DIRECTIVE ON GREAT CULTURAL REVOLUTION IN SHANGHAI1
(12 February 1967)
From February to April is a crucial period for the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution. During these three months, the Great Cultural Revolution ought to start taking shape.
In general, the work in Shanghai is very good. At the time of the
An-t’ing incident, isn’t it true that only 1,000-2,000 workers of Shanghai
went there at first? Now, the number has reached one million! This illustrates that Shanghai's workers have been mobilized rather successfully.
Our present revolution — the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
— is a revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and we have
launched it ourselves. This is because a portion of the structure of proletarian dictatorship has been usurped and no longer belongs to the proletariat,
but to the bourgeoisie. Thus, we had to make revolution. The Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group must ponder over it and write articles.
This is called "Revolution Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." This
is a very important theoretical problem.
There must be three-in-one combinations. The problem of Fukien is
not too big; nor are the problems of Kweichow and Inner Mongolia, though
there are disorders. In Shansi province now, 53 percent are revolutionary
masses, 27 percent consist of army troops, and 20 percent are state organ
cadres. It behooves Shanghai to emulate them. The January revolution has
been victorious, but February, March and April will be more crucial and more
important.
This article is based on the tape-recorded draft of Comrade Chang Ch’un-
ch’iao's speech at the Shanghai People’s Square on 24 February and on some
pertinent handbills. Whether every word is Chairman Mao’s original word is
difficult to ascertain, and so this is for your reference only.

The slogan "doubt everything and down with everything" is reactionary.
Those who want to doubt everything and overthrow everything are bound to head
in the opposite direction, and will be overthrown in a matter of days. (We
have here some units which won't even have deputy section chiefs. People who
don't want to have deputy section chiefs cannot last more than a few days.)
We must trust over 95 percent of the masses, and then over 95 percent
of the cadres will follow us. China has a sizable petty bourgeoisie, and the
number of middle peasants is rather large. In urban areas, the number of petty
bourgeoisie, small handicraftsmen, including small business owners, is considerable. If we prove to be adept in leading, they will also follow us. We
must trust the vast majority.
It would be very difficult for a college student who has just graduated,
or one who hasn't yet graduated, to lead a municipality or to manage Shanghai
municipality. I don't think he would be qualified to be a college president
either. In the case of college president, school conditions are complex,
especially to one who has just graduated or hasn't yet graduated. In my
estimation, he may not even qualify to be a department head. A department
head must have some scholarship! Since you haven't yet completed your academic
work, or have only just graduated, you have no teaching experience and no experience in administering a department. We have already trained a number of
assistants and lecturers to serve as department heads. A few persons should
be selected from among the original leadership cadres. We cannot, completely
dispense with the old personnel. [Are you] afraid Chou Ku-ch'eng [0719 6253
1004] is no longer any good? That Chou Ku-ch'eng will no longer be able to
teach?
The Paris Commune, commune [sic] — did we not all say that to institute
a Paris Commune is to institute a new political power? The Paris Commune was
founded in 1871, almost 96 years ago. If the Paris Commune had not failed, but
had successful, then in my opinion, it would have become by now a bourgeois
commune. This is because it was impossible for the French bourgeoisie to allow
France's working class to have so much political power. This is the case of
the Paris Commune. In regard to the form of soviet political power, as soon
as it materialized, Lenin was elated, deeming it a remarkable creation by
workers, peasants and soldiers, as well as a new form of proletarian dictatorship. Nonetheless, Lenin had not anticipated then that although the workers,
peasants and soldiers could use this form of political power, it could also be
used by the bourgeoisie, and by Khrushchev. Thus, the present soviet has been
transformed from Lenin's soviet to Khrushchev's soviet.
Britain is a monarchy. Doesn't it have a king? The U.S. has a presidential system. They are both the same, being bourgeois dictatorships. The
puppet regime of South Vietnam has a president, and bordering it is Sihanouk's
Royal Kingdom of Cambodia. Which is better? I am afraid Sihanouk is somewhat better. India has a presidential system; its neighbor, Nepal, is a kingdom. Which country is better? It would seem that the kingdom is somewhat

