Everyone agrees with the Party’s General Line. The defining political event of last year was its adoption; however, it has yet to yield the desired results, and this is a matter of working methods.

To implement the General Line, we must employ sound working methods. Without them, our General Line cannot be fully carried out. Having the General Line alone is not enough; we also need effective working methods in order to realize the principle of achieving more, faster, better, and more economically, while pursuing multiple objectives simultaneously. By “methods,” we mean both modes of thinking and practical approaches. These two are inseparable: if our mode of thinking is flawed, our working methods will likewise be inadequate. At present, the central issue is precisely that of working methods.

First, we must “plan extensively and decide wisely.” The emphasis here lies on “planning.” The purpose of planning is to enable decisive action. Cao Cao had a strategist named Guo Jia, who criticized Yuan Shao for being overly deliberative yet indecisive—having plans but no resolve, lacking firmness. As a result, Yuan Shao suffered defeat at the Battle of Guandu. Therefore, thorough planning must be coupled with sound judgment. We need to consult widely; half-measures will not suffice. We should seek input from all sides, examine various materials and proposals, cultivate the ability to judge accurately, and dare to make firm decisions. Regrettably, some comrades today tend to act precipitously without sufficient deliberation. They refuse to engage in meaningful dialogue with others—this is sheer arbitrariness. Some are reluctant to listen to dissenting views, preferring only opinions that align with their own. They confer at length with those who share their views but scarcely with those who hold different ones; they consult extensively with cadres while neglecting input from production workers. Rather than weighing alternative perspectives and scrutinizing supporting evidence, they simply impose their own stance. It is by no means true that only agreement constitutes correctness; divergent views may well be valid. For instance, certain comrades formulate economic plans without engaging in broad consultation. Why not discuss matters with secretaries or factory directors? One can and should consult not only one’s immediate colleagues but also workers, farmers, and fellow party members who have expressed differing viewpoints. Since they have already voiced their opposition, it is worthwhile to deliberate with them and assess the merits of their arguments. Some comrades exhibit extreme subjectivism and dogmatism, convinced that their own views are invariably correct. Such an approach proves unworkable in practice and may even give rise to superficial achievements. Only by heeding diverse opinions—especially critical and dissenting voices—and systematically synthesizing and analyzing them can we achieve informed decision-making and develop sound plans. Thorough deliberation is the foundation; only on this basis can we arrive at wise and timely decisions. There are many ways to foster extensive consultation, such as holding fact-finding meetings and symposiums.

Second, we must leave room for maneuver. As the saying goes, one should always keep a backup plan. Every task requires a margin of flexibility. When drawing up work schedules, we must build in contingencies to encourage initiative at lower levels. To deny such leeway to subordinates is, in effect, to deny it to ourselves. Allowing for some flexibility benefits both superiors and subordinates. Take the household responsibility system in rural areas: setting a fixed yield target of 2,000 jin leaves no room for adaptation, neither above nor below. The same principle applies to military strategy. In past campaigns, we would concentrate our main forces to strike the enemy while maintaining a reserve to be deployed as needed. Today, however, this lesson seems to have been forgotten in peacetime production. Both long-term and short-term plans should incorporate such margins. Actual performance should be allowed to exceed targets, giving the masses a buffer beyond the official figures. As one brigade leader put it, “It is better to prepare for the worst than to hope for the best.” Historically, this approach served as a safeguard against demoralization. Permitting overfulfillment often boosts morale, whereas rigidly set targets that cannot be met breed pessimism and disillusionment. Many of our current production and economic plans are drawn up with no slack whatsoever, making them prone to falsification. I question whether some comrades truly understand industrial operations. Leaving room for maneuver is both a political imperative and a crucial working method. During my first visit to the Soviet Union, I discussed with Stalin the lessons learned from the First Five-Year Plan. My Soviet counterparts emphasized two key takeaways. First, they maintained a 20 percent cushion in their projections, deliberately reporting figures 20 percent lower than actual output. At the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Seven-Year Plan projected steel production of over 90 million tons, yet actual output surpassed this mark. Similarly, in agriculture and other sectors, built-in flexibility enabled real-world results to exceed expectations, fostering greater satisfaction among the people. By contrast, leaving no margin for error risks failure to meet targets and sows disappointment. The second lesson was the importance of prioritizing. Policies are effective only when focused; without clear priorities, there can be no coherent policy direction. We must proceed according to established priorities. Each period has its own focal points. This holds true not only for military campaigns but also for artistic endeavors, literary composition, and poetry—every endeavor should have a central theme and allow for some leeway. In the performing arts, too, audiences benefit from a degree of uncertainty; a play that concludes abruptly without leaving any lingering questions rarely achieves lasting impact. Unfortunately, some contemporary productions rely on formulaic scripts: a mass rally, a struggle session, a few slogans, and that’s the end. Such works offer no space for reflection and thus fail to resonate. Therefore, writing, poetry, and theatrical performances should all leave room for interpretation, avoiding the temptation to cram everything into a single, tightly structured whole and instead inviting audiences to ponder and reflect.

