(December 31, 1964)
Distributed to all comrades of the Central Political Bureau and the Vice Premiers of
the State Council for their review. Metaphysics prevails in our Party, while dialectics
has been cast aside; even some high-ranking officials are not immune. It is now time
to reflect on this issue.
Mao Zedong
December 31, 1964
[I]


industrial revolution was, first and foremost, a revolution in thinking and methodology,
with Mao Zedong Thought serving as its guiding principle. Without a revolution in
thought and methods, there could be no technological revolution. Chen Boda added that
China must not simply keep chasing after the levels reached by other countries in the
1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Yu Qiuli concurred, stressing that following others in this
manner was unproductive; instead, China should forge its own path based on the
Chairman’s thought.

--- Notes



This note was written on a letter from Chen Boda, alternate member of the CPC Central
Political Bureau, Director of the Central Research Office, and Mao Zedong’s secretary,
who on December 30, 1964, had submitted to Mao a transcript of his conversation with Yu
Qiuli, Minister of the Petroleum Industry, held on December 11. The main topic of
Chen Boda’s discussion with Yu Qiuli was China’s industrial revolution. Chen Boda
stated that foreign newspapers and journals claimed that electronic technology was
bringing about a second industrial revolution, and that it might be China that would
accomplish this second revolution. He emphasized the need to adopt a series of new
technologies. Furthermore, he suggested reforming the industrial management apparatus
by establishing a number of design committees, which would engage in political planning
and provide political leadership rather than technical or process-oriented design. Yu
Qiuli pointed out that, in practice, it was the Party group of the ministry that was
undertaking such planning, guided by the Chairman’s thought and in accordance with the
General Line. The direction of work, strategic deployment, and technological policies,
he argued, should be determined through collective discussion. In his view, an