better than India. This is judging by their present performances. In the
case of ancient China's three kings and five emperors, they were called kings
in the Chou dynasty, emperors in the Ch'in dynasty. The First Emperor of
Ch'in (Ch'in-shih-huang) assumed all the titles of three kings and five emperors. It was called Heavenly King in the T'ai-p'ing Heavenly Kingdom, while
T'ang T'ai-tsung also called himself Heavenly Emperor. So you see, titles
have changed over and over again. What we want to see is not the changing of
titles, because the problem lies not with title, but with practice; not with
form, but with content.
Titles must not be changed too frequently; we don't emphasize names,
but emphasize practice; not form, but content. That fellow Wang Mang of the
Han dynasty was addicted to changing names. As soon as he became emperor, he
changed all the titles of government offices, like many of us who have a dislike for the title "chief." He also changed the names of all counties in the
country. This is like our Red Guards who have changed almost all the street
names of Peking, making it impossible for us to remember them. We still
remember their former names. It became difficult for Wang Mang to issue
edicts and orders, because the people did not know what changes had been made.
This form of popular drama can be used either by China or by foreign countries,
by the proletariat or by the bourgeoisie.
The principal experiences are the Paris Commune and the soviet. We can
imagine that the [name] People's Republic of China can be used by both classes.
If we should be overthrown and the bourgeoisie came to power, they would have
no need to change the name, but would still call it the People's Republic of
China. The main thing is which class seizes political power. That is the
fundamental question, not what its name is.
I think we should be more stable and should not change all the names.
This is because this would give rise to the question of changing the political
system, to the question of the state system, and to the question of the name
of the country. Would you want to change [the name] to the Chinese People's
Commune! Should the Chairman of the People's Republic of China be called
director or commune leader? Not only this problem, but another problem would
arise. That is, if there is a change, it will be followed by the question of
recognition or nonrecognition by foreign countries. When the name of a country
is changed, foreign ambassadors will lose their credentials, new ambassadors
will be exchanged and recognition will be given anew. I surmise that the
Soviet Union would not extend recognition. This is because she would not
dare to recognize, since recognition might cause troubles for the soviet.
How could there be a Chinese People's Commune? It would be rather embarrassing to them, but the bourgeois nations might recognize it.
If everything were changed into commune, then what about the party?
Where would we place the party? Among commune committee members are both
party members and non-party members. Where would we place the party committee?
There must be a party somehow! There must be a nucleus, no matter what we
call it. Be it called the Communist party, or social democratic party, or

Kuomintang, or I-kuan-tao, it must have a party. The commune must have a
party, but can the commune replace the party?
I think we had better not change the name, and not call it commune.
It would be better to observe the old method. We still should have the
People's Congress and elect people's councils in the future. Any change in
name is a change in form, and does not solve the problem of content. When
we set up temporary power structures, do we not still call them revolutionary
committees? Are not universities still called cultural revolution committees?
The Sixteen Articles specify this.
The people of Shanghai like the people's commune very much, and like
that name very much. What should we do? Shouldn't you go back and do some
consultation? There are several methods that we can use: one of them is to
make no change, and go on calling it the Shanghai People's Commune. The
advantage of this method is that it could safeguard the enthusiasm of Shanghai’s
people, since they like this commune. The shortcomings of this is that yours
would be the only one in the entire country, and so won't you be rather isolated? For now don't announce in Jen-min Jih-pao that everyone wants to call
it People's Commune. If the Central Committee should recognize People's Commune and publish it in the Jen-min Jih-pao, then the name will be used through-
out the country. Why should only Shanghai be allowed to call it so, and we
cannot? This would make it rather difficult. Thus, there are both advantages
and shortcomings in not changing the name. The second method is to change it
throughout the country. This would necessitate a change in the political system and in the country's name. Some people might not recognize it, and much
trouble might ensue. Moreover, it wouldn't have any meaning, and no practical
significance. The third method is to go ahead and change it, thus conforming
with the entire country. Of course, you could change it in the near future or
later on, not necessarily right now. But if you people still say that you don't
wish to change, then you may just as well call it this name for some time. What
do you think? Does it make sense?
I have read several times Liu Shao-ch'i's On The Cultivation of Communist
Party Members. It is anti-Marxist. Our method of struggle now should be more
sophisticated, instead of always trying to "smash the dog's head" and "overthrow X X X." I think college students should study it more assiduously,
select a few passages, and write articles to criticize them.
From now on, we should not advocate the slogan of "down with the diehard elements who uphold the bourgeois reactionary line," but rather "down
with those in power taking the capitalist road."
Generally speaking the work of Shanghai is excellent. When you went
there last time, weren't there only some 100-200 persons? By now it has reached
more than one million. The workers have organized nearly one million people
which illustrates that Shanghai's worker masses have been more fully mobilized.

I have seen the "Urgent Directive" of the Central Committee Cultural
Revolution Group on dealing with the question of the Shanghai Red Revolutionary Committee. It was very well written, being imbued with the spirit of the
rebels. Its last point says "necessary measures shall be taken." If the rally
to lambast Chang Ch'un-chiao is to be held, we must take the necessary measures
to apprehend those people.
(The Shanghai People's) Commune has been too soft on the question of
suppressing counterrevolutionaries. Someone complained to me that when people
were apprehended by the bureau of public security, they would enter through the
front door and be released through the back door.
What about the First, Second and Third Corps? They came here to press
charges against you people.
Didn't the students go to the wharf at that time? Are those students
still at the wharf now? (Chang Ch’un-ch'iao answered: Still there.) Excellent. Before this, students and workers were not truly integrated, but now
they are.
The Wen-hui Pao has done well. I agree with their views concerning
street cadres, and I support them. There are a few accounts which can be
settled later.