Comments on a Letter〔1〕 (July 26, 1959) A letter has been received〔2〕, which is a representative document. The author has gathered materials pertaining solely to shortcomings in our economic work, showing little to no interest in achievements. He maintains that since the fourth quarter of 1958, mistakes and errors have dominated the Party’s activities, concluding that the Party has committed the errors of “left adventurism and opportunism.” He attributes the root cause to the failure in the 1957 Rectification Campaign against Rightists to simultaneously counter the danger of left adventurism. Comrade Li Yunzhong (a deputy director of the State Planning Commission, recently transferred to head the Comprehensive Division of the Secretariat of the Northeast Coordinating Region Committee) holds fundamentally erroneous views, virtually negating everything. He regards the mass campaign to smelt steel as having resulted in enormous losses with no benefit whatsoever; he likewise deems the people’s communes to be wrong. He expresses extreme pessimism about capital construction and focuses particularly on water conservancy projects, claiming that the Party’s “left adventurist and opportunist” errors originated in the large-scale development of water control works. He criticizes the massive mobilization of hundreds of millions of peasants under the Party’s leadership last winter and spring to undertake such projects. Essentially, he adopts a “cost outweighs benefit” stance, even going so far as to argue that certain efforts have brought more harm than good. These conclusive views are presented in paragraph (i), though they do not occupy much space. One positive aspect of this comrade is that he lays bare his own thinking. This contrasts sharply with other comrades we have observed—those who, while ostensibly engaged in the Party and the people’s major undertakings, are in fact largely dissatisfied, severely underestimating achievements and overestimating shortcomings. They are intimidated by current difficulties, demoralizing rather than encouraging cadres, lacking confidence in the future, and sometimes even losing hope altogether. Yet they refuse to openly express their thoughts or offer only partial, evasive remarks, adopting a hesitant, stammering attitude instead. Comrade Li Yunzhong differs from such individuals: he does not conceal his political views. On the contrary, he writes with great enthusiasm to central leaders, urging them to take steps to overcome present challenges. He believes that these difficulties can indeed be surmounted, albeit over a longer period— a view with which I concur. The bulk of the letter consists of the author’s critique of shortcomings in planning work, which I find quite pertinent. Over the past decade, I have yet to encounter anyone willing and able to candidly, analytically, and systematically expose the flaws in our planning system to the central leadership in order to secure their correction. I have never seen such a person. I am aware that individuals possessing this courage do exist; however, they dare not bring their complaints directly to higher authorities. Therefore, I propose that this letter be discussed at both central and local levels—namely, among party organizations at provincial, municipal, and autonomous region levels, especially within planning agencies—so that each unit may thoroughly examine its own work over the past year, weighing its strengths and weaknesses, benefits and costs, with a view toward achieving unified understanding, strengthening solidarity, improving performance, boosting morale, and pressing forward to achieve new great victories in economic work as well as in other fields such as politics, military affairs, education, health care, and the leadership of party organizations at all levels, including labor, youth, and women’s organizations. Since the First Zhengzhou Meeting in November of last year〔3〕 up to the present Lushan Conference〔4〕, the CPC Central Committee has conducted a serious self-criticism regarding errors and shortcomings in the various major tasks currently under its leadership, all while adequately acknowledging achievements (which constitute the primary factor, with errors being secondary). This

self-criticism has been ongoing for nine months. It must be recognized that such criticism is entirely necessary and has already begun to yield both immediate and gradual results. At the same time, it should also be understood that this earnest, rigorous self-criticism has inevitably produced certain side effects, namely a degree of demoralization among some comrades. Errors must be criticized, but demoralization must be prevented. Morale should be raised rather than lowered. Without morale, one cannot accomplish anything. We must adhere to what was stated in the Minutes of the Second Zhengzhou Meeting in March of this year〔〕: under the principle of wholeheartedly safeguarding the spirit of cadres, we ought to guide those who have made mistakes or exhibit shortcomings to critically examine and correct their own deficiencies. What is truly frightening is not the mistakes themselves, but the reluctance to criticize and rectify them, as well as the tendency to become discouraged upon receiving criticism. It is essential to balance error correction with encouragement. Although nine months have already passed since the commencement of this self-criticism, there remains unfinished business that must continue until completion; no loose ends should be left behind. Meanwhile, a new phenomenon has emerged both within and outside the Party: right-leaning sentiments, ideas, and activities are on the rise, exhibiting a strong offensive momentum. This is evident in the numerous documents distributed to participants at this conference. While this trend has not yet reached the level of rampant right-wing agitation seen in previous years, clear signs and tendencies are already appearing on the horizon. Such developments are of a bourgeois nature. Another situation involves ideological currents within the proletariat itself. Like us, these