Third, we must advance in a wave-like pattern. The term “saddle-shaped” once used to describe this approach was never meant as criticism; rather, it was intended to counteract adventurism. At the time, some openly opposed the “leap forward” movement and the “more, faster, better, cheaper” line. The contraction of capital construction projects in 1957 was justified, given the limited resources available then. This year’s plans have likewise been slightly scaled back. While the growth rate remains positive—up by ×× percent—we are confident of meeting the steel production target of ×× million tons and completing the coal quota. Achieving the agricultural targets for grain and cotton, however, will require considerable effort, and next year’s figures may be adjusted downward again. A new great leap forward is anticipated in 1961. In socialist construction, we must embrace this wave-like mode of progress. As the saying goes, “Years increase with heaven, lives lengthen with man; spring fills the universe, blessings overflow the door.” We cannot sustain constant peaks of activity. I do not object to a wave-like trajectory; what I oppose is reckless adventurism. Nevertheless, publicly denouncing the “leap forward” movement was misguided—it amounted to pouring cold water on popular enthusiasm and undermining morale. Saddle-shaped fluctuations will continue to occur; the key is to avoid opposing them outright. Over the course of ninety-nine years, from 1860 to 1958, the United States experienced only seven major surges in production, interspersed with periods of stagnation—a wave-like pattern rather than annual booms. Our economic development should likewise fluctuate according to actual conditions. For example, while steel output could potentially reach 160 million tons, attempting to double it overnight would be unrealistic. Doubling capacity is feasible when starting from a low base, but becomes increasingly difficult—and unnecessary—as the scale grows. This exemplifies the wave-like principle. Wave-like progression is itself a working method. Motion invariably generates waves: sound waves and electromagnetic waves exist in nature. Any dynamic process follows a wave-like rhythm. This is a fundamental law of development, an objective reality independent of human will. In our work and planning, we must take this into account. Wave-like advancement is an objective rule; it does not imply continuous doubling.

Fourth, we must proceed from facts and adapt to changing circumstances. While I disagree with publicly opposing the “leap forward” movement, I do believe that plans must be revised in light of evolving realities. When the situation changes, so too must our thinking, and consequently our plans. Plans are not immutable. Since the Wuchang Conference, numerous adjustments have been made. Failure to adapt to new conditions renders our work reactive. Following the first quarter’s experience, it became clear that changes were necessary; otherwise, difficulties and confusion would ensue, jeopardizing the completion of tasks. We must respond to shifting circumstances, tailor our actions accordingly, and let factual considerations guide our decisions. Our minds should remain flexible. When formulating plans, we should base them on concrete data and realistic assessments of available resources and personnel, rather than proceeding on the basis of subjective assumptions.

