Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

WHERE DO CORRECT IDEAS
COME FROM?

May 1963

[This passage is from the “Draft Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party on Certain Problems in Our Present Rural Work”, which was drawn up under the direction of Comrade Mao Tse-tung. The passage was written by Comrade Mao Tse-tung himself.]

Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment. It is man’s social being that determines his thinking. Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world. In their social practice, men engage in various kinds of struggle and gain rich experience, both from their successes and from their failures. Countless phenomena of the objective external world are reflected in a man’s brain through his five sense organs — the organs of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. At first, knowledge is perceptual. The leap to conceptual knowledge, i.e., to ideas, occurs when sufficient perceptual knowledge is accumulated. This is one process in cognition. It is the first stage in the whole process of cognition, the stage leading from objective matter to subjective consciousness from existence to ideas. Whether or not one’s consciousness or ideas (including theories, policies, plans or measures) do correctly reflect the laws of the objective external world is not yet proved at this stage, in which it is not yet possible to ascertain whether they are correct or not. Then comes the second stage in the process of cognition, the stage leading from consciousness back to matter, from ideas back to existence, in which the knowledge gained in the first stage is applied in social practice to ascertain whether the theories, policies, plans or measures meet with the anticipated success. Generally speaking, those that succeed are correct and those that fail are incorrect, and this is especially true of man’s struggle with nature. In social struggle, the forces representing the advanced class sometimes suffer defeat not because their ideas are incorrect, but because, in the balance of forces engaged in struggle, they are not as powerful for the time being as the forces of reaction; they are therefore temporarily defeated, but they are bound to triumph sooner or later. Man’s knowledge makes another leap through the test of practice. This leap is more important than the previous one. For it is this leap alone that can prove the correctness or incorrectness of the first leap in cognition, i.e., of the ideas, theories, policies, plans or measures formulated in the course of reflecting the objective external world. There is no other way of testing truth. Furthermore, the one and only purpose of the proletariat in knowing the world is to change it. Often, correct knowledge can be arrived at only after many repetitions of the process leading from matter to consciousness and then back to matter, that is, leading from practice to knowledge and then back to practice. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge, the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge. Among our comrades there are many who do not yet understand this theory of knowledge. When asked the sources of their ideas, opinions, policies, methods, plans and conclusions, eloquent speeches and long articles they consider the questions strange and cannot answer it. Nor do they comprehend that matter, can be transformed into consciousness and consciousness into matter, although such leaps are phenomena of everyday life. It is therefore necessary to educate our comrades in the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge, so that they can orientate their thinking correctly, become good at investigation and study and at summing up experience, overcome difficulties, commit fewer mistakes, do their work better, and struggle hard so as to build China into a great and powerful socialist country and help the broad masses of the oppressed and exploited throughout the world in fulfillment of our great internationalist duty.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Instruction on the Commune Education Movement

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

INSTRUCTION ON THE COMMUNE
EDUCATION MOVEMENT

May 1963

[Source: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

First of all read the 20 materials in order to inspire discussion by everybody; first of all read these for three days. The various central bureaus and the provincial meetings should also be like this. You should not transmit central committee documents having only a framework. Don’t be hasty. In any case prepare to handle it for a year, two years, and if in two years it hasn’t been handled to completion then handle it for three years. This kind of big movement needs time, don’t be hasty.

This revolutionary movement is the first great struggle since land reform[1]. There has not been this sort of scope, breadth, or pervasiveness for several years. This time it is from within the Party to the outside, from the top to the bottom. The 3-evils and 5-evils campaigns were handled in the cities[2], the anti-rightist campaign in 1957 was carried out on the ideological line, and the anti-Kao, anti-Jao campaign[3] was waged within the Party. This kind of class struggle involving all, both within the Party and outside the Party, has not been waged for over ten years. This time it is from within the party to outside the Party, from top to bottom, and from the cadres to the masses. This kind of understanding is beneficial. This is the first great struggle since land reform. First of all we must train the cadres at the county level and above, retrain the cadres at the production brigade level and above, and train the cadres in production teams[4] and the positive elements among the poor and lower-middle peasants.

In areas where there are no ants we must not insist on going to find ants. For example, there was one category of communes and brigades which in the past advanced class struggle and advanced socialist education by initiating a movement to "by all means you must go and find landlords and rich peasants, there must be no exceptions" this is also bad.

Among the people there are many contradictions of practically every kind, big and small. The Honan materials speak of a party branch which is very good; other material states that after a certain commune party branch underwent cleansing, there were only two persons who truly had not been reformed. You cannot say that this branch is bad, it was still better than 95 percent. Looking at our cadre today there are those who have not reformed, but we cannot say the number is very large. There are a few who are not at all tainted with extravagance and waste, with the idea of eating more and enjoying more benefits; the majority is imbued with this. The cleansing method of handling is very good! During this ’four clean-ups’ and ’5-antis campaign’[5] everybody sweated a little and took a steam bath. Only when you are relaxed and happy can you lightly make ready for the front and unite against the enemy. Why can you unite against the enemy when you are relaxed and happy? When our bodies are dirty we have no strength, but after we became clean we are able to unite against the enemy. There are some cadres who eat more and take more advantages, and there are some who illicitly cohabit with the daughters of landlords and rich peasants. If you are not clean you are unable to face the enemy. There are some persons who are very energetic in struggling against the enemy but who are not very positive and are hesitant about confronting contradictions among the people.

In resolving contradictions among the people, eating more and taking more advantages may be resolved by merely running out yourself and returning the bribes; having done this you will no longer be considered a corrupt element. In the future, organizations, factories, and enterprises can also handle things in this manner. Announce on the spot that they will not be considered corrupt elements and that their names will not be publicized. In the Northeast Bureau there were several who were corrupted by 100 or 200 yuan. They spoke out themselves. A meeting was convened and they were not regarded as corrupt. In handling cases where the corruption is great, meaning over 10,000 yuan, if the person himself handles the matter and returns the money, the punishment may be mild. There must be both strictness and a policy. There must certainly be the four clean-ups and the five antis; without the antis it won’t do. We certainly must handle the matter clearly. Not returning the bribes and the plunder won’t do. But we must return in accord with the situation and in accord with reason. When there is a case of eating more and enjoying more benefits, we don’t want to refund with excessive humiliation; it would be bad to make it impossible for the cadre to continue to make a living. There are those who have already eaten or used what they took. In such cases educate them to undergo examination by the masses and return a portion and participate in labor. In this way the masses will not be able to demand again that there be a return and there will be a return by stages and by groups so that it will be possible to continue to make a living. It is also possible to adopt the method of self-assessment and public discussion, but this policy is complicated. One perceives himself as good.

In the course of this campaign those requiring criticism and those requiring removal from positions constitute a minority. Those requiring punishment are also a minority. Those cadres needing punishment possibly do not constitute even one percent. We don’t want too many. We must instead do more education work and strengthen leadership over the campaign. Sometimes we need to rely on the broad masses of cadres of the communes and brigades of various regions. Those who have gone to the top should not monopolize all undertakings but should mobilize the broad masses of cadres and should rely on the broad masses of cadres to handle it. When we use this sort of method - the method of self-education and the method of mobilizing the broad masses of cadres - the resulting strength is great.

One resolutely grasps the campaign, and one is afraid of stirring up trouble.

(Comrade X X says: I understand the Chairman’s mood - first of all handle, and second handle well. When we regularly reflect the situation to the Chairman and receive instructions from the Chairman, we must not create trouble.)

In the three great revolutionary struggles it won’t do if we don’t grasp well; we must grasp well.

Pay attention to summing up experience. Return to the central bureaus and hold ten days of meetings, handle a month of work. In July hold a central bureau meetings to sum up experience, handle the situation for a whole, and then at the end of July and in August the central committee will convene a meeting. Besides this, you must still handle other things.

Only with strong leadership is it possible to mobilize a campaign, by stages and by groups, to criticize and handle without being considered backward. This campaign must raise high the self-awareness of various regions. The central bureau, province, municipality, and country persons must go down and campaign together.

The four clean-ups campaign has been waged, but class struggle is still unpolished. We must enhance self-awareness; we must loyally and sincerely help the communes and brigades handle work well, help the cadres bathe in warm water, and help handle well the four cleanups. Except for those cases where it would be impractical, in cases which are rotten, which are degenerate and cannot be helped, or which are too decayed, we must send a work team to handle it in their stead; otherwise we must honestly and sincerely help them to handle their work.

I am not clear as to how you have been approaching cadres. Now it seems that you must educate cadres by persuasion, and you must especially employ concrete evidence to educate by persuasion. You can speak according to reason and say that something is so or you can take concrete evidence and speak; there is concrete evidence of class struggle. The concrete evidence of Hsi-Yang County, Chekiang’s participation in labor, and the four good documents are concrete evidence. Examine for a while whether or not we have spoken more according to reason and spoken comparatively less according to evidence.

Have you had an opportunity to go to a region and handle affairs for ten days or so? (We said no.) Have you gone down to see whether or not the cadres are very anxious? Once familiar one is not so anxious. Respect people more, don’t find fault; the "three don’t" are correct. We must link up with the cadres, we must wash our hands and bathe, and we must grasp for a while.

This campaign must manifest killing without leaving any traces.

Mobilizing the masses to handle the four clean-ups is a serious matter. The Hopeh experience shows that some public security organs were perplexed in handling the mobilization of the masses in the four clean-ups. Some people said that the public security department handles class struggle while the control commission handles problems among the people. Of course we must handle, but besides this we still must thoroughly mobilize the masses and rely on the masses.

Once the program is grasped this campaign is easy to manage. Handle it by groups and by stages, handle the second and the third groups and don’t think that there is no honor; there is still honor.

(The mass opinion: there are places where we have gone on the spot and the rain has moistened our skin.) After going on the spot then handle some more, just don’t harm people, don’t act as though it is enemy against enemy, no. . .

(Everybody’s opinion: If the rascals don’t come out, it won’t do. Does the Chairman agree with our viewpoint? On the 19th there were people murdered at the big building. In Heilungkiang a landlord-rich peasant element killed 38 people and last year 13 counter-revolutionaries were executed and buried. In Shanghai a man was killed, he was hanged in a lavatory. But he had been long absent from home, a "transient gentleman." Speaking correctly, he wanted to redress a grievance; there was basically no question of struggling against him, so he died.)

We must resolutely conduct education by persuasion, undertake experiments on-the-spot by groups and by stages, draw a clear line of demarcation, and unite more than 95 percent of the masses and cadres. When there is a strong leadership, it is only necessary to handle things well and few troublemakers will emerge.

Don’t fight an unprepared war. If materials haven’t been prepared and the troops haven’t been trained well, don’t go and handle it. This war is a nationwide revolutionary movement and we must make war as we did during the War of Liberation, during the Liao-Shen campaign, and during the Chinchou, Huai-Hai, and crossing the Yangtze campaigns[6]. We don’t want to fight a great battle of 100 regiments[7], we don’t want to use the method of fighting employed during the southern Anhwei incident[8].

Secondly, during the War of Liberation several campaigns achieved a nationwide victory. In this war if we fight it well there will be a nationwide revolutionary victory, and there will be an even greater contribution to world revolution.

Notes

Jao Shu-shi (1903-?) was the political commissar of the New Fourth Army in 1943; the first Party secretary of the CPC East China Bureau and the Shanghai Municipal Committee in 1951 and, in 1952. the director of the CPC’s Organizational Department.

Kao and Jao formed an anti-Party clique at the National Conference on Finance and Economic Work in the summer of 1953 and at the Conference on Organizational Work of the Central Committee in September 1953. This clique inflated the role of Kao Kang in the Northeast, advocated the appointment of Guo Feng, a protege of Kao Kang, to the directorship of the Organization Department of the Central Committee, and circulated a membership list of the Political Bureau, secretly made up by An Ziwen, in an attempt to control the Political Bureau. Furthermore, they were lobbying for Kao to become first Party secretary, vice-chairman of the PRC, and premier of the State Council when Mao was on inspection tours outside the capital. The two had instigated a group of people to write a joint letter asking Mao to relinquish power. Both were expelled from the Party in 1955.

The Huai-Hai campaign was a campaign of decisive importance fought by the People’s Liberation Army over a large territory in Kiangsu, Shantung, Anhwei and Honan Provinces, centring on Hsuchow, and extending as far as Haichow in the east, Shangchiu in the west, Lincheng (now renamed Hsuehcheng) in the north and the Huai River in the South. The Kuomintang forces massed in this theatre of war consisted of 5 armies and the troops of three Pacification Zones the 4 armies and the troops of three Pacification Zones under Liu Chih and Tu Yu-ming (respectively Commander and Deputy Commander of the Kuomintang’s "Bandit Suppression" Headquarters at Hsuchow), and the army under Huang Wei, which was later dispatched there from central China as reinforcements. On the side of the People’s Liberation Army, a force more than 6,00,000 strong took part in the campaign - it included 16 columns from the Eastern China Field Army, 7 columns from the Central Plains Field Army and regional armed forces from the Eastern China Military Area, the Central Plains Military Area and the Hopei-Shantung-Honan Military Area (then a part of the Northern China Military Area). The campaign lasted sixty-five days, from November 6, 1948 to January 10,1949; 22 corps, or 56 divisions, of the Kuomintang’s crack forces, comprising 5,55,000 men, were completely wiped out (including 4 1/2 divisions which revolted and came over), and 2 armies under Liu Ju-ming and Li Yen-nien (reinforcements from Nanking) were repulsed. As a result of the campaign, those parts of the eastern China and Central Plains areas north of the Yangtse River were almost entirely liberated. The campaign took place in three stages. During the first stage, November 6-22, the Eastern China Field Army, in co-ordination with the Central Plains Field Army, surrounded and wiped out the army under Huang Po-tao in the Hsinanchen-Nienchuang sector east of Hsuchow, killing Huang Po-tao and liberating large territories on both sides of the Hsuchow-Pengpu section ! of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway, and to the west and north of Hsuchow. In the Taierhchuang-Tsaochuang sector, 3 1/2 divisions of the Kuomintang 3rd Pacification Zone, totaling over 23,000 men, revolted and came over to us. During the second stage, from November 23 to December 15, the Central Plains Field Army, surrounded and wiped out the army under Huang Wei and Wu Shao-chou, the commander and deputy commander of the army; 1 division of this army revolted and came over to us. At the same time, our forces wiped out the army under Sun Yuan-liang which was fleeing west from Hsuchow. Only Sun Yuan-liang managed to escape. During the third stage, from January 6 to 10, 1949, the Eastern China Field Army, in co-ordination with the Central Plains Field Army, surrounded and annihilated in the Chinglungchi-Chenkuanchuang sector, northeast of Yungcheng, 2 Kuomintang armies which were fleeing westward from Hsuchow and were commanded respectively by Chiu Ching-chuan and Li Mi, under the personal command of Tu Yu-ming. Tu Yu-ming was captured, Chiu Ching-chuan was killed and Li Mi barely escaped. This marked the successful end of the great Huai-Hai campaign.

