Opposition to Compromisism [1]
(December 2, 1965)
I believe this represents a new stage in the deepening struggle between emphasizing politics and opposing it. There are still those who openly oppose emphasizing politics, resisting the principle of “the Four Priorities,” and rejecting efforts to strengthen political and ideological work. For example, a credit cooperative director in Zhejiang Province once said:
“Politics is just theory; theory is merely talk; and talking is nothing but boasting.” However, such individuals are becoming fewer. Those who openly advocate “business first” or “figures first” have significantly decreased—they have become more shrewd—but they remain unwilling to emphasize politics or abandon their purely business-oriented stance. This “bacon bone” cannot be considered an emphasis on politics. Faced with mounting pressure from the situation, they have adopted a compromise approach.
In terms of politics and business, there are three possible arrangements. The first places politics first and business second, with politics leading and guiding business. The second puts business first and politics second, making politics subordinate to business. The third claims that both politics and business are equally important—what is known as “two priorities.” Of these three approaches, the first is correct, while the second is clearly wrong. But what about the third? It goes without saying that it is also incorrect. Nevertheless, some people find it difficult to distinguish between them. Why do certain individuals remain confused about the erroneous notion of “both politics and business being primary”? The reason lies in their insufficient understanding of the true nature of compromisism.
[I]
This is part of a conversation Mao Zedong had with comrades from the Zhejiang Provincial Party Committee.
[2]
Bacon bones: In provinces such as Sichuan, Hunan, Hubei, and Jiangxi, there is a custom of curing pork during the twelfth lunar month to make preserved bacon. After the meat is consumed, only the bones remain. These bones are metaphorically referred to as something “worthless to eat yet too good to throw away,” akin to “chicken ribs”—neither useful nor desirable.

Now let me explain the characteristics of compromisism.
Compromisism has five key features.
The first characteristic is its substitution, pretense, or outright replacement of Marxism’s dialectical method of looking at two aspects of any issue with a simplistic dualism. According to the Marxist dialectic, when we understand things and analyze contradictions, we must consider both sides. For instance, in a review, we should acknowledge achievements while also recognizing shortcomings; we should draw lessons from successes as well as failures. However, Marxists do not treat these two aspects as equally important or interchangeable. Instead, they rigorously distinguish between the principal and secondary aspects, between the main and the minor, between the mainstream and the non-mainstream currents. Comrade Lin Biao’s analysis of the contradiction between man and matter in the realm of political and ideological work illustrates this point: both are important, but ideas are more crucial—the living spirit comes first. This is the principle of prioritizing the principal aspect. There exists a relationship of leadership and subordination, of primary and secondary importance. Similarly, when addressing ideological problems versus practical problems, both are significant, yet resolving the ideological issues takes precedence.
Marxism upholds the principle of prioritizing the principal aspect because it is precisely the dominant factor that determines the essence of any phenomenon. If one confuses the principal and secondary aspects of a contradiction, one loses sight of the true nature of the thing, becomes unable to discern right from wrong, and thus fails to carry out effective work. Compromisists substitute, masquerade as, or outright supplant the Marxist dialectic with a simplistic dualism, thereby stealthily stripping away the very essence of the dialectical method—the recognition of primary and secondary elements. They place the two sides of a contradiction on an equal footing, treating them as equivalent, without distinguishing between the primary and the secondary, the mainstream and the non-mainstream. As a result, they obscure the truth, blur the essential nature of things, and leave people unable to tell right from wrong, ultimately leading them astray.
Marxism holds that in the relationships between politics and the military, politics and the economy, politics and business, and politics and technology, politics always occupies the primary position. Politics serves as the commander, the head, the leader that guides the military, the economy, business, and technology. In the contradiction between politics and business, the principal contradiction lies in politics. To remove politics from this equation is tantamount to removing the soul.

Opposition to Compromisism
Without a soul, one loses one’s direction and repeatedly runs into obstacles. Therefore, politics must come first and lead business; they cannot be placed on an equal footing. Attempting to equate the two constitutes compromisism.
Some people propose either placing politics and business on an equal plane or alternating between prioritizing each. They argue for simultaneously emphasizing both—“this year prioritize politics, next year prioritize business,” or “emphasize politics during slack periods and business during busy times.” Such notions reflect a compromistic tendency and are fundamentally flawed.