Fifth, we must be adept at observing the overall situation. Our thinking should not become rigid; we need to closely monitor developments and stay attuned to the flow of events. I advocate cultivating a keen sense of political and economic trends. By “political situation,” I refer to an examination of the ideological orientations and shifting positions of various social classes. Secretaries and all committee members should engage in such observation. Committee members must not only fulfill their assigned responsibilities but also contribute to collective decision-making. At the Beidaihe Conference, initial targets were set quite ambitiously. Later, during my inspection tours of Hebei and Shandong provinces, I concluded that these goals were unrealistic. Subsequently, the Sixth Plenary Session reduced the steel production target to ×× million tons, and further adjustments were made at the Shanghai Meeting. These steps were implemented gradually.

Sixth, we must act decisively when the moment is right. Sound situational awareness is essential for making prompt and well-founded decisions. By grasping the nuances of changing circumstances, we can revise our plans accordingly. Some comrades lack a thorough understanding of both higher-level directives and local realities; others may make decisions, but their judgments are ill-considered. Hesitation and indecision are unacceptable. When faced with a critical juncture, we must summon the resolve to act without delay. The commune issue provides a clear illustration. Last year, the appropriate level of administrative oversight remained unclear. After further deliberation, the matter was formally raised on January 27. Here, I am grateful for the internal reference materials, which proved invaluable in shedding light on rural conditions. Subsequently, after reviewing a report by Comrade ××× and conducting field investigations in Tianjin and Shandong—specifically at the Lü Hongbin Commune—I uncovered several key issues: a pole, a balance scale, a disputed hat, a key, a public notice, and a staircase. It was only then that the ownership structure of the production team became apparent. This meeting ultimately resolved the issue decisively. Some comrades harbor deep-seated fears: three parts apprehension toward superiors and seven toward subordinates. They are acutely aware of their superiors’ penchant for the “criticism-unification-criticism” approach—emphasizing unity, benevolence, and reform—but dread confronting the masses. Simply calling a meeting of five or six echelons of cadres, attended by tens of thousands of villagers, fills them with trepidation. Such confrontations prove unbearable. Going forward, we should adopt a strategy of encircling and pressuring middle-level officials through coordinated efforts from above and below. Much of what we hear from county and prefectural committees is mere lip service, devoid of substantive insight into actual conditions. The same applies to industrial settings: intermediate-level cadres often speak in guarded terms, and only through close collaboration between different levels can we arrive at accurate conclusions. Meetings comprising primarily grassroots cadres are far more productive. By skillfully analyzing the situation, seizing the opportune moment, and acting decisively, we can formulate sound policies. This principle also applies to addressing unhealthy tendencies within the Party.

Seventh, we must maintain open communication across all levels and channels—upward, downward, leftward, rightward, among peers, and between central and local authorities. Party committee members should regularly consult with one another and with the secretary. Historically, our channels of communication have been insufficient; we now remedy this by adopting a written correspondence mechanism. Sending a letter once a month serves as a means of exchange. Effective communication is vital: how else can we grasp the true state of affairs or provide proper guidance? Work and meetings should not be conducted in isolation; meaningful discussions require prior preparation and deliberation. Unfortunately, some gatherings commence without even a clearly defined agenda. Having addressed this issue hundreds of times, I reiterate that closed-door sessions are counterproductive. They prevent us from gaining a comprehensive understanding of problems and hinder efforts to identify underlying causes. Decisions should be reached only after thorough deliberation.

Eighth, we must break the information blockade. Ordinarily, localities refrain from reporting to the central leadership, reserving detailed briefings for formal meetings. Instead of providing regular updates, they wait until the big moment arrives, unleashing a torrent of information all at once. This withholding of information—whether through omission, failure to submit reports, or reluctance to seek guidance—is tantamount to concealing the truth. Yet, at meetings, they suddenly present copious materials and demand swift decisions. To dismantle this barrier, we must cease isolating the central leadership and strongly rebuke those who perpetuate it. Such accountability may disrupt their sleep for a few nights, but it will ultimately lead to improvement. While Dulles imposed a blockade against us, similar patterns of information control also exist within the Party. We must not isolate the Politburo or treat central committee members and the chairman as minor figures. Provincial party secretaries should likewise be encouraged to report candidly, presenting multiple perspectives on each issue and clearly articulating the local context, dissenting views, and core concerns. The goal is to ensure a transparent flow of information, free from obstructions.