After the reactionary Kuomintang government refused to sign the Agreement on Internal Peace, the People’s Liberation Army acted on the order issued by Chairman Mao Tse-tung and Commander-in-Chief Chu Teh and embarked upon a general advance, unprecedented in scale, into the vast areas which had not yet been liberated. On the morning of April 21, 1949, the Second Field Army led by Liu Po-cheng, Teng Hsiao-ping and other comrades, forced the Yangtse River on a front extending more than five hundred kilometres from Hukou (northeast of Kiukiang) in the west to Kiangyin in the east and completely destroyed the defence line along the Yangtse which the enemy had painstakingly built in three and a half months. On April 23 these forces liberated Nanking, which had been the centre of the counter-revolutionary rule of the Kuomintang regime. Then they thrust south along separate routes, liberated Hangchow on May 3 and Nanchang on May 22 and captured Shanghai, China’s biggest city, on May 27. In June they began their march into Fukien Province; they liberated Foochow on August 17 and Amoy on October 17. On May 14 the Fourth Field Army led by Lin Piao, Lo Jung-huan and other comrades forced the Yangtse on a front of more than one hundred kilometres in the Tuanfeng-Wuhsueh sector east of Wuhan. On May 16 and 17 it liberated Wuchang, Hanyang and Hankow, cities of strategic importance in central China. Then it marched south into Hunan. Cheng Chien, Kuomintang governor of Hunan Province, and Chen Ming-jen, Commander of the 1st Army, renounced their allegiance to the Kuomintang on August 4, and Hunan Province was peacefully liberated. The Fourth Field Army fought the Hengyang-Paoching campaign in September and October, wiped out the main force of the Kuomintang troops under Pai Chung-hsi and then pushed on to Kwangsi Provinces. It liberated Canton on October 14, Kweilin on November 22 and Nanning on December 4. While the Second and Third Field Armies were forcing the Yangtse River, the armies in northern Chin! a led by Nieh Jung-chen, Hsu Hsiang-chien and other comrades captured Taiyuan on April 24, 1949. The First Field Army led by Peng Teh-huai, Ho Lung and other comrades, after liberating Sian on May 20, continued its march into the Kuomintang areas in the Northwest together with two armies from northern China. They captured Lanchow on August 26, liberated Sining on September 5 and Yinchuan on September 23 and completely annihilated the Kuomintang troops under Ma Pu-fang and Ma Hung-Kuei. Late in September Tao Chih-yueh, Kuomintang Garrison Commander-in-Chief of Sinkiang Province, and Burhan, the governor, renounced their allegiance to the Kuomintang, and Sinkiang was peacefully liberated. At the beginning of November the Second Field Army led by Liu Po-cheng, Teng Hsiao-ping and other comrades, together with the 18th Army of the Northern China Field Army and part of the First Field Army led by Ho Lung Li Ching-Chuan and other comrades, began their march into southwestern China. They liberated Kweiyang on November 13 and Chungking on November 30. On December 9 Lu Han, Kuomintang governor of Yunnan Province, Liu Wen-hui, Kuomintang governor of Sikang Province, and Teng Hsi-hou and Pan Wen-hua, deputy directors of the Kuomintang Bureau of Military and Administrative Affairs in the Southwest, renounced their allegiance to the Kuomintang, and the two provinces of Yunnan and Sikang were peacefully liberated. In late December the People’s Liberation Army which had entered the Southwest fought the Chengtu campaign, completely wiped out the Kuomintang troops under Hu Tsung-nan and liberated Chengtu on December 27. By the end of December 1949 the People’s Liberation Army had wiped out all the Kuomintang troops on China’s mainland and liberated the entire mainland except Tibet. For comrade Mao’s directives for these campaigns see "Concept of Operations for the Liaohsi-Shenyung Campaign", "The Concept of Operations for the Huai-Hui Campaign" "Order to the Army for the Country-wide Advance", ! Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Volume IV, pp. 261 266, 279-282, 387-396.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech at the Hangchow Conference

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

SPEECH AT THE HANGCHOW CONFERENCE

May 1963

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

(Based on discussions held on 7, 8, and 11 May; the following is a condensed summation of the four great problems.)

(1)  The problem of the state of affairs

The condition of production is better and better each year. The state of class struggle is grave and sharp. (Following are examples of the situation of class struggle in the countryside.) Why has such a grave situation appeared in the countryside? There are three reasons: a class reason, a historical reason, and the reason of understanding.

The class reason. The main reason is that the socialist society still is a class society with classes and class struggle existing. Correctly understanding and handling class contradictions and class struggle, correctly handling the contradictions between the enemy and us and the contradictions among the people are the guarantees of leading and uniting the whole party, leading and uniting all the masses, and smoothly advancing socialist revolution and socialist construction.

The historical reason. On one hand there are regions where the task of democratic revolution has still not been completed. There are areas where feudal landlords have not been overturned. This is a problem of renewed revolution. On the other hand there is the reason of the history of work. After land reform we did not handle class struggle again. We handled for a while the 3-evils, the 5-evils, and the anti-rightist struggle of 1957, but we didn’t use this sort of method. After 1932 the Soviet Union waged two purges in 1937 and 1938. Following these, 16 years passed in which there was no class struggle. Their collectivization relied upon whom? If class struggle is not waged, the dictatorship of the proletariat has no reliable social foundation.

The North China Bureau organs handled the 5-anti campaign well. One can say that it is a “Ch’ing-shui [Clear Water] Yamen,” but after purging, it purged again and many special cases arose.

The reason of understanding class struggle objectively exists, but it is not understood. How should class struggle be led?

(2) The problem of understanding

After the Tenth Plenum[1], [they] ran to 11 provinces, and only Tzu-hou and Yen-ch’un talked fluently and unceasingly about socialist education while the others did not speak. After the February meeting the situation again changed. For five months Honan had not grasped class struggle, but after the February meeting it grasped it very well. There was a change, but it was not an all-encompassing one. There were some regional committee secretaries who after the February meeting did not understand thoroughly, and only after going down to conduct on the spot experiments did they understand thoroughly.

I looked at Hunan’s second material. Only now do I understand a little, and that is that there is a two-road struggle between planning and production management.

I have asked a good many people where thought comes from. All were unable to respond. It is a common phenomenon of life that the material changes the mental and the mental changes the material. Illiterate peasants even understand this point. For example, you ask a peasant if he knows that Chang San is a landlord who oppresses us. Once you have the concept of “Chang San” and “landlord,” one can reason out a landlord is a person who oppresses people. The peasants’ understanding is derived from life, and an illiterate can also understand philosophy. Genghis khan was an illiterate.

A single word may rejuvenate a country, a single word may bring disaster to country. This is the mental changing the material. Marx is one word which says there must be proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship; isn’t this a case of a single word rejuvenating? Khrushchev is also one word, one which does not want class struggle and does not want revolution. Isn’t this a case of a single word bringing disaster?

Philosophy must be discussed in the course of practical work, it must be discussed at meetings. You must tell your comrade by your side that philosophy is not at all difficult. Military studies are also not difficult. Among the marshals and generals of our people’s Liberation Army only a few like Lin piao and Liu po-ch’eng arose from military academies.[2] Turning the pages of a book on military studies and reading the history of European wars are not relevant to the Chinese situation. It wasn’t the Whampoa Academy “foreigners” who defeated the “locals,” but rather the “locals” who defeated the “foreigners.” Comrade Lin Piao was enrolled at the Whampoa Academy for half a year. . . when he was sent out to command a company he was basically unable to fight. He had to listen to his squad leaders and fight according to how they said to fight. Military affairs are learned from practice. Therefore we must not look at Marxism as something so mysterious, nor must we regard philosophy as so mysterious. I looked at a portion of Hsueh-feng’s diary and this person understood little philosophy.

If university students study for five years, can they learn philosophy well? I don’t believe it. A good many philosophers did not study in universities. Of China’s philosophers, including Wang Ch’ung, Fan Chen, Fu Hsuan, Liu Tsung-yuan, Wang Ch’uan-shan, Li Chih, Tai Tung-Yuan, and Wei Yuan, none were specialists in philosophy. Hegel also was not a specialist in philosophy and his learning was very profound. Kant was an astronomer, and his theory of heavenly bodies is still valuable today. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin also were not specialists in philosophy.

Philosophy comes out of the mounts and valleys. A report as good as Ling-ling’s did not emerge in Hsiang-t’an nor did it emerge in Ch’ang-te, it emerged in Ling-ling. Philosophy is only able to emerge amidst adversity and struggle. Philosophy arises from an adverse situation. Is philosophy able to arise from a propitious situation? Huang Kai-hsiung of the Three Kingdoms was a man of Ling-ling, Ch’eng I and Ch’eng Hao’s teacher Chou Lien-hsi, a great legalists of the Sung Dynasty and of the same school as Chsu Hsi, were also men of Ling-ling  —  from Tao-hsien of the Ling-ling special district Chang Tsai was from age 30 to age 40 in Ling-ling. At that time it was named Yung-chou. His article on landscapes and his article on debates with Han-Yu were written there.

Therefore we must smash superstition. However, we must pay attention so that we don’t act as we did during the past few years, smashing even that which shouldn’t be smashed.

A thing has both an appearance and an essence; we must penetrate the superficial to see the essence. The superficial and the essence are the unity of opposites. The essence cannot be seen so we must generate the superficial and grasp the essence. For example, if cadres do not participate in labor this will certainly give rise to revisionism. To cite another example, when we ordinarily walk along the road we do not see the ants and when we take great strides we see even less. We must squat down, and only then can we see many things. Otherwise it is not only the fresh sprouting things which we cannot see, it is also the majority of ordinary, existing things which we don’t see. For example, class struggle and cadres not participating in labor exist in large quantities, but there are people who nonetheless cannot see this. We must employ the scientific method and advance investigation and study. Some people subjectively and boldly hypothesize, subjectively and cautiously seek evidence. In Hopeh various regional party committees went down to investigate and study; only the Pao-ting area party committee was scientific; the others were all subjective. At first the Pao-ting area party committee did not go down to handle the four clean-ups; it went down to handle distribution. The masses did not agree and raised the handling of the four clean-ups. When the Pao-ting area party committee heard the opinion of the masses, it changed its plan and handled the four clean-ups. This then is genuine investigation and study.

In discussing philosophy we shouldn’t exceed one hour. Finish discussing it within one-half hour, if we discuss more we become muddled.

At the Moscow Conference I discussed philosophy and the Moscow Declaration[3] incorporated it but within the country no one discussed it.

(3)  Main points

What are the main points of the campaign? There are ten problems. Among these a portion are problems of understanding which require resolution by high-ranking leading cadres and by leading cadres. There are also some problems which can be resolved in ordinary work. In the course of ordinary work there are the following five main points

(a)  Class and class struggle. What methods should be employed to advance class struggle? We certainly must use the class viewpoint to analyze problems. The first to write the four great families was Ts’ao Hsueh-ch’in (Dream of the Red Chamber),[4] who wrote the four great families of Chia, Chih, Wang, and Pi. They were slavelords numbering 32 persons. Writing of slaves like Yuan-yang, Ch’ing-sha, Hsiao-hung, and so on is very good; these were the persons who were harmed. Lin Tai-Yu did not belong to the four great families.

(b)  Socialist education. There are two great methods of socialist education: the first is to take the spirit of the central committee and meet with the cadres and masses, discuss and understand clearly, link up with the concrete actions, concrete work, and concrete actuality, of the region, and allow the masses to open the lid.

The second is to urge the older generation to recollect again the history of oppression and exploitation, inspire a class sentiment, urge the younger generation to recognize that the fruits of the revolutionary struggle were not easy to acquire, and made them read the family history of the proletarian class.

(c)  Rely on the poor and lower-middle peasants. For 10,000 years there has been the question of whom to rely on. In the future there will still be idealism and materialism, the advanced and the backward, and contradictions between the left, the center, and the right. Who should we rely on today? There must always be a class. Rely on the whole people? To say rely on the whole people actually is to rely on a minority of the people. Some people say the landlords and rich peasants are obedient, the middle peasants are troublesome, and the poor peasants are muddled. How can the landlords and rich peasants not be obedient? After giving presents and giving women, they want you to listen to them.

What is “peace of mind”? When the poor and lower-middle peasants suffered oppression and were unable to lift up their heads how could there be peace of mind? If the poor and lower-middle peasants cannot be at ease, how can the cadres be at ease?

The bourgeoisie say that they will have no successors. How can they say that they will have no successors? The successor of Hegel was Marx, and the successor of the bourgeoisie is the proletariat. The bourgeoisie grasped “three freedoms and one contract”[5] and thought about rolling up land again. We must attack them in this aspect, strike them down at their foundation, don’t allow them to have successors like them.

(d)  The four clean-ups.

What is corruption? 50 yuan? 100 yuan? 200 yuan? It is necessary only to return the plunder forthrightly and it will not be considered corruption.

Plunder must be returned, and it must be in accord with the situation and with reason. It must be returned so that the hands and feet are clean, but the cadres also must be able to live after it is returned. To handle it in this manner requires the return of how much? Should the method of self-assessment and public discussion be adopted or not?

Those punished must be limited to one percent.

This year we will not prohibit killing, but next year we will discuss it some more. When the crime is extremely great proceed slowly. Handle counter-revolutionaries according to regulations. If the masses demand nothing less than death, and it is reasonable, your leadership can wait a bit.

(e)  Cadre participation in collective productive labor. The problems of corruption and enjoying more benefits can be resolved only when there is participation in labor. Hence it is possible to understand the situation of production, not simply float on the surface. If cadres do not participate in labor they inevitably must become divorced from the laboring masses and revisionism must inevitably arise.

The cadres of Hsi-yang have labored very well. Hsi-yang is on a mountain and is very poor, very poor, so there was a revolution.

We must take the basic-level organizations of the party in the countryside and place them in the hands of the advanced workers and the positive elements among the workers. (Some people say that there are labor models who do not participate in labor.)

If labor models do not participate in labor, what kind of models are they? Do away with them. There are some who because of too many meetings are too busy to make inquiries. This problem must be resolved. You can go down to the fields to make inquiries!

County cadres also must participate in labor.

If basic-level cadres do not participate in labor, aren’t they indistinguishable from the Kuomintang’s pao-chia leaders[6]. There are big officials and little officials among you. Even the authority of a little official is great. In the past an organization leader received a good deal of pay for his work. Now as for our basic-level cadres one is participating in labor and one in the four clean-ups; if you are unwilling to do this return home and become one of the common folk.

Cadres participating in labor who are corrupt, steal, and speculate are few. There has always been corruption, theft, and speculation; for 10,000 years this has been so. Otherwise dialectics would be extinguished and there would be no opposites to unify.

The more corruption is exposed the happier I will be. Have you caught lice or not? When there are many on your body, the more that you catch the happier you are.

(4)  Method

We must adopt a positive attitude.

(a)  We must pay attention to training and educating cadres.

(b)  Don’t be anxious. If we don’t finish this year, then next year, if we don’t finish next year, then the year after that. Wasn’t land reform handled for three or four years? Some people do not believe. Don’t admonish them. As soon as you surround them, they become anxious and confusion results. You must slowly persuade. Why should you be anxious? wasn’t our revolutionary victory more than 30 years later than the Soviet Union’s?

(c)  We must have on-the-spot experience, grasp deeply and grasp penetratingly while striding firmly and securely, we must guard against acting in a perfunctory manner while carrying out work, and we certainly must grasp on-the-spot experience.

(d)  We must distinguish between dissimilar situation, we must not handle national minority regions and border regions in the same manner. (Told the story of Ch’en P’ing of the Western Han Dynasty.) (To XXX) Your Szechwan is such a large province, can you handle it all at once?

(e)  Simplification. We must simplify and have some cadre go down to be tempered in labor, to be tempered in class struggle. I originally had by my side 20 or 30 people, while now there remain only some ten-odd persons. I said to Chiang Wei-ch’ing that Kiangsu has a population of more than 40 million and the 5,000 workers of the provincial party organs can be reduced to 1,500 or 2,000 persons. This is an old problem which for a long period of time has not been resolved.

(f)  We must grasp the key point. Don’t sing of heaven and don’t sing of earth, just sing the volume Hsiang-shan-chi. The volume Hsiang shan-chi tells the story of the return to King Chuang by a young girl (namely Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva). There are seven characters to a line, and the first two lines are these. Heaven and earth can be parted, don’t sing of heaven and earth, only sing the Hsiang-shan-chi. This is grasping class struggle.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Oppose Racial Discrimination by U.S. Imperialism

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Oppose Radical Discrimmination
By U.S. Imperialism

August 8, 1963

[SOURCE: Peking Review No. 33, 1963.]

An American Negro leader now taking refuge in Cuba, Mr. Robert Williams, the former President of the Monroe, North Carolina, Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, has twice this year asked me for a statement in support of the American Negroes’ struggle against racial discrimmination. I wish to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Chinese people, to express our resolute support for the American Negroes in their struggle against racial discrimmination and for freedom and equal rights.

There are more than nineteen million Negroes in the United States, or about eleven per cent of the total population. Their position in society is one of enslavement, oppression and discrimmination. The overwhelming majority of the Negroes are deprived of their right to vote. On the whole it is only the most back-breaking and most despised jobs that are open to them. Their average wages are only from a third to a half of those of the white people. The ratio of unemployment among them is the highest. In many states they cannot go to the same school, eat at the same table, or travel in the same section of a bus or train with the white people. Negroes are frequently and arbitrarily arrested, beaten up and murdered by U.S. authorities at various levels and members of the Ku Klux Klan and other racists. About half of the American Negroes are concentrated in eleven states in the south of the United States. There, the discrimmination and prosecution they suffer are especially startling.

The American Negroes are awakening, and their resistance is growing ever stronger. In recent years the mass struggle of the American Negroes against racial discrimmination and for freedom and equal rights has been constantly developing.

