may be primary or secondary. The error of the anti-“leftist” overambition campaign stemmed from failing to identify the core issues and essential characteristics. Instead, secondary contradictions were treated as primary, marginal trends were mistaken for the mainstream, and the underlying essence remained obscured. Meetings of the State Council and the Political Bureau often addressed specific problems without getting to the root causes. This recent meeting, however, provided an opportunity to raise and resolve many longstanding issues.

When the Party Leadership Group of the Ministry of Metallurgical Industry convened a meeting, inviting roughly a dozen representatives from several major enterprises, the atmosphere was markedly different. Over several days, they discussed and resolved numerous critical issues. The same principle applies at the provincial level: when the central leadership holds meetings with local participants, it is advisable, where appropriate, to include not only the provincial party secretaries but also several prefectural and county party secretaries, thereby introducing new perspectives. Central-level officials spend about four months each year working at the grassroots level. They should engage directly with prefectural and county party secretaries, cooperative leaders, and school administrators—not merely confine themselves to discussions with provincial leaders. I am keen to gain a comprehensive understanding of the work in a city or a county, thoroughly exploring its various aspects. Two or three weeks would suffice. All provinces should adopt similar practices. The purpose of emphasizing this point is to dispel bureaucratic arrogance—the tendency among some officials to act as autocratic masters, reluctant to seek advice from others. This self-righteous attitude exists at every level. Wasn’t the style exhibited in Hong’an County in 1956 precisely that kind of domineering, paternalistic behavior? How could such an approach possibly guide agricultural production? Generally speaking, higher-ranking officials tend to become increasingly detached from the masses, though this is not universally true. Some leaders, like Lenin, remained remarkably down-to-earth. Conversely, many township heads, factory directors, and party secretaries exhibit considerable bureaucratic distance.

The more we consult and deliberate, the more confident we can be in the solutions we devise. That said, confidence does not equate to certainty, since these solutions have yet to be put to the test. Even I remain somewhat skeptical about certain initiatives. For instance, the General Line for Building Socialism—with its call to “mobilize all forces, strive for progress, and build socialism faster, better, and more economically”—will only be judged over the course of several years. Revolutionary lines, whether in the democratic revolution or the socialist revolution, have already stood the test of time, whereas lines pertaining to construction still require further verification.

The resolution of ownership relations has indeed established a new type of social relationship. However, relationships concerning mutual cooperation and distribution have only been partially addressed. Despite any lingering bureaucratic tendencies within our Party, government, factories, and schools, there remain fundamental differences from the Nationalist regime. Consequently, these social relations cannot remain entirely unchanged. Were it not for the rectification campaigns, the Nationalists’ authoritarian作风and bureaucratic inertia would persist in large measure—precisely the very traits we seek to eradicate. As Comrade Mao Zedong famously remarked, “The Eighth Route Army has disappeared,” referring to the dilution of revolutionary spirit following cadre promotions. But through rectification, “the Eighth Route Army has returned.”

Our campaign of “letting a hundred flowers bloom” saw the addition of the character “great” to the term “rightists” (and even to the “centrists”). Thus, “Great Unleashing” shifted from the realms of art and science into politics. We quickly adapted. An editorial in the Liberation Daily proclaimed, “Release without restraint for ten thousand years,” advocating for the unfettered development of democracy—an exceedingly bold stance—provided that we address the essential, overarching issues. For example, a slogan like “Catch up with Britain in fifteen years” could prove highly effective. Once the fundamental problems are solved, secondary ones will naturally fall into place. Focusing solely on peripheral details, however, will lead to stagnation. Approaching problems from a partial, fragmented perspective is fraught with danger.

Many of our comrades pay insufficient attention to theoretical study. But whence do ideas, viewpoints, and theories originate? They are reflections of the objective world—specifically, the inherent laws governing it. Human beings merely attempt to capture these laws in a way that aligns with observable reality. Yet any such law represents only one facet of a broader truth, an abstraction derived from countless individual instances. What meaning could such a law hold apart from concrete, real-world phenomena? Is Laozi’s philosophy materialist, or is it objective idealism? I harbor serious doubts. Laws exist in the context of each specific person, each specific community… recurring again and again. Only those patterns that manifest universally can be considered universal laws. Take, for example, the tactic of luring the enemy deeper: in tactical engagements, we might outnumber the adversary, but strategically, we could triumph despite being outnumbered. Strategically, they encircle us; tactically, we encircle them. These principles were distilled through years of warfare—victories and defeats—forming a coherent system that could only be fully developed later, rather than being conceived in advance or during the early stages. Even back then, people questioned whether such a set of tactical rules could truly exist. Indeed, one would search in vain for comparable doctrines in Soviet military history. Nevertheless, these tactics emerged organically from the mass struggle. Khrushchev’s unilateral reliance on nuclear weapons, meanwhile, was a perilous misstep.