Ninth, sometimes a single individual embodies the truth, outweighing the collective. More often, the majority prevails over the minority; yet there are occasions when the opposite holds true. In other words, truth does not always reside with the many; it may rest with a small group or even a single person. We should not assume that a position endorsed by the vast majority is necessarily correct or represents the truth. Quite the contrary: the truth frequently lies with a select few. Consider Marxism, which was fundamentally shaped by Karl Marx alone. Reflecting on the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, we recall a meeting where nearly everyone raised their hand in support—except Lenin. Lenin’s abstention was itself a manifestation of truth, while the others were mistaken. Lenin emphasized the need to embrace a spirit of resistance against prevailing currents. All levels of Party committees should carefully consider diverse viewpoints, listening attentively not only to the majority but also to minority and individual perspectives. Within the Party, we should foster an atmosphere in which frank discourse and constructive criticism are encouraged. While acknowledging shortcomings can be painful, the subsequent process of rectification brings genuine improvement. Unfortunately, many comrades remain reluctant to express their true thoughts, clinging instead to a middle-of-the-road approach. Their hesitancy stems from six primary fears: warnings, demotion, loss of face, expulsion from the Party, execution, and divorce. Execution, as exemplified by Yue Fei, is a fate that paradoxically conferred him enduring fame. However, under our Party constitution, members are protected from reprisal for voicing dissenting opinions. In the past, the imperial court employed corporal punishment, resulting in countless deaths; indeed, the original text suggests that many perished under such penalties. Some comrades fear adverse consequences to such an extent that we must champion a bold, outspoken communist style. Wang Xifeng, for instance, was willing to risk everything—even her life—to challenge the emperor. Of course, such courage entails personal sacrifice. Nevertheless, raising incorrect viewpoints can serve as an opportunity for education and self-improvement. Leading cadres should give careful consideration to the rare opinions of a small minority, thoroughly analyzing their merits without immediately dismissing them, and discerning whether they contain kernels of truth.

Tenth, we must view issues historically. Changes to our plans have unfolded over a series of historical stages: the Beidaihe Conference, the First Zhengzhou Meeting, the Wuchang Conference, and the Shanghai Meeting. Did these successive deliberations not lead to revisions of the original plans? The Shanghai Meeting was particularly prudent and grounded in reality, offering a reasonable prospect of overachievement. With concerted effort, we might even surpass the targets for grain and cotton. Incorporating coarse grains and sweet potatoes into the grain calculation could facilitate fulfillment. That said, the four major targets announced remain unchanged. Some of last year’s “satellites” did yield tangible benefits, while others crashed shortly after launch. Why did we not correct these inaccuracies at the time? Doing so would likely have dampened popular enthusiasm. Nonetheless, last year’s Great Leap Forward was undeniably real. Annual increases of ten percent constitute a leap forward; twenty percent signify a major leap; thirty percent represent an extraordinary leap. Human understanding of complex phenomena evolves incrementally. It was not until late January of this year that we fully comprehended the ownership structure of the people’s communes. The Wuchang Conference had not yet broached this issue, nor had the Second Zhengzhou Meeting.