In 1957 the Negro people in Little Rock, Arkansas, waged a fierce struggle against the barring of their children from public schools. The authorities used armed force against them, and there resulted the Little Rock incident which shocked the world.

In 1960 Negroes in more than twenty states held ‘sit in’ demonstrations in protest against racial segregation in local restaurants, shops and other public places.

In 1961 the Negroes launched a campaign of ‘freedom riders’ to oppose racial segregation in transport, a campaign which rapidly extended to many states.

In 1962 the Negroes in Mississippi fought for the equal right to enrol in colleges and were greeted by the authorities with repression which culminated in a blood bath.

This year, the struggle of the American Negroes started in early April in Birmingham, Alabama. Unarmed, bare-handed Negro masses were subjected to wholesale arrests and the most barbarous repression merely because they were holding meetings and parades against racial discrimmination. On 12 June, an extreme was reached with the cruel murder of Mr. Medgar Evers, a leader of the Negro people in Mississippi. These Negro masses, aroused to indignation and undaunted by ruthless violence, carried on their struggles even more courageously and quickly won the support of Negroes and all strata of the people throughout the United States. A gigantic and vigorous nationwide struggle is going on in nearly every state and city in the United States, and the struggle keeps mounting. American Negro organizations have decided to start a ‘freedom march’ on Washington on 28 August, in which 2,50,000 people will take part.

The speedy development of the struggle of the American Negroes is a manifestation of the constant sharpening of class struggle and national struggle within the United States; it has been causing increasingly grave anxiety to the U.S. ruling clique. The Kennedy Administration has resorted to cunning two-faced tactics. On the one hand, it continues to connive at and take part in the discrimmination against and persecution of Negroes; it even sends troops to repress them. On the other hand, it is parading as an advocate the ‘defence of human rights’ and the ‘protection of the civil rights of Negroes’, is calling upon the Negro people to exercise ‘restraint’, and is proposing to Congress so-called ‘civil rights legislation’ in an attempt to numb the fighting will of the Negro people and deceive the masses throughout the country. However, these tactics of the Kennedy Administration are being seen through by more and more of the Negroes. The fascist atrocities committed by the U.S. imperialists against the Negro people have laid bare the true nature of the so-called democracy and freedom in the United States and revealed the inner link between the reactionary polices pursued by the U.S. Government at home and its policies of aggression abroad.

I call upon the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie, and other enlightened personages of all colours in the world, white, black, yellow, brown, etc., to unite to oppose the racial discrimmination practiced by U.S. imperialism and to support the American Negroes in their struggle against racial discrimmination. In the final analysis, a national struggle is a question of class struggle. In the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling clique among the whites which is oppressing the Negro people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals, and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the handful of imperialists, headed by the United States, and their supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are carrying out oppression, aggression and intimidation against the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. They are the minority, and we are the majority. At most they make up less than ten percent of the 3,000 million people of the world. I am deeply convinced that, with the support of more than ninety per cent of the people of the world, the just struggle of the American Negroes will certainly be victorious. The evil system of colonialism and imperialism grew on along with the enslavement of the Negroes and the trade in Negroes; it will surely come to its end with the thorough emancipation of the black people.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Statement Opposing Aggression Against Southern Vietnam and Slaughter of its People by the U.S.-NGO Dinh Diem Clique

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

STATEMENT OPPOSING AGGRESSION AGAINST
SOUTHERN VIETNAM AND SLAUGHTER OF ITS PEOPLE
BY THE U.S. – NGO DINH DIEM CLIQUE

August, 1963

[Source: Statements of Mao Tse-tung, Peking Foreign Languages Press, 1964]

U.S. imperialism has violated the agreements reached at the first Geneva Conference by obstructing the unification of Vietnam, conducting open armed aggression against southern Vietnam and engaging in so-called special warfare over many years. It has also violated the agreements of the second Geneva Conference by its flagrant intervention in Laos in an attempt to rekindle the civil war there. Apart from those who are deliberately deceiving the people or are utterly naive, no one will believe that a treaty can make U.S. imperialism lay down its butcher’s knife and suddenly become a Buddha, or even behave itself a little better.

The oppressed people and oppressed nations must not entrust their liberation to the “wisdom” of imperialism and its lackeys. Only by strengthening their unity and persevering in their struggle will they triumph. This is what the people of southern Vietnam have been doing.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Racial Question is a Class Question

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Racial Question Is
A Class Question

August 9, 1963

[SOURCE: This is the full text of Comrade Mao's remarks to his African visitors on this occasion, as reported in Jen-min jih-pao on 9 August 1963.]

Chairman Mao Tse-tung received visitors from Africa here this afternoon [8 August 1963]. During the reception, Chairman Mao Tse-tung made a statement calling upon the people of the world to unite against racial discrimination by U.S. imperialism and support the American Negroes in their just struggle against racial discrimination.

Chairman Mao Tse-tung had a very cordial, friendly talk with the friends from Africa. During the talk, he condemned the racial discrimination practiced by U.S. imperialism, as well as that of the colonialist authorities of South Africa and in every part of the world. “Racial discrimination”, he said, “is found in Africa, in Asia, and in other parts of the world. The racial question is in essence a class question. Our unity is not one of race; it is the unity of comrades and friends. We should strengthen our unity and wage a common struggle against imperialism. colonialism, and the running dogs, to attain complete and thorough national independence and liberation.”

After explaining how China’s revolutionary struggle had won through to victory, Chairman Mao said: “This proves that a revolution by the people can triumph and that imperialism and its running dogs can be defeated. The tide of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism is sweeping through all Africa. All countries whether or not they have already attained independence, will sooner or later win complete and thorough independence and liberation. All the Chinese people support you. The people of Africa are awakening with each passing day; so are the people of the whole world. The workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals and all other revolutionary people, who constitute over ninety per cent of the world’s population, can be united in the fight for the victory of the revolution.”

“In the fight for thorough emancipation,” Chairman Mao said, “the oppressed peoples rely first of all on their own strength and then, and only then, on international assistance. The people who have already won victory in their revolution should help those who are still struggling for liberation. This is our internationalist duty.”

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Operas

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

OPERAS

September 1963

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard publication.]

(At a work conference of the Centre)

Operas should develop what is new from what is old, rather than what is old from what is old. They must not sing only of emperors, kings, generals, ministers, talented young gentlemen, pretty ladies, and their maids and escorts.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Comments on Comrade Ko Ching-shih's Report

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Comments On
Comrade K’o Ching-shih’s
Report[1]

December 12, 1963

This ought to be [widely] read.

Problems abound in all forms of art such as the opera, ballads, music and fine arts, the dance, the cinema, poetry and literature, and the people involved are numerous; in many departments very little has been achieved so far in socialist transformation. The ‘dead’ still dominate in many departments. What has been achieved in the cinema, new poetry, folk songs, the fine arts, and the novel should not be underestimated, but there, too, quite a few problems exist. As for such departments as the opera, the problems are even more serious. The social and economic base has changed, but the arts as part of the superstructure, which serves this base, still remains a serious problem. Hence we should proceed with investigation and study and attend to this matter in earnest.

Isn’t it absurd that many communists are enthusiastic about promoting feudal and capitalist art, but not socialist art?

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Centre's Instruction on Learning from Each Other and Overcoming Complacency and Conceit

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Centre’s Instruction On Learning
From Each Other And Overcoming
Complacency And Conceit

December 13, 1963

[SOURCE: An anthology without a title.]

To be complacent and conceited, to refuse to apply Marxist dialectical, analytical method, i.e. the method of splitting one into two (both achievements and shortcomings); to work in one’s own field, studying only the achievement but not the shortcomings and mistakes, to like flattering but dislike critical words; to have no interest in organizing competent high and middle cadres to learn and investigate the work of other provinces, cities, regions, or departments so as to link the result with one’s own circumstances and improve the work of one’s own province, city, region, or department; to be blindly conceited, i.e. to limit oneself to one’s own district, the small world of one’s department, the inability to widen one’s scope, and the ignorance of other spheres of work; to show and talk to foreigners, visitors from other places, and people sent by the Centre only about the achievements, not the weaknesses; in one’s own area of work; to talk only superficially and perfunctorily [these are the faults common to all our comrades]. The Centre has more than once raised this problem to our comrades: a communist must have at his disposal the Marxist dialectical method of ‘splitting one into two’: achievements and shortcomings, truth and mistakes. All matters (economic, political, ideological, cultural, military, party, and etc.) are always in a process of development; this is common sense to a Marxist. However, many of our comrades in the Centre and regions do not use this method of thinking and working. There is a formal logic deeply planted in their minds which they cannot uproot. Formal logic denies the unification of the opposites of things, the contradiction of opposites (‘splitting one into two’), and under given conditions the transformation of one pair of opposites into another. Therefore, these comrades become complacent, conceited, observant of achievements only, blind to weaknesses, capable of hearing only favourable words but not c! riticisms, unwilling to criticize themselves (i.e. splitting into two), and afraid of other people’s criticism The old saying, ‘Conceit courts harm while modesty is beneficial’ still holds good from the point of view of the proletariat and the interest of the people.

1. Conceit grows under all circumstances and in all forms. Generally, it is likely to grow with success and victory. This is because under adverse condition one can easily see one’s own weaknesses and is comparatively more cautious. Under the pressure of difficulties, modesty and caution are the only attitudes to adopt. But with success comes the gratitude of other people. Even one-time enemies may turn round and pay tribute to one’s prowess!. One can therefore easily lose one’s head in favourable circumstances following success and feel light enough to fly. ‘From now on the empire will be at peace,’ one believes. We are fully aware that the party is more vulnerable to attack by the virus of conceit at a time of victory and success.

2. Conceit grows under conditions of victory — i.e., the conceit of swollen-headedness and an inflated ego. This is one kind of conceit. Another kind grows under normal conditions with neither spectacular victory nor ignominious defeat, when people intoxicate themselves with such thoughts as ‘Not as good as the better but better than the worse’ and ‘To have served as a daughter-in-law for twenty years automatically makes one a mother-in-law.’

There is a third kind which flourishes in backward conditions. Some people take pride in being backward, because they think ‘Our work is not all that good, but it is better than in the past,’ or ‘So and so are even XX worse than us.’ Whenever they want to show off their history, they make a quick switch from any other subject, their faces light up, and they begin thus: ‘Once upon a time . . .’

3. We become conceited as soon as we overlook the strength of the masses; as soon as our subjective understanding lags behind the development of the objective reality; as soon as we overrate our own achievement.

4. Essentially, conceit is derived from individualism and nurses the growth of individualism. It is individualistic.

5. Speaking from a class analytical point of view, conceit comes first from the ideology of the exploiting class and then from that of small producers.

6. As workers, small producers have many good qualities. They are industrious, thrifty, not afraid of hardships, cautious, and realistic. But as small owners, they are individualistic and what is more important, limited by their working conditions and methods and their use of outdated means of production, they are scattered, narrow-minded, and ill-informed. They are often blind to the strength of the collective; they see only that of the individual. Furthermore, they are easily satisfied. A small achievement may induce them to think: ‘That’s not bad at all,’ ‘This is super,’ ‘Ah, let’s enjoy a bit,’ and ‘Not as good as the better but better than the worse’.

7. Conceit is based on the bourgeois, idealist world view. It can lead people to XX, to a way of dealing with reality which is against the laws of the development of reality and eventually to failure. The materialist historical view provides that the history of social development is not the history of big men, but of the labouring masses. None the less, conceited people always exaggerated the role of the individual take [undue] credit, and become proud of themselves. They underestimate or completely overlook the strength of the masses.

8. Hence, conceit is against Marxism-Leninism, against the dialectical and historical materialist world view of our party.

9. Conceited people cannot forget their merits. They hide their own shortcomings and disregard other people’s strong points. They often compare their own merits with other people’s demerits, thereby drawing satisfaction. When they see the strong points of others, they say ‘Not much,’ or ‘Nothing to make a song and dance about.’

10. In fact, the more one overrates oneself, the worse the result is likely to be. Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian writer, put it humorously:

‘A man is like a mathematical fraction, whose actual talent can be compared to a numerator and his own estimate of it to a denominator. The bigger the denominator, the smaller the fraction.’

11. Modesty is a necessary virtue for every revolutionary. It benefits the people’s cause whereas conceit leads the people’s cause to defeat. Therefore modesty is an expression of one’s responsibility to the people’s cause.

12. A revolutionary in name and practice must be able to: First, respect the creativeness of the masses, listen to their views, and regard himself as one of the masses. He must not have a single grain of selfishness or exaggerate his own role and must work honestly for the masses. This is the spirit which Lu Hsun describes as ‘Hanging my head low, I willingly serve as the young people’s ox.’[1] This is modesty.

13. Second, he must have an indefatigable progressive spirit and must be forever alert and clear-minded. He must be observant of new things and consider them well. He must therefore have modesty so that he does not accredit himself with undeserved merits; nor be satisfied with his own achievements. This is a realistic attitude, the noble virtue of modesty.

14. If a man can learn seriously from work, life and actual struggles, if he can regularly sum up his thought and action in a effort to find out his deficiencies, shortcomings, and errors, if he can ruthlessly and resolutely fight against his conceit and self-satisfaction and unreservedly overcome them, it is absolutely within his powers to train himself to be a man of humility.

15. A truly modest man is also a man who enthusiastically, unconditionally, loyally, and actively works for the cause of the party, the people, and the collective. He works not to show off or for awards and fame, not for any selfish desire, but whole-heartedly for the happiness and interests of the people. Therefore, he is always buried in hard work for the benefit of the party and people, never giving a thought to his own distinction, status, reputation, or salary. He does not brag about his achievements to other people; he does not ever entertain such thoughts in his mind. He considers nothing more than how to serve the people better.

16. Why must a true collectivist demand humility from himself?

First, because he understands that although he plays a part in the achievements of knowledge or other results, the part the masses play is far greater. Without the help and support of the masses, he would not be able to have knowledge; nor would his work be successful. As a collectivist, he must not discount the merits of the masses, or ‘rob other people of their merits’. He knows that it is shameful to be conceited.

Second, he understands that what he has learnt and done forms only a tiny drop in the ocean of revolutionary knowledge and work: it is infinitesimal. Moreover, revolutionary knowledge and work are incessantly developing. As a collectivist, he must do his utmost to acquire the knowledge which is useful to the people and to devote his ability to the revolution. Therefore, he must feel that there is no room for complacency, for becoming stagnant.

Third, he knows that work is constructed like a huge machine with its wheels, screws, steel frames, and other parts of different sizes and shapes, each being indispensable. As a collectivism he should respect each man’s work and each man’s achievement. For the perfection of the revolutionary work, he must co-ordinate his own work with that of others. He must feel that he cannot bear to be left out of the collective, and that he passionately loves his colleagues. Because of this, he must treat people with modesty, never with pride or conceit.

Fourth, he understands that the scope of an individual view is narrow and limited, whereas the scope of revolutionary work and knowledge is broad and their contents extremely rich and complex. Thus he understands that it is inevitable for an individual to have faults and be ‘likely to commit mistakes. These faults and mistakes open escape his full attention. Since he is a collectivist, he would demand of himself a deeper and wider vision to detect he own faults and mistakes in time and to correct them quickly, so that he can do revolutionary work well and be responsible to the people. Because of this, he is modest, humbly learns from others, and sincerely welcomes other people’s criticism.

From these points [we] may see a true collectivist possesses humility, a fact that reflects the progressive spirit and realistic attitude.

17. Another method of overcoming one’s conceit and nurturing one’s humility is to heighten one’s communist consciousness. This requires more intensive study of Marxism-Leninism. Why?

18. Because the theories of Marxism-Leninism can help us to understand scientifically the world and the relationships between individuals and the masses, individuals and collectives, individuals and organization, and individuals and the party.

[They also help us to] understand correctly the roles of the masses and individuals in revolutionary struggles. Marxism-Leninism tells us that the working people are the creators of social wealth and the mainstay in a revolutionary struggle. In order to build socialism and communism in China, we must depend on the creative power of the working class and the millions of labouring people under the leadership of their vanguard. As for an individual, he is no more than a small screw in the revolutionary works. Marxism-Leninism tells us: all achievement is the result of the strength of the collective, no individual can detach himself from a collective, and an individual, without the party to lead him or an organization and the masses to support him, cannot accomplish anything. If we do really understand the part played by the masses and the individual in history and their mutual relationship, we automatically become modest.