comrades advocate socialism and oppose capitalism—this represents our fundamental common ground. However, their views differ significantly from ours. Their emotional state appears somewhat abnormal: they tend to overestimate the Party’s errors while unduly downplaying the great achievements attained by hundreds of millions of people under the Party’s leadership, leading them to draw inappropriate conclusions. Consequently, they lack firm confidence in overcoming current difficulties. Unconsciously, they position themselves midway between the left and the right, making them typical centrists. They espouse a “balance of gains and losses” perspective and prove indecisive and vacillating at critical junctures. We are not concerned about the aggressive advance of the right wing; rather, it is the wavering of these comrades that worries us, as such vacillation undermines the unity of the Party and the people and hinders the entire Party from rallying together to muster resolve, surmount difficulties, and strive for victory. We believe that their attitudes can be changed. Our task is to unite them and persuade them to alter their stance. To this end, it is imperative to make an appropriate assessment of this internal party dynamic. We must neither overestimate their power to capsize the Party and the people’s ship amidst turbulent waves—such capability does not exist; they represent only a relative minority, whereas we constitute the vast majority—nor underestimate it. Together with the broad masses of workers, poor peasants, lower-middle peasants, and portions of the upper-middle peasantry and revolutionary intellectuals, we stand united. The Party’s general line, along with the principles, policies, and working methods that embody it, enjoy widespread support among Party members, cadres, and the general public. However, we should also recognize that their influence should not be dismissed lightly; after all, they comprise a considerable number of individuals. Until they undergo criticism, accept it, and reform their attitudes, they are unlikely to readily abandon their erroneous views. This point must be kept in mind. It is perfectly normal for the Party to encounter major debates involving divergent viewpoints, during which some temporarily waver and take a middle position, while others lean toward the right. Ultimately, erroneous views—even erroneous lines—will always be overcome, and the majority, including those who momentarily vacillate or even err in their orientation, will eventually unite on a new foundation. The Party’s thirty-eight-year history bears witness to just such a process. Opposing the right inevitably gives rise to the left, and countering the left invariably leads to the right—this is an inevitable law of dialectics. Now is precisely the time to articulate this truth. Failure to do so would be detrimental both to the unity of the Party and to individual comrades. The present debate may well prove to be of significant importance, much like the major controversies that arose during our revolutionary period. In this new historical era—the era of socialist construction—it is impossible to avoid contention and maintain perpetual calm. The Lushan Conference could very likely be remembered as a landmark meeting. Unity–Self-Criticism–Unity, learning from past mistakes to prevent future ones and curing the illness to save the patient—these are the proven, historically effective methods we have long employed to resolve intra-Party and intra-popular contradictions, and we must steadfastly uphold them. Much of what I have just said was already addressed at the plenary session on July 23, though not fully expounded. As a supplement to that speech, I have now written these additional remarks. Mao Zedong, July 26. Printed according to the manuscript. Notes 〔1〕 These are comments on a letter dated June 9, 1959, written by Li Yunzhong to Mao Zedong concerning certain issues in the current economic life. The title was proposed by Mao. 〔2〕 In his letter, Li Yunzhong states: “I wish to offer some opinions, for your reference, regarding recent problems in economic life in connection with certain ideological and stylistic issues. (i) I believe that over the past year we have been committing the error of left adventurism, primarily because we have neglected the dual-front struggle on the ideological front—that is, while combating right-conservative ideology, we have overlooked the encroachment of left adventurism. The most important lesson from our Party’s historical experience is that we must constantly wage a dual-front struggle on the ideological front: at times opposing the dangers posed by left adventurism to the revolution, and at other times resisting the encroachments of right opportunism upon the Party.” (When forwarding this letter, Mao appended the following note in parentheses after this sentence: “Mao’s comment: Alternately opposing this and that—clearly, not simultaneously.”) Nevertheless, over the past year we have somewhat disregarded


these historical lessons, resulting in the rapid emergence of left adventurism as a dominant trend. Specifically: First, undertaking water conservancy projects is undoubtedly beneficial and has yielded substantial results; however, during the peak of such construction, a prevailing atmosphere seemed to prevail suggesting that, regardless of conditions, we could accomplish anything in the short term and that no obstacles existed. Second, the policy of taking steel as the leading sector is correct, but since the fourth quarter of last year, in practice, everything has been subordinated to steel. Of particular note is the nationwide mass campaign to smelt iron using primitive methods, which proved to be a disastrous experience, consuming an enormous amount of national economic resources. Third, the people’s commune movement undoubtedly represents a viable direction—a form of transition from socialism to communism. The key, however, lies in advancing gradually in accordance with objective conditions. In contrast, last year’s communalization drive proceeded