Several events in 1956—the international condemnation of Stalin, the Polish and Hungarian upheavals, and the domestic anti-“leftist” overambition campaign—occurred with little preparatory material available. Going forward, we must remain prepared for unforeseen developments. I believe we should scale back overly ambitious targets, making them realistic and achievable under normal circumstances. Both high water and severe drought should be factored in. Setting targets should be based on realistic assessments. Implementation is one thing; public pronouncements another. Excessively lofty goals should not be announced publicly, and even if they have been, we should refrain from immediate revisions. Henan province aims to accomplish four major tasks this year, which may well be feasible. Even if so, official statements should remain cautiously worded, leaving room for contingencies and allowing subordinates some leeway—essentially, safeguarding our own flexibility. In the past, we have seen cases where no margin for error was left—for instance, the 1947 land reform program, which initially proclaimed the slogan “open the granaries to relieve the poor,” only to rescind it shortly thereafter. Issuing too many promissory notes proved disastrous, as they could not be honored, ultimately harming our interests.

This year has witnessed an extraordinary surge of popular enthusiasm. In Shanghai, many previously backward elements have awakened, and communist spirit has soared. Similarly, the spirit of cooperation evident in Taiyuan embodies the very essence of communism. The rise of those who were once lagging behind is a hallmark of revolution—a defining feature of the proletarian revolution. Today, not only the advanced elements are mobilizing, but also broad segments of the middle and backward strata. Wealthy middle peasants in rural areas are now reluctant to leave collectives, while urban white-collar workers and previously apathetic laborers are actively joining the movement. I am concerned, however, that amid this fervor, some comrades might become carried away and propose unrealistic slogans. While a single county or prefecture might withstand such excesses, the central and provincial levels must exercise greater prudence. My aim is not to extinguish this momentum, but rather to temper it—to clear our minds, remain calm, and implement concrete measures. Last year was a year of revolution, rich in experience and profound lessons that deepened our understanding of what socialism entails. Continuing to examine the issues of socialist construction this year will likewise prove highly beneficial. Ownership relations are, in principle, largely resolved, though not entirely. To tackle essential, core problems, we must first be able to perceive them, to grasp their significance, and to analyze them methodically. Over the years, many comrades have struggled to identify and address these fundamental issues, building their confidence on shaky foundations. Others may recognize the problem but lack the courage to act decisively.

Looking ahead, what unforeseen events might arise, both domestically and internationally? A global war, for example, or the actions of a deranged leader. What other crises might unfold in the Soviet Union? … Even if a nuclear strike were to devastate everything, we would still have the capacity to rebuild—and perhaps build something even better. How many potential hazards lie in wait, both globally and nationally? Provincial and ministerial party committees should convene regular discussions to compile a list of such risks. Being unprepared ideologically is unacceptable. Of course, incidents akin to those in Hungary and Poland are unlikely to occur in China, though localized disturbances could still arise. Didn’t Gansu recently experience unrest? Tibet remains highly susceptible to turmoil, as certain upper-class figures maintain close ties with India, Britain, and the United States, effectively turning a blind eye to our concerns. Internal strife among the Han population is improbable (such as a rebellion led by Zhang Qingrong), though targeted assassinations of leaders are certainly possible (as exemplified by the fates of Lenin, Kirov, and Gorky). Nonetheless, we must never lose touch with the masses.

At its previous meeting, the Party Leadership Group of the Ministry of Metallurgy devoted itself almost exclusively to abstract, theoretical discussions, shunning practical matters. This approach deserves encouragement: setting aside dedicated time to engage in thoughtful, principled dialogue—without reservation—can be just as valuable as focusing on concrete action. Next time, we should invite representatives from multiple ministries and ensure that each prepares a well-reasoned report beforehand. Such documents must be grounded in materialist dialectics, clearly identifying and articulating the essential issues at hand.