Marxism-Leninism can raise our understanding of the future and the destination we are going to, can widen our scope, and can free our thought from parochialism. When people see only what is under their feet, not what lies above the mountains and beyond the seas, they are likely to be as boastful as ‘the frog at the bottom of a well’. But when they raise their heads to see the immensity of the world, the kaleidoscope of man’s affairs, the splendour and magnificence of the cause of humanity, the richness of man’s talents, and the breadth of knowledge, they become modest. What we are dedicated to is a world-shaking task. We must focus not just on the world and happiness in front of our eyes, but also on the work and happiness of all of us in the distant future. Marxism-Leninism helps us to overcome self-satisfaction of a small producer due to a small success or a small achievement. It arouses our desire for ceaseless progress. At the same time, it helps us to eliminate our idealistic subjective way of thinking.

19. Modesty and self-abasement are not synonymous. Modesty does not mean belittling oneself; it is an expression of a realistic attitude and the progressive spirit which enables one to see facts objectively, whereas self-abasement is an expression of unrealism, a lack of self-confidence, and a fear of difficulty.

Self-abasement and self-advertisement or a feeling of superiority are based on subjectivism and wrong. They represent two extreme and erroneous subjective estimates of oneself. The boastful person detaches himself from reality and overestimates himself, exaggerates his actual ability and role. He feels superior, out of the ordinary, and therefore stops making progress or learning new things. Inevitably, he must make mistakes. The self-abasing person is apparently the opposite of the boastful, but he is just as unrealistic. He underestimates himself, forgets that he can be improved and disciplined in his work, and belittles the part he has played and will play in the revolution. Consequently, he loses his courage and confidence in making progress and relaxes his fighting spirit

In short both self-abasement and conceit are wrong, because both represent an erroneous assessment of one’s part in the revolution, and an unrealistic and unscientific attitude. Both can do harm to the revolution. That is why we must resolutely oppose conceit and boastfulness, and also strictly distinguish modesty from self-abasement. In this way we may avoid drifting from one extreme to another.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Strive to Learn from Each Other and Don't Stick to the Beaten Track and Be Complacent

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Strive To Learn From Each Other
And Don’t Stick the Beaten Track
And Be Complacent

December 13, 1963

[SOURCE: Peking Review, Nos. 37-38, September]

(An inner-Party directive drafted on behalf of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.)

Here is a report prepared by Comrades Li Jui-shan and Hua Kuo-feng of the Hunan provincial Party committee, on November 6, 1963 on their visit to Kwangtung to look at the progress of its agricultural production. Attached to the report are instructions written by the Hunan provincial party committee dated December 7, 1963. You are requested to study them. The Central Committee considers that this attitude and method of learning modestly from the good experience of other provinces, municipalities and districts is fine and constitutes an important way of promoting our economic, political, ideological, cultural, military and Party work. Some comrades stick to the beaten track, are conceited and complacent, do not take an analytical approach towards the work in their own area in accordance with Marxist dialectics (i.e., one dividing into two, into shortcomings and mistakes as well as achievements), but notice only achievements and not shortcomings and mistakes. They welcome praise but not criticism. They take little interest in arranging for competent high and middle-ranking cadres to study modestly and earnestly what is being done in other provinces, municipalities, districts or units in order to introduce improvements by applying the findings to their own province, municipality, district or unit. They confine their vision always to the small world of their own area or unit, but fail to see beyond it and to notice any world other than their own, which is sheer parochial arrogance. They show to foreign visitors, comrades from other parts of the country or comrades sent by the central authorities to their area only what is good and not what is bad. They tell these visitors only the achievements, and not the shortcomings and mistakes which, if taken up at all, will not be gone into at any great length but dismissed perfunctorily in a few words. The Central Committee has called our comrades’ attention to this problem time and again, maintaining that a Communist must acquire the Marxist dialectical conce! pt of one dividing into two with regard to achievements and shortcomings, truth and falsehood. Without exception everything (economy, politics, ideology, culture, military and Party work, etc.) develops as a process. And every process develops through the interconnection and mutual struggle of its two contradictory aspects. This should be A B C for a Marxist. However, many comrades at the central and local levels seldom think and work conscientiously in accordance with this viewpoint They find it difficult to shake off their customary metaphysical way of thinking. By metaphysics is meant the denial of the unity of opposites and the struggle of opposites in things (the method of one dividing into two), the denial of the truth that under given conditions two contradictory things that stand in opposition transform themselves into each other and turn into their opposite. Metaphysics also finds expression in the following — to stick to the beaten track, to be conceited and complacent, to notice only achievements and not shortcomings, to welcome praise and not criticism; to be unwilling to criticize oneself (to apply the method of one dividing into two to oneself) and, worse still, to be afraid of being criticized by others. Among the dozens of ministries under the Central Government there are obviously several which have done better and have a better style of work, for instance, the Ministry of Petroleum Industry. Yet other ministries simply pay no attention and have never bothered to visit them, study their experience and learn from them Of the various units under a ministry, there are obviously many factories and mines, enterprises, undertakings and scientific research institutions, together with their personnel, that have done well. Yet its leadership, through its ignorance, is in no position to encourage people to learn from them. Comrades, when the Central Committee here speaks about comrades committing errors in succumbing to metaphysics, this refers only to some comrades, not to all. Nevertheless! it must be pointed out that large numbers of fine comrades are frustrated by those comrades who are highly placed with fat emoluments and live in style, who are conceited and complacent and are only too glad to stick to the beaten track, and who are addicted to bourgeois metaphysics; in other words, these fine comrades are frustrated by the bureaucrats. This situation must be changed right now. To any comrade who rejects the dialectical and analytical method of Marxism and doesn’t modestly and conscientiously analyse either his own locality, his own unit and himself or other localities, other units and other people, we must give comradely advice and criticism, so as to bring about a change in this undesirable state of affairs. We must make it a practice to learn from the good experience, good style and good methods of other ministries, provinces, municipalities, districts and units. This is an important question and you are requested to discuss it. Later on, the Central Committee will also take it up at its working conferences and plenary sessions. For quite some time the Hunan provincial Party committee made no attempt at investigation and study and issued a spate of subjectivist directives to the lower levels, ramming many things down their throats while getting little factual information in return, and thus alienating itself from the masses and bringing tremendous difficulties upon itself. From 1961 onwards, a change came over its work and things rapidly looked up. Nevertheless it felt that it was still lagging far behind Kwangtung and Shanghai. Therefore, it organized two survey teams composed of large numbers of cadres at the provincial, prefectural and county levels, and sent them on study tours to Kwangtung and Shanghai. Please try and see if you can do the same. The Central Committee holds that it can and must be done. If you think otherwise, please transmit your views.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

U.S. Imperialism is the Most Ferocious Enemy of the World's People

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

U.S. Imperialism Is The Most Ferocious
Enemy Of The World’s People

January 12, 1964

[SOURCE: Full Text of Comrade Mao’s statement of 12 January, 1964 in support of the Panamanian people, Hung-Ch’i No. 2-3-1964, pp. 2-3, Peking Review, no. 2, 164]

The heroic struggle now being waged by the people of Panama against U.S. aggression and in defence of their national sovereignty is a great patriotic struggle. The Chinese people stand firmly on the side of the Panamanian people and fully support their just action in opposing the U.S. aggressors and seeking to regain sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone.

U.S. imperialism is the most ferocious enemy of the people of the entire world.

It has not only committed the grave crime of aggression against the Panamanian people, and painstakingly and stubbornly plotted against socialist Cuba, but has continuously been plundering and oppressing the people of the Latin American countries and suppressing the national-democratic revolutionary struggles there.

In Asia, U.S. imperialism has forcibly occupied China’s Taiwan, turned the southern part of Korea and the southern part of Vietnam into its colonies, kept Japan under its control and semi-military occupation, sabotaged the peace, neutrality and independence of Laos, plotted to subvert the Royal Government of Cambodia, and committed intervention and aggression against other Asian countries. More recently, it has decided to send a U.S. fleet to the Indian Ocean, menacing the security of all the countries of South-east Asia.

In Africa, U.S. imperialism is feverishly pursuing its neocolonialist policies, seeking vigorously to take the place of the old colonialists, to plunder and enslave the peoples of Africa, and to undermine and stamp out the national liberation movements.

The policies of aggression and war of U.S. imperialism also seriously threaten the Soviet Union, China, and the other socialist countries. Moreover, it is vigorously seeking to push its policy of peaceful evolution’ in the socialist countries, in order to bring about the restoration of capitalism there and disintegrate the socialist camp.

Even toward its allies in Western Europe, North America and Oceania, U.S. imperialism is pursuing a policy of the law of the jungle, trying hard to trample them underfoot.

The aggressive plans of U.S. imperialism to dominate the whole world run in a continuous line from Truman through Eisenhower and Kennedy to Johnson.

The people of the countries in the socialist camp should unite, the people of all the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America should unite, the people of all the continents of the world should unite, all peace-loving countries and all countries that are subject to U.S. aggression, control, interference and bullying should unite, and so form the broadest united front to oppose the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and to safeguard world peace.

Riding roughshod everywhere, U.S. imperialism has placed itself in the position of the enemy of the people the world over, and has increasingly isolated itself The atom bombs and hydrogen bombs in the hands of the U.S. imperialists can never cow people not willing to be enslaved. The raging tide of the people of the world in opposition to the U.S. aggressors is irresistible. The struggle of the people the world over against U.S. imperialism and its running dogs will assuredly win still greater victories.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Statement Expressing the Chinese People's Support for the Japanese People's Great Patriotic Struggle

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Statement Expressing The Chinese
People’s Support For The
Japanese People’s Great
Patriotic Struggle

January, 1964

[SOURCE: Statement by Mao Tse-tung (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1964, pp. 14-16)]

The Massive anti-U.S. demonstration by the Japanese people on January 26 is a great patriotic movement. On behalf of the Chinese people, I wish to express deep respect for the heroic Japanese people.

Recently, a large-scale mass movement has started throughout Japan to oppose the entry and stationing in Japan of U.S. F-105D aircraft carrying nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines and to demand the dismantling of all U.S. military bases, the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces, the return of Japan’s territory of Okinawa, the abrogation of the Japan-U.S. “Security Treaty,” etc. All this reflects the will and aspiration of the entire Japanese people. The Chinese people wholeheartedly support the just struggle of the Japanese People.

Ever since the end of World War II, Japan has been subjected to U.S. imperialist political, economic and military oppression. The U.S. imperialists have not only oppressed the workers, peasants, students, intellectuals, urban petty bourgeoisie, religious circles, and medium and small entrepreneurs of Japan; they have also brought many big Japanese entrepreneurs under their control, interfered in Japan’s foreign policy, and treated Japan as a dependency. U.S. imperialism is the most ferocious enemy of the Japanese nation.

Japan is a great nation. It will certainly not allow U.S. imperialism to ride roughshod over it for long. The last few years have seen the constant broadening of the patriotic united front of all strata of the Japanese people against U.S. imperialist aggression, oppression, and control. This is the surest guarantee of victory in their patriotic, anti-U.S. struggle. The Chinese people are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Japanese people will be able to drive the U.S. imperialists from their soil and realize their aspirations for independence, democracy, peace, and neutrality.

The Chinese and Japanese peoples should unite, the people of various Asian countries should unite, all oppressed people and nations of the world should unite, all peace-loving countries should unite, all countries and individuals subjected to U.S. imperialist aggression, control, interference, and bullying should unite and from a broad united front against U.S. imperialism to frustrate its plans for aggression and war and to safeguard world peace.

U.S. imperialism, get out of Japan, get out of the Western pacific, get out of Asia, get out of Africa and Latin America, get out of Europe and Oceania, get out of the countries and places subjected to U.S. aggression, control, interference, and bullying!

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk on Health Services

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk On Health Services

January 24, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

China’s health service emulates that of the Soviet Union, and I cannot completely accept what health doctors say. I have a gentlemen’s agreement with my doctor. When I have a fever I will call you, and when I do not have one I will not bother you and you will not bother me. I said that if I did not have to call on him for an entire year, that would be testimony of his great merit. If I had to bother him every month, this would be proof that he had failed in his work. I only follow half of what the doctor says and expect him to follow me in the other-half. If we abide by everything the doctor says sickness will multiply and life will be impossible. I have never before heard of so much high blood pressure and liver infections. If a person doesn’t exercise but only eats well, dresses well, lives comfortably, and drives wherever he goes, he will be beset with a lot of illnesses. Excessive attention to food, clothing, housing, and means of transportation are the four underlying, causes of illness among high-level cadres. Our health service emulates the Soviet Union. It makes specialists out of general practitioners. They must treat all types of illnesses and improve themselves.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Remarks at the Spring Festival

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Remarks At The Spring Festival

February 13, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

(Summary Record)

CHAIRMAN MAO: Today is the Spring Festival[1], and we are holding a forum to discuss both foreign and domestic problems ... Do you think our state is likely to collapse or not? Imperialism and revisionism, in concert, have struck right up to our borders, do [you] democratic personages[2] fear the atom bomb? If the atom bomb should explode, we would simply find ourselves back in Yenan. The whole Shen-Kan-Ning Border Area had a population of 1.5 millions, and in the city of Yenan there were 30,000.[3] People cannot reply publicly unless they are first attacked. There was a time when the Kuomintang was cleverer than usual, and did not denounce us publicly. They put out a document using the method of restraining ‘alien’ parties, of restraining the Communist Party.[4] Do you know about that?

CHANG SHIH-CHAO:[5] I don’t know about it.

CHAIRMAN MAO: You people aren’t very well informed. In January 1941, the Kuomintang launched the South Anhwei Incident, in which we lost more than 17,000 men. After this, they staged several more anti-communist high tides, and thus taught [our] Party a lesson. Chiang Kai-shek is no good, every time he had a chance he tried to regiment us. After the end of the anti-Japanese war, Chiang talked about peace, and invited me to go to Chungking for negotiations, but he also gave underhand orders. During the negotiations, he carried out a campaign against our Party and annihilated the three divisions of Kao Shu-hsün.[6].

XXX: Kao has already joined the Party. People can change.

K’ANG SHENG: The Hsüan T’ung emperor has come to present his New Year’s greetings (at the Political Consultative Conference).

CHAIRMAN MAO: We must unite very well with the Hsüan T’ung emperor. Both Kuang Hsü and Hsüan T’ung used to be our bosses.[7] Hsüan T’ung’s monthly salary of a little over a hundred yüan is too small — this man is an emperor.

CHANG SHIH-CHAO: Hsüan Tung’s uncle, Tsai-t’ao,[8] is in wretched straits.

CHAIRMAN MAO: This fellow Tsai-t’ao is a high military official. He was a student in France. I know him, though not intimately. Would it be all right to aid him through you, so that he can eat a bit better? After all, he is our guest. We should improve his standard of living.

It’s no fun being a running dog. Nehru is in bad shape, imperialism and revisionism have robbed him blind. Revisionism is being rebuffed everywhere. It was rebuffed in Romania, it is not listened to in Poland. In Cuba they listen to half and reject half; they listen to half because they can’t do otherwise, since they don’t produce oil or weapons. Imperialism is having a hard time, too. Japan is opposing the United States, and it’s not only the Japanese Communist Party and the Japanese people that are opposing the United States — the big capitalists are doing so too. Not long ago, the Kita-iron works rejected an American inspection. De Gaulle’s opposition to the United States is also in response to the demands of the capitalists. They are also behind his establishment of diplomatic relations with China. China opposes the United States; formerly in Peking there was Shen Ch’ung,[9] the whole country opposed US imperialism. The Khrushchevite revisionists abuse us as dogmatists, pseudo-revolutionaries — they really curse us. Not long ago, a letter from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party put forward four points: (1) An end to open polemics; (2) The return of the [Soviet] experts [to China]; (3) Talks on the Sino-Soviet border; (4) The expansion of commerce. We can have talks about the border; they will begin on 25 February. We can do a little business, but we can’t do too much, for Soviet products are heavy, crude, high-priced, and they always keep something back.

K’ANG SHENG: The quality is inferior.

CHAIRMAN MAO: They are first crude, second expensive, third inferior, and fourth they keep something back, so it’s not so good to deal with them as with the French bourgeoisie, who still have some notion of business ethics.