too hastily in terms of transforming production relations and property ownership, ultimately leading to the infamous “one-leveling, two-adjustments, three-withdrawals” policy. Fourth, last year the country saw the commencement of over 1,900 construction projects exceeding planned quotas—double the number for the first Five-Year Plan—with nearly every province tasked with establishing an industrial base within a few years. Due to the lack of corresponding material prerequisites, many of these projects have since been scaled back, leaving only a few hundred still under construction. Witnessing such waste and losses is deeply distressing. Fifth, owing to the widespread focus on steel production, the vigorous development of various industries, and extensive infrastructure building, the workforce swelled by 21 million people last year. In sum, excessive social labor has been expended on initiatives that fail to deliver meaningful results, and I regard this as the primary cause of the current economic strain. Our Party’s fine tradition dictates conducting thorough investigations and pilot demonstrations to gain experience before broadly implementing any initiative—this is the Marxist method of work. Yet many major campaigns undertaken last year deviated markedly from this approach. The Rectification Campaign and the Anti-Rightist Struggle of 1957 yielded tremendous results; however, at the same time, ideologies of left adventurism and opportunism gained ground, and subjective tendencies became increasingly pronounced. Might we consider, within the Party, summarizing relevant lessons learned through gentle persuasion and the practice of self-criticism? (ii) Combating subjective tendencies among cadres at all levels and educating all Party members to uphold Party principles and strengthen their Party spirit constitute a crucial issue on the current political-ideological front. The main reason why subjectivism has run rampant in certain areas is the failure to cultivate an atmosphere of principled conduct within the Party. Instead, in some instances, a climate of opportunistic pandering characteristic of the petty bourgeoisie has prevailed, providing fertile ground for the growth of left-adventurist thought. (iii) Concerning peasant issues and the relationship between workers and peasants. First, since the latter half of last year, the rapid expansion of production focused on steel and other means of production has led to a severe drain of agricultural labor, which will have a profound impact on this year’s agricultural output. Second, following the Sixth Cadre Conference, peasants’ sentiments have generally stabilized; however, unresolved issues remain regarding property ownership and distribution, and their enthusiasm has yet to be fully mobilized. Third, recently, prices of industrial goods have risen somewhat, while procurement prices for many agricultural products have remained unchanged, resulting in the inability to purchase a portion of these products. Fourth, the supply of production and daily necessities required by rural areas remains unreliable in many regions. Fifth, the system of agricultural planning requires urgent improvement. Traditionally, agricultural planning has been described as indirect planning, but in reality it is even more rigid than direct planning, leaving farmers with virtually no flexibility. (iv) Regarding planning work. First, planning should achieve comprehensive balance; however, in recent years, practical implementation has often amounted to addressing one issue at the expense of another, frequently resulting in numerical targets without concrete measures and plans lacking proper oversight. Second, the root cause of these problems cannot be attributed solely to a lack of experience, but rather to the pervasive prevalence of subjective tendencies in planning work. For years, we have lacked both comprehensive surveys of the national economic situation and systematic analyses and overall planning. Proposed schemes have rarely undergone bottom-up discussions involving all relevant parties, nor have they sufficiently incorporated the opinions of specific economic planners and factory/mine enterprises. Third, in large-scale campaigns, adherence to Party principles is often compromised, with different departments and regions operating at varying degrees of enthusiasm, differing only slightly in intensity. Another pressing challenge facing current planning work is the urgent need to formulate long-term plans; otherwise, many major problems will remain unsolved. (v) Concerning institutional reforms. Since last year, the central government has delegated certain functions related to industry, commerce, finance, and material supplies to local authorities, which has played a positive role in stimulating local initiative. This year, however, some of these powers have been reclaimed, revealing numerous problems. For instance, post-reform administrative procedures have failed to keep pace, leading to disconnections between production, supply, and sales and severely impacting both production and the market. (vi) Regarding the cultivation of a frugal and modest lifestyle. Extravagance and waste have recently resurged, manifested in the following ways: First, an excessive proliferation of luxurious high-end hotels and restaurants. Second, excessively high standards for conference catering. Third, the continued persistence of overly privileged lifestyles among leading cadres in certain areas, which have yet to be rectified. 〔3〕 Refers to the working conference convened by Mao Zedong in Zhengzhou from November 2 to 10, 1958, attended by selected central leaders, heads of major regional offices, and secretaries of several provincial and municipal party committees. 〔4〕 Refers to the expanded meeting of the CPC Central Political Bureau then being held at Mount Lu. 〔〕 Refers to the “Minutes of the Zhengzhou Conference,” issued during the expanded meeting of the CPC Central Political Bureau held in Zhengzhou from February 27 to March 5, 1959; see note 1 on page [page number] of this volume.