The second characteristic involves substituting Marxism’s and dialectical materialism’s principle of unity through struggle with a doctrine of mixing and reconciliation. A common tactic employed by compromisers is to indiscriminately combine opposing viewpoints, concepts, and even entire systems. This unprincipled amalgamation is what defines mixing and reconciling—it is the essence of compromisism.
Mixing and reconciling, as practiced by compromisers, are entirely incompatible with Marxism’s principle of unity through struggle. Compromisists’ mixing and reconciling know no distinction between friend and foe, no class distinctions, and no moral judgment. For example, modern revisionism advocates peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition between socialism and imperialism, calls for the abolition of armies, and rejects struggle altogether. It even suggests that Communist parties in capitalist countries should refrain from armed struggle, worker strikes, and peasant land struggles, instead pursuing so-called “peaceful transitions.” From this we can see that compromisism is, in essence, a form of revisionism—a rejection of struggle and revolution.
By blurring the lines between friend and foe and disregarding right and wrong, compromisism embodies a philosophy of reconciliation and blending. Take, for instance, those who refuse to engage in class struggle: they neither criticize nor confront exploitative capitalists, effectively erasing the boundary between friend and enemy. In Zhejiang, there was a case where a landlord element behaved rather dishonestly. When a party member among the workers criticized him, the manager became aware of the incident and summoned the party member for a reprimand, stating: “That landlord already harbors sympathies for the Kuomintang. By confronting him like this, you’ve only strengthened those feelings. Please refrain from such actions in the future.” This manager’s benevolent, sentimental attitude led him to overlook clear violations of the Party and state interests, choosing instead to turn a blind eye rather than offer constructive criticism or take decisive action. This refusal to uphold principles and suppress ideological dissent—seeking only temporary harmony and peace at any cost—is a manifestation of mixing and reconciling, which is itself a form of revisionism and compromisism. Once one succumbs to such tendencies, it becomes all too easy to sink into that murky pool. We must remain vigilant against this kind of goodwill and raise our level of vigilance.
The third characteristic involves using deceptive, ambiguous rhetoric to masquerade as dialectics. Compromisers often present arguments that seem plausible from either side, employing this tactic to pass off their views as dialectical reasoning. This makes it easier for them to deceive others, to subtly manipulate the truth, and to mislead the masses. As Lenin pointed out in his work “The State and Revolution” when criticizing compromisism:
“When transforming Marxism into opportunism, the most effective way to deceive the masses is to use compromisism to impersonate dialectics.”
For example, someone might claim:
“I hold neither a purely business-oriented nor a purely political viewpoint. In my unit, both politics and business are emphasized. Only when both are highlighted does one possess a comprehensive perspective. Simply stressing either politics or business alone is one-sided.” At first glance, such statements may sound reasonable and balanced, appearing to accommodate both political and business considerations. Yet upon closer examination, they reveal themselves to be thoroughly compromistic. They merely cloak themselves in the guise of comprehensiveness, peddling pure compromisist ideology, thereby easily confusing and misleading the public.
The fourth characteristic is that those inclined toward compromisism often imagine they are highly politically conscious, whereas in reality their political awareness is woefully lacking. What passes for “political consciousness” among these comrades is usually no more than “slogans on the lips, promises on paper, and resolutions made in meetings.” After quietly uttering a few words about emphasizing politics, they immediately follow up with loud declarations about prioritizing business, as if they could not bear the thought of being perceived as overly focused on politics. Some even seem anxious that earnest efforts to strengthen political and ideological work might disadvantage political cadres—an attitude that is truly perplexing.
The fifth characteristic is that philosophical compromisism inevitably leads to political opportunism and revisionism. By distorting the fundamental relationships between politics and the military, politics and the economy, politics and business, and politics and technology—and by undermining the very soul of these connections—the ultimate outcome can only be either a narrow, purely business-oriented outlook or a full-blown descent into revisionism.
Such, then, are the five defining characteristics of compromisism.
All those who harbor compromistic views and tendencies share one common trait: deep down, they oppose the emphasis on politics; they do not place politics first.
In 1965, Mao Zedong was reading the People’s Daily.