In the past there have been mistakes in our work. The first was issuing blind commands, the second was excessive requisitioning; these have now been corrected. Now we have gone to the opposite extreme; we have gone from issuing blind commands to no commands, and as a result we are not doing our utmost. So we must emulate the Liberation Army, we must emulate the Petroleum Ministry’s Tach’ing.[10] In the Tach’ing oilfields they have invested more than--and in the space of three years they have built up an oilfield producing--tons, and a processing plant for--tons of oil. The investment has been small, the time has been short, the successes have been great, and the many writings on this subject are worth having a look at. All ministries should learn from the Petroleum Ministry, learn from the Liberation Army, and get some good experience so as to be a combat brigade in relation to the enemy, and a work brigade in relation to ourselves. University students should also learn from the Liberation Army. They should make full use of their successes, set up models for emulation, praise them extensively, and at the same time criticize mistakes. Praise should be the main thing, and criticism should be supplementary. Among those working for our cause, there are many good people, and many good models, which should be praised.

Last year in Hopei there were great natural disasters. In the south there was a drought; originally the harvest was good, but there were heavy rains causing the loss of 20,000 million chin [approximately 12 million metric tons] of grain, nevertheless last year the total production rose by more than 10,000 million chin, and this year we want to do even better. At present we are learning from the Liberation Army, we are learning from the Petroleum Ministry, we are learning from models in the cities, the villages, the factories and the schools, we are overcoming mistakes in our work, and endeavouring to do our work somewhat better this year.

At this forum today, we have discussed international problems, but our basic concern is with internal problems. If we don’t deal effectively with our internal problems, there’s no good talking about international affairs. At present, there are some countries that want to establish relations with our country such as the Congo. The Congo of Lumumba launched a guerrilla war, but they have no modern weapons at all — only things like Kuan Kung’s Black Dragon Crescent Sword, and Chang Fei’s eighteen-foot spear.[11]

XXX: There are also Huang Chung’s arrows.

CHAIRMAN MAO: It is nothing but the weapons of Kuan, Chang, Chao, Ma and Huang -- they have no modern weapons. In the past, we didn’t have any either. After the Nanchang Uprising[12], we lost two divisions; then Chu Te, Ch’en I, and Lin Piao led the remnant up the Chingkangshan. I didn’t know how to fight myself. In 1918 I worked in the library of Peking University; I was paid eight dollars a month, and got along without worrying about clothing, food, or lodging. Chang Shih-chao didn’t want to be an official for Yüan Shih-k’ai[13], so he let him be President of Peking University, he went to Peking University to run a journal. Old Huang[14], are you a constitutionalist?

HUANG YEN-P’EI: I am a revolutionary, not a constitutionalist, I participated in the T’ung Meng Hui.[15]

CHANG SHIH-CHAO: He’s a revolutionary.

CHAIRMAN MAO: Old Ch’en,[16] you belonged to the Research Clique; Chang Shih-chao participated in the Second Revolution[17], and in 1925 he was a minister. Now all of you are marching together with us, participating in socialist construction in the new China. When I say we hope to do our work somewhat better this year, this is not merely the Central Committee’s hope, it is also your hope. Hsü Te-heng, are you in charge of an industrial ministry?[18]

XXX: There is great hope for his ministry.

CHAIRMAN MAO: Old Huang, your family seems to include every possible party and faction — the Democratic League, the Association for Promoting Democracy,[19] the Communist Youth League. The poem by your son Huang Wan-ii, entitled ‘Greetings to the Bridegroom’, is very well written. I admire it. There is a member of the September Third Society who also writes good poems. I admire him too. You don’t know your ten-odd children very well, you are like Kuo Tzu-i.[20]

All Ministries should learn from the Liberation Army, set up a political department, and strengthen their political work. They must encourage achievement, set up model workers for emulation, praise them extensively, and at the same time criticize mistakes. Praise should be the main thing, and criticism should be supplementary. Among those working for our cause there are many good people and good things, there are many good models which we must praise.

Today I want to talk to you about the problem of education. Progress has been made in industry, and I think that there should be same changes in education too. The present state of affairs won’t do. In my opinion the line and orientation [fang-chen] in education are correct, but the methods are wrong, and must be changed. Present here today are comrades from the Central Committee, comrades from within the Party, comrades from outside the Party, comrades from the Academy of Sciences. Comrade XXX will now give a talk.

XXX: At present, an urgent problem in the domain of education is that of the educational system, i.e., the fact that the prescribed length of studies is excessive. At present, children begin school at the age of seven, and spend six years in primary school, six years in middle school, and in some cases six years at university, generally five, thus making in all seventeen or eighteen years. They graduate from university only at the age of twenty-four or twenty-five, and afterwards they engage in manual labour for a year, and then undergo a further period of one year’s on-the-job training, so that they finally emerge [from the whole process] when they are already twenty-six or twenty-seven. This is two or three years longer than it takes in the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union, primary and middle school last for ten years, and the university for four or five, so that at twenty-three or twenty-four they take up a post and begin work. In the study of the humanities, there is no great problem about students growing too old. In the case of the natural sciences they manifestly [remain at their studies] too long. This is particularly the case with the science of atomic energy, with the most advanced sciences, the students are too old when they graduate. On the basis of the experience of all countries of the world, it is possible to make a contribution to the natural sciences by the time one reaches the age of twenty-four or twenty-five. For example, in the United States and in the Soviet Union, those who have some achievements to their credit in the natural sciences, in the field of atomic energy, are commonly all twenty-four or twenty-five. At that age, the brain functions most effectively, but at that age our students are still at university, and have not taken up a post and begun work. They start working only at twenty-six or twenty-seven; this is not advantageous to the development of the sciences. The prescribed course length is exceedingly great, we mast give some thought to the system of educati! on.

CHAIRMAN MAO: The period of schooling should be shortened somewhat.

XXX: Recently Comrade XX had an idea: there should be five years of primary school and four years of middle school, so that students would graduate from middle school at sixteen. If there were six years of primary school, they would graduate from middle school at seventeen. The problem is that the facilities for higher education are inadequate; each year, the universities take only 120,000 or 130,000 students, or 150,000 at the outside. The others could begin work at sixteen. They could receive two years of vocational training after graduating from middle school, and then at eighteen they could go to work in the factories or the villages; in this way, they would be more in touch [with reality]. Or they could attend two years of preparatory courses, thus establishing links with the university, and begin work at twenty-four or twenty-five. In a word, studies must be shortened somewhat. At present, the Central Committee has set up a small group [hsiao-tsu] under the leadership of Comrade XX, especially to study the question of the educational system.

If we adopt this suggestion for improving our national education, then students could graduate in general at fifteen or sixteen. There is, however, one problem — that of military service. They would be too young for this, but they could undergo preliminary training.

CHAIRMAN MAO: That’s not important; those who are not old enough for military service can also experience military life. Not only male students, but also female students can undergo military service. We can form a red women’s detachment. Girls of sixteen or seventeen can also experience six months to a year of military life, and at seventeen they can also serve as soldiers.

XXX: Thus, the problem of schools teaching literary subjects is not so great. The problems with faculties of science and engineering are somewhat greater. The universities have preparatory courses of one or two years; after graduating from middle school, students can either go on to the university preparatory courses, or enter a vocational school, and after two years’ training they can go on to work in a factory or in the countryside at eighteen, thus they will be relatively in touch [with reality]. If they study engineering, they will also be relatively in touch, when they graduate at twenty-three or twenty-four they can take up a post and begin work.

CHAIRMAN MAO: At present, there is too much studying going on, and this is exceedingly harmful. There are too many subjects at present, and the burden is too heavy, it puts middle school and university students in a constant state of tension. Cases of short sight are constantly multiplying among primacy and middle-school students. This can’t be allowed to go on unchanged.

XXX: The subjects covered by the syllabus are too many and too complicated. Many old teachers have remained at their posts. The students are not able to bear it; they are tense in the extreme, and they have no extra-curricular activities, and no time for extra-curricular reading.

CHAIRMAN MAO: The syllabus should be chopped in half. The students should have time for recreation, swimming, playing ball, and reading freely outside their course work. Confucius only professed the six arts -- rites, music, archery, chariot-driving, poetry and history -- but he produced four sages: Yen Hui, Tseng-tzu, Tzu Lu and Mencius. It won’t do for students just to read books all day, and not to go in for cultural pursuits, physical education, and swimming, not to be able to run around, or to read things outside their courses, etc.

XXX: The students are extremely tense. When I’m at home the children say, what’s the point in getting top marks in everything?

CHAIRMAN MAO: Throughout history, very few of those who came first in the imperial examination have achieved great fame. The celebrated T’ang dynasty poets Li Po and Tu Fu were neither chin-shih nor han-lin.[21] Han Yü and Liu Tsungyilan[22] were only chin-shih of the second rank. Wang Shih-fu, Kuan Han-ch’ing,[23] Lo Kuan-chung,[24] P’u Sung-ling, Ts’ao Hsueh-ch’in were none of them chin-shih or han-lin. P’u Sung-ling was a hsiu-ts’ai who had received promotion, he wanted to rise to the next higher rank, but he was not a chü-jen.[25] None of those who became chin-shih or han-lin wore successful. Only two of the emperors of the Ming dynasty did well, T’ai-tsu and Ch’eng-tsu. One was illiterate, and the other only knew a few characters. Afterwards, in contrast, in the Chia-ch’ing reign, when the intellectuals had power, things were in a bad state, the country was in disorder.[26] Han Wu Ti and Li Hou-chu[27] were highly cultivated, and ruined the country. It is evident that to read too many books is harmful. Liu Hsui was an academician, whereas Liu Pang was a country bumpkin.[28]

XXX: There is too much on the syllabus, and there are too many exercises to hand in, the students cannot reflect independently. The present method of examination ....

CHAIRMAN MAO: Our present method of conducting examinations is a method for dealing with the enemy, not a method for dealing with the people. It is a method of surprise attack, asking oblique or strange questions. This is still the same method as the old eight-legged essay. I do not approve of this. It should be changed completely. I am in favour of publishing the questions in advance and letting the students study them and answer them with the aid of books. For instance, if one sets twenty questions on the Dream of the Red Chamber, and some students answer half of them and answer them well, and some of the answers are very good and contain creative ideas, then one can give them 100 per cent. If some other students answer all twenty questions and answer them correctly, but answer them simply by reciting from their textbooks and lectures, without any creative ideas, they should be given 50 or 60 per cent. At examinations whispering into each other’s ears and taking other people’s places ought to be allowed. If your answer is good and I copy it, then mine should be counted as good. Whispering in other people’s ears and taking examinations in other people’s names used to be done secretly. Let it now be done openly. If I can’t do something and you write down the answer, which I then copy, this is all right. Let’s give it a try. We must do things in a lively fashion, not in a lifeless fashion. There are teachers who ramble on and on when they lecture; they should let their students doze off. If your lecture is no good, why insist on others listening to you? Rather than keeping your eyes open and listening to boring lectures, it is better to get some refreshing sleep. You don’t have to listen to nonsense, you can rest your brain instead.

XXX: If we shorten the period of schooling, there will be time for engaging in labour, or for military service. We can also consider having the outstanding students skip a grade, we don’t have to keep them eternally in the same place. In the same grade as my child there is a classmate who was originally an outstanding student; afterwards, he skipped a grade, and he is still an outstanding student. Thus we see that it is possible to skip grades. Ask Comrade XX to organize a small group to conduct a thorough study of this problem of the school system.

CHAIRMAN MAO: Let both XX and XXX participate in this small group. At present we are doing things in too lifeless a manner. There is too much on the syllabus, and examinations are conducted in too rigid a manner. I cannot approve this. The present method of education ruins talent and ruins youth. I do not approve of reading so many books. The method of examination is a method for dealing with the enemy, it is most harmful, and should be stopped.

XXX: At present, the head of the Department of Education has just called a meeting, at which two questions are being considered: one is that the students’ burden is too heavy, and there is homework in every subject: the second is that there are three pedagogical systems, those of Confucius, the Soviets, and Dewey.

CHAIRMAN MAO: Confucius wasn’t really like that. We have cast aside the mainstream of Confucianism. He had only the six subjects: rites, music, archery, chariot-driving, ‘shu’ and mathematics. (Chairman Mao asked XXX whether ‘shu’ meant calligraphy or history.)[29]

XXX: It means calligraphy.

CHAIRMAN MAO: It means history. As in the Shu Ching or the Han Shu.[30]

XXX: At present, middle-school students take continuing their studies as their sole aim. After graduating, they are not willing to engage in labour; this is a very big question, and we must solve it. We must put into practice the union of education and productive labour; in addition, we must also walk on two legs.[31] Last year there was flooding in Hopei, and the Department of Education was under great strain. Many buildings collapsed, and they had to set up simple schools as best they could. As a result, the number of primary- and middle-school pupils actually increased.

CHAIRMAN MAO: The flood engulfed dogmatism. We must get rid of dogmas, both foreign and indigenous.

XXX: Other places have carried out a regularization, and introduced teaching all in one class, rather than separately according to subject. The number of students has declined, and the number of poor and lower-middle peasants has declined, very many poor and lower-middle peasants do not continue their schooling. In Hopei Province they have some good experience. In Hsin-hui hsien in Kwangtung Province, they have investigated ten-odd agricultural middle schools, and ordinary middle schools. In an ordinary middle school, the state spends 120 yuan per year on each student, whereas in an agricultural middle school they spend only 6.80 yüan a year on each student. There is no problem at all about the graduates of an agricultural middle school filling a job, whereas if a graduate of an ordinary middle school does not succeed in the university entrance examinations, there is a great deal of difficulty about placing him in employment. Thus, primary and middle schools should all walk on two legs. At the same time, we must pay attention to improving quality. Previously, everything was done according to Soviet methods, but in 1958 we struck a blow at this, and more provision was made for labour, but then study was neglected in turn, but now that things have been further altered it is all right. It is the same with literature and art, the level is relatively high now, but if there had not been 1958, we would not have attained our present level.[32]

CHAIRMAN MAO: We must drive actors, poets, dramatists and writers out of the cities, and pack them all off to the countryside. They should all periodically go down in batches to the villages and to the factories. We must not let writers stay in the government offices; they will never get anything written if they do not go down. Whoever does not go down will get no dinner; only when they go down will they be fed.

XXX: At present, there are a little over two per cent bad elements among the primary- and middle-school teachers, and there are also notoriously bad elements among the primary and middle-school students.

CHAIRMAN MAO: That doesn’t matter, they can change jobs.

XXX: At present, the worst students go to normal school, the good students go into engineering. Henceforth, we might think about not taking graduates of higher middle school directly into normal school or faculties of letters, but accepting only higher middle-school graduates who have engaged in labour for a year or two. The students of the natural sciences should also go down. They have some experience at the XX School in Harbin; they send the teachers down for a year or two. Those who were not so good originally are all pretty good when they come back from labour, they become part of the core.

CHAIRMAN MAO: They must go down. At present, there are some people who do not attach much importance to going to work in the countryside. In the Ming dynasty, Li Shih-chen[33] went hither and thither, and climbed the mountains to gather herbs. Tsu Ch’ung-chih[34] never went to middle school or university. Confucius was from a poor peasant family, he herded sheep, and never attended middle school or university either. He was a musician, he did all sorts of things. When someone had a death in the family, he would be invited to play at the funeral. He may also have been an accountant. He could play the ch’in[35] and drive a chariot, ride a horse and shoot with bow and arrow. ‘Yü’ means to drive a chariot; it is like being the chauffeur of an automobile. He produced seventy-two sages, such as Yen Hui and Tseng-tzu, and he had 3,000 disciples. In his youth, he came from the masses, and understood something of the suffering of the masses. Later he became an official in the state of Lu, though not a terribly high official. The population of Lu was over a million, and for a long time people looked down on him. When he travelled around to different countries, people cursed him. This person liked to talk frankly, and said he had not experienced misery, and could not bear insults. Later, Tzu Lu acted as Confucius’ bodyguard, and did not allow people to speak ill of Confucius, but would beat anyone who opened his mouth. From this time forward, no more unpleasant sounds entered his ears, and the masses did not dare approach him. We must not cast aside the tradition of Confucius. Our general policy is correct, but our methods are wrong. There are quite a few problems regarding the present school system, curriculum, methods of teaching, and examination methods, and all this must be changed. They! are all exceedingly destructive of people.

XXX: We can get by with five years of primary school.

CHAIRMAN MAO: Primary-school teaching should not go on too long, either. Gorky had only two years of primary school; his learning was all self-taught. Franklin of America was originally a newspaper seller, yet he discovered electricity. Watt was a worker, yet he invented the steam-engine. Both in ancient and modern times, in China and abroad, many scientists trained themselves in the course of practice.