Eleventh, any document that cannot be understood should be barred from circulation. Certain documents issued by industrial departments are incomprehensible to outsiders, and even their authors may struggle to explain them. Writing articles or reports should not rely solely on arithmetic or metaphysical reasoning; they must be grounded in concrete facts and supported by thorough analysis. I doubt whether some comrades engaged in economic work truly grasp the principles of economics, or whether certain economists genuinely possess such expertise. If they did, this understanding would surely manifest in their ideological stance. As long as they themselves lack clarity, the documents they produce will remain opaque to others. Why are some writings so obscure? Because they fail to delve deeply into the subject matter, lack a firm grasp of the relevant materials, and fail to address every aspect of the issue with precision. Take, for example, Xinhua News Agency’s communiqué on the Tibetan uprising, which provides a detailed background. (Note: This communiqué was drafted under the direct supervision of the Chairman.) Articles are meant to inform and enlighten; every question must be thoroughly explained. If this cannot be achieved, forcing the content only serves to undermine its persuasiveness. The root cause of such inadequacy lies in a superficial understanding of the subject matter. Many such pieces lack credibility because they betray a fundamental ignorance of the industry itself, a failure to appreciate the needs and psychology of the target audience. Han Yu, a renowned writer of the Tang dynasty, gained worldwide acclaim for his prose. A native of Xiǔwǔ County in Henan Province, he advocated drawing inspiration from the substance rather than the style of previous masters. He urged against slavish adherence to tradition, urging the development of a distinctive voice. In contrast, Pan Zongci’s parallel prose, though elegant, is notoriously difficult to read and deliberately eschews accessibility. In this regard, we can learn much from American news reporting. U.S. news agencies consistently annotate each mention of a member of Congress with details about their state affiliation. This practice has persisted for decades, repeated countless times, precisely to ensure that readers outside the United States can follow along. By contrast, our own news reports often omit such clarifications, assuming that domestic audiences are familiar with the context while disregarding international readers. Moreover, some writers eschew colloquial language altogether. Lu Xun, however, embraced vernacular expression; in “The True Story of Ah Q,” Ah Q declares, “A son beats his father”—a phrase that resonates immediately with ordinary listeners. I have spoken on this topic over ten thousand times, and from today onward, we shall adhere to this standard. Our writings are intended for the entire nation, including our thirteen million Party members, and must be readily comprehensible. Those that fail to meet this criterion will be returned for revision. Several materials submitted by industrial departments have already been rejected on this basis.

Twelfth, power must be centralized. Authority rests with the Standing Committee and the Secretariat. Henceforth, routine matters may be approved by the Politburo or the Standing Committee, while major national issues must be deliberated and decided by the Central Committee. All economic plans proposed by various departments must first undergo review by the Central Committee, which will determine the guiding principles before final approval. We must resist the temptation to create a fait accompli and then seek ratification afterward.

Once power is in hand, orders must be executed. With authority comes responsibility. We must obey leadership.

Thirteenth, we must liberate our thinking. Let go of superstitions and inhibitions; cultivate confidence and integrity. Some comrades operate in an unhealthy ideological environment, perpetually anxious about external threats and internal pressures, their minds shackled by fear. Cadres must summon the courage to uphold the truth, refusing to be less resolute than figures from feudal times. Do not fear repercussions or electoral losses. Even if it means facing execution, you must stand firm for the nation, for the truth, and for your own correct convictions.

Fourteenth, regarding criticism: We are all good comrades, and our critiques of one another are aimed at improving our work and refining our methods. I encourage all comrades to boldly express diverse viewpoints. If you have flaws, I will not criticize you; if I have flaws, you will not criticize me. Such mutual forbearance fosters a liberal atmosphere, which is undesirable. Some comrades habitually report only good news, failing to convey the full picture. When someone is actually facing difficulties, presenting the situation as trouble-free or suggesting that differences of opinion are unwarranted only exacerbates the problem. Furthermore, we neither retaliate nor punish. Why, then, are we hesitant to offer candid criticism or raise objections? Failing to speak out against errors or engage in constructive debate reflects a shallow mindset. After all, we have no unresolved grievances with our predecessors, nor do we harbor animosity toward future generations. It is precisely through open dialogue that we come to know one another.

It is inconceivable that anyone should live without attracting even a single adversary.

Criticism and self-criticism are powerful tools through which the Party educates the people.

Fifteenth, we must practice collective leadership. Now that the Central Committee has established a core leadership structure, local organizations should strive to emulate this model.

Sixteenth, we need to strengthen our ties with various departments, particularly those involved in industry. Closer coordination is required with the Three Committees—the Planning Commission, the Economic Commission, and the Construction Commission—and the Two Ministries—the Ministry of Metallurgy and the Ministry of Machinery.

--- Notes

(Note: In April 1959, at the Seventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee, the Chairman outlined nine working methods. Subsequently, in another speech, this number was expanded to sixteen. The foregoing is compiled based on a printed transcript of the original nine principles and two handwritten copies of the sixteen-point version.)