XX: When the school system has been reformed in the future, students will be able to take up a post when they reach the age of twenty-three or twenty-four. Seven is a rather late age for beginning school, we can bring it forward to six. There is a problem with buildings, but if primary school is changed to five years we can dispense with some. Then four years of middle school, and one or two years of a preparatory course at university. In view of the different nature of the various courses at university, we can diversify, and take in 140,000 or 150,000 students each year for a one or two-year preparatory course.

XXX: Before entering university, they can take off a period and go to work in a factory or in a village.

CHAIRMAN MAO: They can also go to the army for training.

XX: This is all right as regards literary subjects, but in physics there is the problem of the use of mathematics, and if they work for two years they might forget it.

XX: In the Soviet Union they work for two years after graduating from middle school, and then enter the faculties of physics and chemistry, they don’t take them directly.

XX: Except for some special schools, the universities are divided into three course-lengths: six years, especially for medicine, five years for engineering, and four years for literary subjects. In most cases of university courses, four years is sufficient. In the future, the system should be diversified, there should be different course-lengths. In the cities, there should be two kinds of middle schools, one leading to university, and the other where students graduate in two years, after which they enter specialized training.

CHAIRMAN MAO: That’s right, we must diversify.

XX: The main problem with the curriculum is a lack of centralization, and there are also those problems we studied in the past, many subjects are studied several times, every semester there are eight or nine subjects to study, there are many examinations, and this creates great tension.

CHAIRMAN MAO: Nowadays, first, there are too many classes; second, there are too many books. The pressure is too great. There are some subjects which it is not necessary to examine. For example, it is not necessary to examine the little logic and grammar which is learned in middle school. Real understanding must be acquired gradually through experience at work. It is enough to know what logic and grammar are.

XX: At present it’s all cramming, mechanical memorizing and reciting.

XXX: There are two schools of thought nowadays. One school advocates teaching subjects thoroughly, while the other advocates teaching them in outline, teaching how to go about mastering subjects, though teaching somewhat less. At present many schools follow the first pattern, but isn’t it true that this won’t work. By advocating doing things in this way, they petrify thought.

CHAIRMAN MAO: This is scholasticism. The annotations to the Four Books and the Five Classics are exceedingly scholastic, and nowadays they have all become completely indigestible. Scholasticism must inevitably die out. For example, in the study of the classics very many commentaries were written, but now they have disappeared. I think that students trained by this method, no matter whether it be in China, in America or in the Soviet Union, will all disappear, will all move towards their opposites. The same applies to the Buddhist classics, of which there are so many. The version of the Diamond Sutra edited by Hsüan-tsang[36] of the T’ang dynasty was comparatively simplified, only a thousand-odd words, and it still exists. Another version, edited by Kumarajiva,[37] was too long, and has died out. Won’t the Five Classics and the Thirteen Classics also come to the end of the road? They have been very copiously annotated, and as a result nobody reads them. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries they indulged in scholastic philosophy; only in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did [the world] enter the age of enlightenment and the Renaissance take place. We shouldn’t read too many books. We should read Marxist books, but not too many of them either. It will be enough to read a dozen or so. If we read too many, we can move towards our opposites, become bookworms, dogmatists, revisionists. In the writings of Confucius, there is nothing about agriculture. Because of this, the limbs of his students were not accustomed to toil, and they could not distinguish between the five grains. We must do something about this.

XXX: There is another question, which is a political question, that of the students’ nourishment, which must be improved. Each student eats food costing 12.5 yuan every month. We should spend another 40 million yuan.

CHAIRMAN MAO: It is all right to spend another 40 million yüan.

XXX: We should increase it by 2 to 4 yüan.[38]

CHAIRMAN MAO: If you read too many books, they petrify your mind in the end. Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty did pretty well in his early years, but afterwards he read many books, and didn’t make out so well any more. He died of hunger in T’ai Ch’eng.[39]

Notes

Tung Meng Hui, or the Chinese Revolutionary League (a united front organization of the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, and a section of the landed gentry opposed to the Ching government), was formed in 1905 through the merging of the Hsing Chung Hui and two other groups, the Hua Hsing Hui (Society for China’s Regeneration) and the Kuang Fu Hui (Society for Breaking the Foreign Yoke). It put forward a programme of bourgeois revolution advocating “the expulsion of the Tartars (Manchus), the recovery of China, the establishment of a republic and the equalization of landownership”. In the period of the Chinese Revolutionary League, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, allying himself with the secret societies and a part of the New Army of the Ching government, launched a number of armed insurrections against the Ching regime, notably those at Pinghsiang (Kiangsi Province), Liuyang and Liling (Human Province) in 1906, at Huangkang Chaochow and Chinchow (Kwangtung Province), and at Chennankuan (Kwangsi Province) in 1907, at Hokou (Yunnan Province), in 1908 and at Canton in 1911. The last was followed in the same yea by the Wuchnag Uprising which resulted in the overthrow of the Ching Dynasty.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at the Hantan Forum on Four Clean-Ups Work

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At The Hantan Forum
On Four Clean-ups Work

March 28, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

1.  Forty or fifty years ago I read a book, Record of Hsiang Shan (Hsiang Shan Chi). The two opening lines were “I do not sing of heavens nor of earth, I only sing of the book Record of Hsiang Shan.” When you sing of this, you can sing of no other.

2.  We have not had a class struggle for 10 years. We had one in ’52 and one in ’57[1] but those were just in the administration organs and in the schools. This time we must do the socialist education campaign in the countryside well, for at least three or four years. I say at least three or four years; otherwise, five or six years. Some places plan to complete 60 percent this year. We must not hurry. Haste makes waste. Of course this is not to say that we can nibble away at it slowly. The problem is that the campaign has already begun. Honan is in too much of a hurry. It would be reasonable to say this is a second land reform.

3.  (Some people report that the work teams use contracts to claim the blue skies as theirs)

Does not contracting for the public assist the local despots and evil gentry?

(Some people report that some work teams strike at people)

Contracting for the public is to strike at people.

4.  It is not strange that the test points [experiments] failed. We must still have them even though they failed. We must pay special attention to summing up the lessons of failure.

5.  (Some people say that some people advocate replacing the “Four Cleans-ups” with a study of Ta-ch’ing and the Liberation Army).

This represents the faction which does not carry out class struggle. Is it possible that Ta-ch’ing does not oppose corruption and waste? That it does not oppose thievery?

6.  The Five Antis directives of the Central Committee did not speak of class struggle.

7.  We should let the monsters and freaks come out. Halfway will not do; if they are halfway out they can still slip back in.

8.  With regard to the downward transfer of the four rights of authority, it proves that the opinion of the deputy director of the Rural Work Department of the Shantung Provincial Committee is correct. Chou Hsing did not agree with him and said that we could not transfer downward to the team. In actuality it was a minority opinion representing the opinion of the majority.

9.  (Some say that university professors who have gone to the countryside for the four dean-ups say they do not understand anything themselves)

Intellectuals are really the most ignorant. Now they have acknowledged defeat. The professors are not like the students and the students are not like the peasants.

10.  They have turned over all the machineguns and do not want to arrest him again. Arrest is to hand contradictions to those above. The higher levels in turn do not understand the situation, but would do well to transfer the supervision to the masses.

11.  Everyone must read documents, except for those who are old and ill, whose cultural level is so low they cannot read documents, and those whose political prestige is very low, such as P’eng Te-huai.

12.  “On the Present Situation and Our Tasks” was spoken by me in 1947[2]. Someone transcribed it and it was revised by me. At that time I had contracted a disease whereby I could not write. Now when I want something written, it is all done by a secretary, not by my hand. Of course, some things may be written for me by other people. For instance, the speeches delivered by the premier when he leaves the country are done by Juang Chen and Ch’iao Kuan-hua. When you are ill, you may have someone write down what you say. But if you never take the initiative and rely on a secretary, it is just like having a secretary assume your responsibility for leadership work.

13.  My 1933 investigation at Ku-t’ien reflected the opinions of the peasants, and was the opinions of the peasants issuing from my lips.

Opinions do not come from Peking. If a factory has no materials to work with, it does not produce anything. We rely on your raw materials to do our processing.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Remarks at a Briefing

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Remarks At A Briefing

March 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication]

I have read your letter asking to have a talk with me. Recently I have been occupied with the struggle against revisionism and the like, so it has taken me some time to come and talk with you.

As you can see, we are struggling against Khrushchev. Can we win? We have struggled against enemies for a generation. We dared to struggle against imperialism, and defeated it. Who says we cannot defeat Khrushchev?!

We are now principally in a struggle against imperialism and revisionism. As for reactionaries like Nehru they don’t amount to too much!

(On the high targets for grain production proposed by some at the 1960 Shanghai meeting).

Truth, all truth, is ever in the hand of minority in the beginning. They will always have some compulsion exerted on them by the majority. Four hundred years ago Copernicus, a great Polish astronomer, discovered that the earth moves. The theory that heavens revolve about the earth had ruled astronomy for over 1,000 years. The greatest achievement of Copernicus in his life time was to replace this theory with the scientific theory that the earth revolves about the sun. The religious circles of that time rallied together to attack him, to oppose him and accuse him of heresy. He was oppressed on all sides. His De Revolutionibus was not published until he was on his deathbed (1543). He rejoiced in it. In Italy during that period the brilliant physicist and astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) subscribed to Copernicus’ “heliocentric theory”. Beginning in 1609 he observed the heavens with a homemade telescope to see whether the stars moved, but he was persecuted by the religious circles of that time and convicted by the reactionary Roman court. Another person was burned to death. Burning an individual is nothing! Truth does not lie in his hands! Burn someone to death and the earth still moves. A German invented sleeping potions. He was an apothecary in a druggist’s shop. The several men did their experiments in the shop. At first their aim was to alleviate the pain of women during childbirth. They carried out several experiments. Once eight people were poisoned and almost died, but finally they discovered a sleeping potion. But the Germans did not allow them to manufacture it or promote its sale. The French purchased their patent rights and invited the apothecary to France and held a meeting to welcome him. Only then was it disseminated. And most curiously, it did not thrive in one place, but did elsewhere. This kind of thing happens very frequently. For instance, Buddhism was born in India, but it was not so tolerated in India; however, it thrived when it reached China and other ! places. As another example, at present Marxism-Leninism is not thriving in Europe or the Soviet Union, but it is in China. Darwin personally believed in religion. When his Origin of Species was published, he was persecuted by religious circles which opposed him.

(On socialist education)

Recently we held a discussion to ratify two documents from the members of the Central Committee to the members of county committees. These documents are being read to the masses. It will take one or two years to finish this reading. I have recommended that whoever is not old and infirm (such as Hsu or Wu), whoever is not illiterate, and whoever has prestige among the masses (of course this does not mean rightists; for instance, P’eng Teh-huai[1] must not go) should take part in this reading. The generals have all gone among the troops to read  —  they say it can be done! Why don’t others do it?

In actuality, reading documents to the masses means to learn from the masses. If you want to go to a region to read, you first carry out investigation and study.

The “Four Clean-ups” and “Five Antis” were taught to us by the masses. Nothing was engendered in our brains. The “Four Clean-ups” was proposed by the Pao-t’ing Special District Party Committee. Of the eight special district committees in Hopeh Province, only Pao-t’ing presented it. At the beginning even the Pao-t’ing Special District Party Committee did not understand how to carry out the “Four Cleanups. ” Afterwards the masses submitted to them that it would not do to leave out the “Four Clean-ups”, so they accepted it. Cadre participation in labour was taught to us by Hsi-Yang County, Shansi. Later there were also some materials on this from Chekiang Province.

(On the current nationwide launching of a high tide in studying the works of Chairman Mao.)

The Selected Works of Mao, how much of it is mine! It is a work of blood. The struggle in the soviets was very acute. Because of the errors of the Wang Ming line we had to embark on the 25,000 li Long March[1]. These things in Selected Works of Mao were taught to us by the masses and paid for with blood sacrifices.

Some articles should be rewritten, with new things included. The “Two On’s” [“On Contradiction, ” “On Practice”] were written several decades ago. By now everything has developed and the contents have become richer. They should be revised.

(On the lessons of experience during the three years of great development from 1958-1960)

It was most beneficial. We could not have escaped the experience, for we would not have been able to learn how to engage in construction. We had no experience in nationwide construction. During the revolution we gained some experience in economic construction in the base areas. At that time the problems most urgently requiring solution were three: we needed food, we needed clothing, and we needed salt. Thus we had to develop production. These were the reasons for our engaging in economic construction at that time[3].

I spent 10 years before and after the land reform program (documents of 1933). I could not have done it without the 10 years. During the great revolution I held two lecture and study sessions on the peasant movement, one in Canton and one in Wuhan, and did some investigation and study, but still did not have a solution. Only later when I carried out eight investigations in Hsing-kuo and other regions and investigated Ch’ang-kang Township and Ts’aichi Township, could I solve the problem. The masses taught it to me; they told me how to do it.

We spent 25 years studying revolution, from, 1921 to the Seventh Party Congress in 1945[4]. During the Yenan rectification[5], we had come to know the rightist opportunism of Ch’en Tu-hsiu[6] and the three “left” deviationist lines, especially that of Wang Ming[7]. We summed up these experiences. We were thereby able to develop into an army of 1.2 million, not counting the militia, by the close of the war of Resistance against Japan. The Seventh Congress was excellent; it unified our thoughts and united the entire party. Of course, there were still some problems, such as Kao Kang and P’eng Te-haui, but we still had faith in them. P’eng Teh-huai later served as commander of the Northwest Field Army. In 1946 he had skirmishes with the Kuomintang, in July 1947 he began to counterattack  —  every month he exterminated eight brigades. What bravado! By 1948 he had successively taken Shichiachuang and Tsinan and later waged three great battles.

It took me 15 years to learn how to fight a war. In the beginning I did not know how to fight and did not even consider fighting. When the great revolution was defeated, we had 50,000 party members divided into several groups, one of which was killed, another capitulated, and still another did not venture to do anything and ran away. Only 1,000-2,000 people were left. According to statistics, there were still 800 at the time of the Seventh Congress. In the several years since, some have died of age, so that only 600 are left, only 30 of them from Ching-kang Shan. At that time we had our backs to the wall and were compelled to pick up guns and learn to wage war. We had not entered any military academy. Only a minority had been to a military academy. The study of waging war was mainly taught to us by “teacher” Chiang Kai-shek. He smashed the soviets and caused us to undertake the 25,000 li Long March, 300,000 troops, of whom there remained only 20,000 when we reached north Shensi. And not all of these 20,000 people came on the Long March. They advanced through Yun-yang and Tung-cheng in Ch’ing-yang and Kuanchung in the Shensi-Kansu border areas. At that time I said that the 20,000 people were as strong as 300,000, not weaker. They traveled 25,000 li, their legs did the “talking, ” made their speeches. In this way our brains had to think a bit. Only after the Ts’un-i Conferences[8] did we change our ways and learn how to fight. Everything was forced upon us.

(On the necessity to learn their revolutionary spirit in learning from the liberation Army and the Ministry of Petroleum, and to fight a war of annihilation)

We cannot be hasty. The socialist education campaign in the countryside must fight a war of annihilation. It is not enough time without these X or X years. At least four years: last year, this year, next year, the year after that are needed. We cannot be hasty. It will probably take X or X years or X or X years to completely master learning from the Liberation Army and the Ministry of Petroleum. We cannot be hasty with that either. Some provinces want to finish socialist education this year. That’s too fast. It is a construction of X years or X years (indicates that a coal mine producing over X X tens of thousands metric tons per year in the past required X years to construct). To speed this up or hurry it too much will not do. If you press it excessively it will be done in a phoney manner.

(On what it means to support the General line, the Great Leap Forward, and the peoples’ communes)

Class struggle, the struggle for production, and scientific experimentation must be linked up. Only carrying out the struggle for production and scientific experimentation but not grasping class struggle cannot kindle the spirit and enthusiasm of the people, nor can the struggle for production or scientific experimentation be done well. Will it do to only carry out the struggle for production and not scientific experimentation? To only carry out class struggle but not the struggle for the production or scientific experimentation, and to say “support the General line,” are meaningless. I say that the Ministry of Petroleum has made great achievements; it kindled the revolutionary spirit of the people and also built a X X tens of thousands metric ton oil field. Moreover, it is not just a X X tens of thousands ton oil field, but also a X X ton refinery, of very high quality and up to international standards. This is the only way to convince people!

(On the decline in revolutionary will of some comrades and the necessity to promote young cadres)

In the final analysis, are some people ill or is their revolutionary will declining? Or did they go dancing six times a week? Or is it love of beauty but not country? Some say they are so sick that they cannot do their work. Can an illness be that bad?!. . . Like certain comrades, in the final analysis, do they love beauty or country? In my view, when we ask them to do X X, they may not necessarily be able to do it well. We should give them a “prime minister”.

For many years we have advocated going out to do investigation and study. But they did not go out. They have been engaging in industry for so many years yet they do not know what industry is. They do not understand machinery or equipment: what can they do!

At present we must promote young cadres. At the time of the Ch’ih-pi War and the Ch’un-ying-hui, Chuko Liang was 27 years old, as was Sun Ch’uan. Sun Tse was doing things when he was only 17 or 18 years old. When Chou Yu died he was not over 36 years old; at that time he was about 30. Ts’ao Ts’ao was 53. In fact, young people beat the old. “In the Yangtze River the rear waves push those in front; in the world new people chase after the old”.

(On Ch ’en Yung-kuei of Tachai Production Team)

But we should not look down on the under-educated. During the National People’s Congress, X X X, a comrade of mine who is now a lieutenant governor of Hupeh Province, asked to speak with me. He said that he has now come to understand that intellectuals have the least knowledge. Throughout history, many emperors were intellectuals but were unsuccessful: Sui Yang-ti could write essays and poetry; Ch’en Hou-chu and Li Hou-chu could write poetry and were good at narrative verse; Sung Hat Tsung could write poetry and paint. Some of the under-educated can do great things: Genghis Khan was an illiterate. Liu Pang too could not read a dozen characters, and was under-educated. Chu Yuan-chang was also illiterate, a cattle herder. In our military ranks there are many under-educated, but only a few intellectuals. Hsu Shih-yu[9] studied for a few days! X X X has never had any formal education, nor have Han Hsien-chu or Ch’en Hsi-lien. X X went to senior primary school, as did Liu Ya-lou[10]. Of course, we cannot do without several intellectuals. We consider Lin Piao, Hsu Hsiang- ch’ien, X X X, X X X, . . . to be middle grade intellectuals. My conclusion is that the under-educated can defeat the students of Whampoa.

(On how current practices are all right, wherein everyone wants to engage in criticism and self-criticism and to learn from others).

Everything is one divided into two. I personally am also one divided into two. I was a primary school teacher, and when I was young, I also believed in the spirits. I went with my mother to distant temples to burn incense. Before the October Revolution, I did not even know there was a Marx, or anything which occurred after Marx.

Is there anyone who has not committed a mistake? Some of our comrades enjoy metaphysics. What is metaphysics? It is one-sidedness, allowing only the good to be said and not the bad and being fond of only hearing good and not the bad. Like X X X, a good comrade, but he does not want to let people see their bad points, only their good; they are mortally afraid they will touch a sore point.

Marx was also one divided into two. Marx’s philosophy was learned from Hegel and Feuerbach, his economics from England’s Ricardo and others, and from France he studied utopian socialism All this was bourgeois. From this, one divided into two and produced Marxism. Let me ask you, when Marx was young did he ever read Marx’s works?

This party of ours is also one divided into two.

Before opposing an encirclement and suppression, some people said that one could not run an army without beating people; how could one lead the troops without beatings? At that time warlordism was really vicious! The soldiers said, “Cherish the soldiers, cherish the soldiers, the company commander rides the horse.” This phase was incorrect, the company commander should ride the horse.

P’eng has always carried out splittism. During the time of the central soviet-controlled areas, Li Li-san’s line emerged. They were so “left”! They wanted to strike against the large cities, against Chiu-chiang, Wuhan, and Changsha. I said it would not work; they said we had to strike. At that time there was a Chi-an area party committee secretary, Li Wen-lin, who wrote a letter to the Central Committee stating emphatically that it was the consciousness of the peasants to divide the land and develop and consolidate the land reform and that to first attack Chi-an then Chiu-chiang would definitely throw away the revolution. That is to say that we had to attack Chiu-chiang was quite “left”! We have had 10 years of civil war. The intraparty struggle is very serious.

The Fifth Plenum elected Chang Weng-t’ien[11] to the Political Bureau when he was not even a member of the Central Committee. If we now investigate whether or not Chang was a party member, when he entered the party, or who introduced him, we will not be able to find the answer. Nonetheless he was elected to the Political Bureau, while I, a member of the Political Bureau, was not allowed to participate in the congress.

By the Tsun-i Conference on the Long March, the situation had some changes. There should be a differentiation made in the Wang Ming line. It was different before and after the Tsun-i conference.

In parleying with the Fourth Front Army, we spoke honestly and told Chang Kuo-t’ao[12] that we began with 80,000 men, but then only had 30,000 left. We did speak honestly! At that time the Fourth Front Army still had 80,000 men. Chang Kuo-t’ao demanded the power of leadership from us, but we did not give it. Chang Kuo-t’ao’s errors were errors of line.

Afterwards we arrived in north Shensi. The War of Resistance was also not without problems. There was the Wang Ming line and things like P’eng Teh-huai’s Hundred Regiments Battle. Before the Seventh Party Congress, we held a conference to struggle against P’eng Teh-huai. Did he not say at the Lushan Conference[13]. “You curse me for 40 days, so I curse you for 20 days.” You participated at the Yenan struggle meeting! He did not disperse (indicating the Hundred Regiments Battle); he insisted on concentrating his forces. In actuality, at that time a platoon could have developed into a regiment or a division.

Was it still one divides into two after liberation? The Kao-Jao antiparty clique in 1953 was a great revelation. At the finance conference they said X X and X X were sectarians. I said that the Chinese revolution has scaled many peaks. Without peaks, where is the revolution? At that time we also did not have a common program.

P’eng and Kao Kang united together in north Shensi. I had not thought that Teng Hua would also work with them. Teng Hua told me that he felt that Ching-kang Shan had no peak and was very unattractive. Afterward he sought out P’eng. The late Ch’en Kuang also felt there were no peaks and was dissatisfied.

In 1962 they were again unable to speak of classes and class struggle how unsteady would each department be! Teng Tzu-hui[14] wanted to “contract to the households.” In the past Wang Chia-hsiang[15] had always been ill. For that half a year he was healthy and wanted to have “three reconciliations and one reduction,” with such activism! What we must now do is “three struggles and one increase.” The United Front Department wants the political parties of the bourgeoisie to become socialist political parties and drew up a five-year plan. They softly, softly fell; it was a surrender to the bourgeoisie. At that time they wanted to carry out “three reconciliations and one reduction” internationally and “three freedoms and one contract” domestically. P’eng Teh- huai’s letter of attack also came out at that time as did Hsi Chung-hsun’s[16] book Liu Chih-tan.

(On reading)

There is some truth in the foolish old man who moved the mountains. Within one or several million years a mountain may flatten. The foolish old man put it correctly: after his death would come his sons, and after them more sons. The grandsons would have sons, and sons and grandsons will continue to be produced. But the mountain will not increase in height. There must eventually come a day when it is levelled.

To talk about philosophy for half an hour is enough: if you talk longer you would not talk clearly. We also do not want to read too many books. Reading several dozens will do. The more you read, the more unclear things become.

(On grain levies, purchases and transfers in the countryside)

Some districts do not have basic food rations. I do not approve. They should have basic food rations.

Notes

The Third Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the Party held in September 1930, and the subsequent central leading body adopted many positive measures to put an end to the Li Li-san line. But later a number of Party comrades who were inexperienced in practical revolutionary struggle, with Chen Shao-yu (Wang-Ming) and Chin Pang-hsien (Po Ku) in the lead, came out against in the Central Committee’s measures. In the pamphlet, ‘The Two Lines or The Struggle for the Further Bolshevization of the Communist Party of China’, they most emphatically declared that the main danger then existing in the Party was not “Left” opportunism but “Right opportunism” and to justify their own activities they “criticized” the Li Li-san line as “Rightist”. They put forward a new political programme which continued, revived or developed the Li Li-san line and other “Left” ideas and policies in a new guise, and set themselves against the correct line of Comrade Mao Tse-tung. It was mainly to criticize the military mistakes of this new “Left” opportunist line that Comrade Mao Tse-tung wrote the article “Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War”. This line was dominant in the Party from the Fourth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee in January 1931 to the meeting of the Political Bureau convened by the Central Committee at Tsunyi, Kweichow Province, in January 1935, which ended the dominance of this erroneous line and established the new central leadership headed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung. The erroneous “Left” line dominated the Party for a particularly long time (four years) and brought extremely heavy losses, with disastrous consequences, to the Party and the revolution. A loss of 90 per cent was inflicted on the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese Red Army and its base areas, tens of million of people in the revolutionary base areas were made to suffer the cruel oppression of ! the Kuomintang, and the progress of the Chinese revolution was retarded.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directive on Labor Reform

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directive On Labour Reform

April 28, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red GuardPublication.]

Comrade Hsieh Fu-chih during a briefing said: Last year we paid close attention to grasping [labor] reform; yet it was one of the best years in production in recent years. However, the problem of the relationship between reform and production in our labor reform work has not been solved even now.

The chairman said: What is the key to reform, reform of men or labor reform in production, or put stress on both? Should we attach more importance to men, to things, or to both? Some comrades think only things, not men, are important. In fact, if we do our work on men well, we shall have things as well.

Hsieh Fu chih: I read the double-ten articles to the prisoners of the Shou-shih production team of the First Prison of Chekiang Province. They were also read by other comrades of the working group to the Ch’iao-shih farm 5th brigade. Afterward the overwhelming majority of the prisoners who had not confessed before now admitted their guilt and many recalcitrant prisoners also changed for the better.

The chairman: In general, those people are still useful. Why do they feel interested in the double-ten articles?

Hsieh Fu-chih: Once they understood the Party’s policy, they felt that they themselves, in particular their family and children, had a future in their life.

The chairman: So it is! If they have a future, they have confidence in reforming themselves. Otherwise all they see is darkness so they cannot confidently reform themselves.

Hsieh Fu-chih: At first, many cadres had objected to reading the double-ten articles to the prisoners. However, having heard them read, the prisoners became more amenable. So the attitude of the cadres also changed.

The chairman: Many cadres objected to reading the double-ten articles because they were afraid that this would make their way of things ineffectual. They don’t believe they are capable of turning the overwhelming majority of the prisoners into new men. In the past, officers of the Red Army had relied on beating, scolding, detaining, shooting, and so forth to lead their troops. A company commander or a platoon leader could not lead his men without beating or scolding them, or showing them an air of his importance. This state of affairs had gone on for many years. Later after summing up experiences it changed gradually with the result that the soldiers became more easily led. To do work on men well is not to press them into submission but to convince them by persuasion. At present, your way of doing things has begun to take effect, but even a beginning takes so many years to take effect.

The original level of labour reform cadres has not changed.

Hsieh Fu-chih: The quality of these cadres is weak but their tasks are heavy. Their work runs the gamut of class struggle, struggle for production and scientific experiment.

The chairman: So it is! If you are not good at anything, how can you reform anybody? (Comrade Hsieh Fu-chih: Through study at selected basic units we proposed labour reform’s “four first,” “two predominant factors,” and “two leniencies and two stringencies.” For handling prisoners who had served their sentence and became employed, we brought out “four retain and four do not retain,” and labour reform cadres were required to have “four knows” regarding their prisoners.)

The chairman: This is quite good. What are you doing in other areas?

Hsieh Fu-chih: We are ready to carry out these measures at certain test points and extend them step by step. We have done our work well in reforming Japanese and Chinese war criminals. After their release, except in some individual cases, the overwhelming majority of them have given a good account of themselves.

The chairman: Under certain conditions, when the enemies have laid down their arms and surrendered themselves, the overwhelming majority of them can be reformed, but there must be a good policy and a good method to make them consciously reform themselves without relying exclusively on submission by compulsion.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Some Interjections at a Briefing of the State Planning Commission Leading Group

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Some Interjections At A Briefing
The State Planning Commission
Leading Group

May 11, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

1. In formulating the plan it is necessary to include certain needs of North Korea and North Vietnam. I hear North Vietnam is in need of XX thousand tons of oil.

2. It is not certain that we shall have a population of 720 millions in 1965. There will be 800 millions in 1970? This is serious.

3. Intellectuals are quite important; [we] cannot do without them. They are needed in the realm of theory; theory cannot do without them. However, they still need to sum up the things indicated below.

4. There are two fists and one rear end in the national economy. Basic industry is one fist, national defense industry is the other, and agriculture is the rear end.^A.

5. The Soviet Union today is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the grand bourgeoisie, a fascist German dictatorship, and a Hitlerite dictatorship. They are a bunch of rascals worse than De Gaulle.

6. Class identifications should be drawn in all units, factories, streets, schools, and official organs.

7. The wage question. It is difficult to further reduce wages at the upper levels. From now on, we will stabilize wages at the upper levels and raise them gradually at the lower levels.

8. Whom is Industry to serve? It should be made to serve agriculture. Of course, there is the question of interrelationship between sectors of heavy industry, but the whole spectrum of industry should be made to serve agriculture.

9. Stable-yield output and high-yield output are relative. Last year Hopeh Province had torrential rains. This downpour was willed by the Lord in Heaven! It couldn’t be helped! It is hard to be Lord in Heaven. Too much rain isn’t good; too little isn’t good either.

10. Do as much as one’s strength allows. Don’t let any individual decide on this. “I am old and about to die, but before I die, I want to accomplish. . .?” This isn’t right.

11. I want to finish reading The Twenty-four Histories. The Old Book of T’ang History is better than The New Book of T’ang History. The Southern History and The Northern History are still better than The Old Book of T’ang History. The most unsatisfactory is the History of Ming Dynasty.

12. The purpose of drawing class identifications in factories is to expose the 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 percent of the workers. Among the workers 8 to15 percent do not have a working class origin.

"两个拳头，一个屁股。基础工业是一个拳头，国防是一个拳头。要使拳头有劲，屁股就要坐稳。屁股就是农业。"

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interjection at a Briefing by Four Vice-Premiers

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interjections At A Briefing
By Four Vice-Premiers

May 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

1. Close attention must be paid to class struggle. The four cleanups in the rural areas is a class struggle; the five anti’s in the cities is likewise a class struggle. Cities must not brag about themselves. The five anti’s work cannot be concluded either this winter or next spring. It must be continued for a period of 3 to 5 years before it can be finished. Class identifications must also be drawn in the cities. As to how they should be drawn, certain criteria should be formulated when we come to do this work in the future. We should not take account of the class origin alone. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, none of them had their origin from the working class.

2. On the Third Five-Year Plan. We must go all out and put forth the utmost effort to set aside all reserve. We cannot formulate any plan based on our age. Planning must have an objective basis. I am over 70 years old, older than you people, but we cannot rely on what we see of communism shortly before we die as the basis for planning. In the present Third Five-Year Plan I feel we must pay attention to increasing quantity without losing sight of improving quality.

The plan must not be based on subjective expectations; it must have an objective basis. It must be practical and dependable.

3. On self-reliance. Self-reliance is very important. It should be practiced not only by a state, but also by a factory, a people’s commune, and a production team. In managing people’s communes, those which practiced self-reliance showed real achievements whereas those communes and production teams which were supported by loans did not fare so well. At present, we have three truly self-reliant communes in the whole country: one is the Ch’en Yung’k’ang commune in Kiangsu Province; another is the Ch’en Yung-kuei commune in Shansi Province; and still another is the Ch’en XX commune in Ch’u-fou, Shantung Province. These three communes have never asked for a penny from the state as they were built up completely on the strength of their own effort.

4. On the question of cadres participating in labor. Cadres must take part in labor. At present, this question has not yet been satisfactorily resolved. Leading cadres should go and stay in selected primary units and should not solely listen to briefings and reports. Even ministers should go and stay in some primary units. Otherwise no meetings would be held.

5. This year’s wheat output is estimated to have an increase of 5 billion catties over last year. It appears that there is an abundance of rain this spring. This will do more good than harm.

6. The Third Five-Year Plan calls for moving such a large number of people from the rural areas to the cities to be workers. This is not good.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk on the Third Five-Year Plan

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk On The Third Five Year Plan

June 6, 1964

[SOURCE: Long live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

In the past, the method of planning was essentially learned from the Soviet Union and comparatively easy to do. First you determine how much steel is needed, then on this basis estimate how much coal, electricity, transport force, and so on are needed; and then based on these assumptions estimate the expected increase in urban population and the livelihood benefits. This is the method of using the calculator. Once the output of steel is reduced, all other items are correspondingly reduced. This kind of method is impractical and unworkable. This type of calculation cannot take into account what the Lord in Heaven will do to the plan. Suppose a natural disaster comes and you just won’t have such a quantity of foodgrains, support to the urban population cannot increase to the extent desired and then everything else comes to naught. Besides you cannot figure in what war will do. We are not the chief of staff of the U.S., so we don’t know when they will strike against us. Furthermore, revolutions in various countries cannot be figured into the plan. Suppose in some countries the people’s revolutions have succeeded and they need our economic assistance. How can this be foretold?

It is necessary to change the method of planning. This is a revolution. After we learned the Soviet method, it has become a force of habit with us and it seems hard to change.

In the last few years we have been groping our way and found some other method. Our policy is to take agriculture as the foundation and industry as the leading factor. Pursuant to this policy, when we map out a plan we first see what quantity of foodgrains can be produced, then estimate how much fertilizer, pesticides, machinery, iron and steel, and so on are needed.

How do we plan for an annual harvest? It will be determined by the assumption that in 5 years there will be 1 year of good harvest, 2 years of ordinary harvest, and 2 years of poor harvest. This is more practical and dependable. It should first be ascertained what quantity of foodgrains, cotton and other economic crops can be produced under such conditions and then how much industry can be planned for on this foundation. If the harvest of the year is better, so much the better.

Moreover, we should consider war and make strategic plans. Party committees in various localities should not manage civil affairs alone and ignore the military, should not manage money alone and ignore guns. As long as imperialism exists, there is always the danger of war. We must build up the strategic rear. . . This does not mean that we no longer care about the sea coast which must also be well-guarded so that it can play the role of supporting the construction of new bases.

Two fists and one rear end. Agriculture is one fist, and national defence is another fist. To make the fist strong, the rear end must be seated securely. The rear end is basic industry.

At present, the main problem of basic industry is one of variety and quality which must be solved. Last year although the output of steel was less, it had more variety and better quality and consequently more uses than in the past. The key does not lie in the quantity of output. The Soviet Union takes quantity as the criterion. If they fail to fulfil the quantity target of steel output, it looks as if their total socialist construction is lost. They have kept on raising their quantity target every year and they have been making empty boasts every year. As a matter of fact, a state will not collapse simply because a planned quantity target has not been fulfilled. Given a definite quantity of output, variety will increase, and thus the foundation will be strengthened.

In agriculture we must mainly rely on the spirit of Ta-chai and self-reliance. This is not to say that it does not need the support of industry. Water conservancy, chemical fertilizer, and pesticides all need the support of basic industry.

We should take hold of the objective relationship of proportions in mapping out any plan.

Planning should not be done merely by adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. As soon as calculations have been completed, all departments and all localities will be fighting four figures, personnel, and money and engaged in litigation. . . We must let politics take command, entertain an over-all viewpoint, and formulate a plan not in accordance with the desire of any particular locality but with the laws governing the objective existence of the things themselves.

Don’t fight for money all the time. Don’t spend money wastefully as soon as it comes into hand. Chou Hsin-fang earns 1,700 yuan in wages every month, and regardless of the number of performances, still deposits money in Hong Kong. Some young actors already have their “10-year plan,” hoping to surpass Chou Hsin-fang. Bourgeois intellectuals may be bought if necessary according to our policy. But why should we buy proletarian intellectuals? He who has plenty of money is bound to corrupt himself, his family and those around him. . . In the Soviet Union the high-salaried class first came from the literature and art circles.

Strive for several years so that we no longer have to import foodgrains, and use the foreign exchange thus saved to buy more technological equipment and materials. . .

We must not waste money. As soon as situation gets better, don’t try to “do it in a big way” again freely. “Make some allowances;” I have said this so many times in the past and no one acted accordingly. However, you have so acted in the past 2 years; don’t go back again when the situation turns better.

The majority of workers in official organs can work and participate in manual labor half of the time, respectively. This is worth promoting. Laziness is one of the root causes of revisionism.

Why are there so many literature and art associations in Peking? They have nothing to do. Maybe they are doing some disorderly things. At the literature and art festivals, the performance of the army ranks first, the localities second, and Peking (Central) the worst. This association, that association, this sort of thing is also transplanted from the Soviet Union. The central literature and art organizations are still ruled by foreigners and dead men. . . We must go deeply into the life of the living. If we keep on playing with dead men and foreigners, our nation will doomed. We must serve the workers and poor and lower-middle peasants. Physical cultural should also be beneficial to revolutionary struggle and construction.

Among cadres in general, many are “three door” cadres (leaving family door, entering school door, and entering office door). Cadres cannot be reared and trained well through the “three doors.” It is dangerous to rely on this type of cadres to take hold of the future of the state. Nor will it do to depend on those cadres who have entered the “primary school door, middle school door, and college door.” It will not do to not read books, nor will it do to read too many books. Ability does not depend on books alone; it must depend on practice. Our state will chiefly rely on those cadres who have read books through practice to take hold of its future.

All provinces should manage military defense industry. We should squeeze some money from industry, agriculture, and culture and education. We don’t need to establish so many regular schools. Tsinghua University has over 10,000 students and 40,000 professors, staff and family members. The spirit of leadership is going to be greatly wasted in this way.

We don’t really have make academicians and PhD’s.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk on Putting Military Affairs Work Into Full Effect and Cultivating Successors to the Revolution

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk On Putting Military Affairs
Work Into Full Effect And
Cultivating Successors To
The Revolution

June 16, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

I shall talk about two problems. The first is the question of local party committees paying attention to military affairs, and the second is the question of dealing with successors. . . it will not do to merely observe demonstrations. It is necessary to pay attention to troops, it is necessary to operate armament plants. . . the provinces must inquire into the matter of troop units and the militia. You first secretaries of provincial committees are also political commissars. You have not carried out your duties for a number of years, you have been political commissars in name only and have not paid attention to military affairs. When a problem arises, you become confused without help. Regardless of which direction the enemy may come, it is necessary that you be ready, then our country shall not perish. The various levels of party committees must all pay attention to military affairs work and to militia work. . . How can only we rely on the several millions of Liberation Army troops of the central government in a country such as ours and on such a large battle front? We cannot depend on them. You must make up your own minds. The local authorities have the responsibility. . . needless to say, they will want to fight an atomic war! We shall run away when they drop the atom bombs. When they enter the city, we shall also enter the city and the enemy will not dare to use the atom bomb. We shall engage in street fighting. At any rate, we shall fight them.

It is necessary that the militia be organized a little better organizationally, politically, and militarily. Organizational improvement is to have some sort of an established organization of cadre-militiamen and ordinary militiamen, to have fighters, squad and platoon leaders, and company, battalion, regiment, and division commanders, and to become really functional. It is also necessary that political work personnel be organized so that in case something happens, they may take up their arms and go. Some people have said that their psychological outlook improved greatly after three months of service in the militia. The militia must have organization, it must have soldiers, it must have officers, and it must be put into full effect At present, many localities have not put it into full effect. It is necessary to carry out political work and the work of the people. To put politics into full effect, it is necessary to have a political structure, political commissars, political officers, and political instructors. To do political work is to perform the work of the people. It is necessary to distinguish between the good and the bad people in the militia and eliminate the bad ones. It is necessary to clearly explain to the militiamen that regardless of whatever important matter which may occur, they must not become flustered, for how can one win battles if one is flustered? One must not become flustered in fighting with rifles, guns, or atom bombs. One will not become flustered if one is well prepared politically. When the atom bomb is dropped, there is nothing else but to see Marx; since the days of old there has always been death. Without a belief, one cannot establish oneself. Those who are doomed to die shall die, and those who do not die shall go on. To kill all the Chinese people. I cannot see that, the imperialists will not do that, for who will they have to exploit!. . . . in 20 years of war, have we not lost many people? Huang Kung-lueh, Liu Hu-lan, and Huang Chikuang. . . we did not die, we are the! remaining dregs. When the burden is too heavy, death is the way out. Indeed, death called on Comrade XXX, but he did not go, so he is still alive. It is necessary to be prepared militarily. It is necessary to be prepared with rifles during peacetime, it will be too late when war starts. . . if one only cares about dealing with civil and not military affairs, if one only wants people and not rifles. When war begins, it will be necessary to depend upon China to hold on, it will not do to depend on the revisionists. When the enemy fight their way in, we will be able to fight our way out. In general, we must be ready to fight, we must not become flustered when the fighting starts, we also must not be flustered in fighting the atom bomb. Do not be afraid. It is nothing but a big disorder throughout the world. It is nothing but people dying. Man eventually must die, he may die standing up or lying down. Those who do not die will go on with their work, if one-half meets with death, there is still another half. . . Do not be afraid of imperialism. It will not do to be afraid, the more one is afraid, the less enthusiasm one will have. Being prepared and unafraid, one will have the enthusiasm.

The second problem is to prepare for the future and to bring up successors.

The imperialists have said that our first generation presented no problem, the second generation did not unchange, and that there is hope for the third and fourth generations. Will this hope of the imperialists be realized? Will these words of the imperialists come true? I hope that it will not come true; however, it can also come true. In the Soviet Union, it was the third generation that produced the Soviet Khrushchev Revisionism. We can also possibly produce revisionism. How can we guard against revisionism? How can we cultivate successors to the revolution? As I see it, there are five requirements.

1. It is necessary to regularly observe and educate our cadres, they must have some knowledge of Marxism-Leninism; it would be best if they have a bit more knowledge of Marxism-Leninism. They must practice Marxism-Leninism, not revisionism.

2. They must serve the majority of the people and not the minority. They must serve the majority of the people of China. They must serve the majority of the people of the world and not the minority, or the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and rightists. Without this prerequisite, one cannot serve as a party branch secretary. Moreover, one cannot serve as the central (committee) secretary or the central chairman, Khrushchev was for the minority, we are for the majority of the people.

3. They must be able to unite the majority of the people. What is meant by uniting the majority of the people includes those people who had previously and erroneously opposed ourselves. Regardless of which mountain peak they belong to, we must not seek revenge, we cannot have a new group of officials for each emperor. Our experiences have proven that we would not have been victorious in our revolution if it had not been for the correct guidelines of the 7th National Congress. As for those people who engage in intrigues, they must take note that more than 10 persons, such as Kao Jao, P’eng Huang, Chang, Chou, T’an and Chia had emerged from the [party] central[1]. Everything is one divided into two. If some people wish to engage in intrigues, what can be done about it? Even now there are still those who wish to engage in intrigues! For example, we have Wu Tzu-li, the Pai-yin plant, and also the small station mentioned by Ch’en po-ta. The various departments and the various localities all have people who engage in intrigues. There are officials in the imperial palace and the masses under them. Without such people, it cannot be called a society. I had mentioned the last time that I was not pleased that there were such people. It was an objective existence. Otherwise, there would have been no confrontation, only metaphysics. All things are a unity of opposites. Of the five fingers of a hand, four face one direction while the thumb faces another direction. In this way, one can pick up and grasp things. If they all faced in the same direction, they would have been useless. There are no pure substances and no true vacuum in the world, this is only 99.9 percent purity. Then there is the other 0.1 percent. Many people have failed to comprehend this theory. There is no complete purity. There has to be some impurity before there can be a society, matters, and nature. If it is pure, it does not conform with the rules. Impurity is absolute. P! urity is relative. This is the unity of opposites. In sweeping the floor, dust still exists even if the floor was swept 24 hours a day, morning until night. Look, in which year have we been pure? The history of our party shows five dynasties of leadership. The first dynasty was Ch’en Tu-hsiu. The second dynasty was Chu Ch’iu-pai. The third dynasty was Hsiang Chung-fa, (actually, it was Li-san.). The fourth dynasty was Wang Ming and Po Ku. The fifth dynasty was Lo Fu (Chang Went’ien.)[2] The leadership of the five dynasties all failed to bring us down. To bring us down is not so easy. This is a historical experience. Whether it was done by the imperialists or by ourselves, they all failed to bring us down. After liberation, there came forth Kao Kang, Jao Shu-shih, and P’eng Te-huai. Did they bring us down? They did not. P’eng Te-huai held the post of Minister of National Defense for seven years and he failed to bring down the Liberation Army. Several ranking officials were hopeless as soon as they emerged. We must let others have their say. We must not practice “what I say counts.” We must unite the majority. A decision was reached by democratic process. But still they said they did not approve it. X X X said: China must preserve the use of reasoning, the People’s Liberation Army must preserve the use of reasoning. Because we have these qualities, P’eng Te-huai was unsuccessful.

4. They must have a democratic style of work. When something comes up, they must consult with the comrades, give full deliberation to matters, and absolutely listen to the various views. Opposite views must be presented. Do not practice “what I say counts.” People can change. Didn’t old X change? Oxen can be trained to plow the fields, so why can’t people change? There are a few people who cannot be changed. People like Yu Hsueh-chung, Chang Po-chun[3], Liu Li-ming, and X X and X X X in the party can never be changed. They do nothing but curse at people. There is also Cheng Jen-san who has not changed. The various provinces have an extremely few who have not changed. Let them remain unchanged, let them curse away. It is necessary to unite the majority of the people. The way I see it, it is not necessary to expel Wu Tzu-li from the party, we must urge them to repent. We must unite 95 percent [of both groups]. We must practice democracy. We must not consider it as being enough merely because I said that it is so; we must not reverse a decision at meetings which had been passed. This is democracy in practice. To personally speak for several hours at a meeting as if all the truth is in my hands. . . When I was young, I showed bad temper towards Mao Tse-t’an[4], and threatened him with a stick because he said that the Communist Party was not the ancestral temple of the Mao family. The way I see it, those words of his make sense. The Communist Party must deal with democratic style of work, it cannot deal with patriarchal behavior.

5. When one has committed errors, one must conduct self-criticism. One must not consider oneself as being always correct. One must have relatively less mistaken ideas. It is better to do a little less of saying the wrong things and expressing wrong ideas. It is relatively good for a commander, in fighting three battles, to lose one and win two because he can go on being a commander. . . do not go too far in waging struggles. One must help others to rectify their mistakes, it is only necessary that they conscientiously correct their errors. One must not always criticize them without end.

Successors must be Marxist-Leninists, they must serve the interest of the majority of the people, they must unite the majority, they must display the democratic style, and they must conduct self criticism. What I have in mind is not complete, you must make further study on your own and do a little planning. You must also bring up some successors. You must not always think that you alone will do and that everything done by others is no good, as if without you in the world, the earth would not turn and there would be no party. Do you think that with the death of the butcher Chang, one would have to eat pork with bristles on it? There is no need to fear for the death of anyone. Whose death would be a great loss? Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, are they all not dead? The revolution must still go on. How can the death of a single person be such a tremendous loss? There is no such a thing. Man always must die, there are various ways of dying. Some were killed by the enemy, some died in airplane crashes, some drowned while swimming, some died from bacteria, and some died of old age. We must include those who may be killed by an atomic bomb. We must be prepared at all times to leave our work posts and we must be ready with successors at all times. Each person must be ready with successors. One must have three lines of successors. One must have one, two, and three pairs of hands, and one must not be fearful of heavy storms. . .

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Conversation with Zanzibar Expert M.M. Ali and His Wife

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Conversation With Zanzibar
Expert M. M. Ali And His Wife

June 18, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

The chairman: Let us first pose for a photograph! (Picture was taken and everyone was seated)

The chairman: You have come from Africa, from Zanzibar?

Ali: Yes.

The chairman: (to Chiang X) What language are you speaking?

Chiang X X: English.

The chairman: (to Ali) I heard that you have been in China several years.

Ali: Yes, some 4 years.

The chairman: You have done much work for us; you have helped the Chinese people with broadcasting work.

Chiang X X: He has helped us with the Swahili language broadcasts, and he helped us train cadres in Swahili.

The chairman: Good!

Ali: Radio Peking has also helped our people, helping them to understand the world situation.

The chairman: Are they able to hear us?

Ali: They are able to hear very well, not only in Zanzibar, but it is also clearly received in the entire Swahili-speaking region.

The chairman: How many countries?

Ali: There are Tanganyika, Kenya, a part of Uganda, and also the Congo.

The chairman: Which Congo? Greater Congo?

Ali: In both of the Congos.

The chairman: Thank you! (Spoken in English). Why must you go home?

Ali: My country requested it.

The chairman: Your country has asked you to return home. One of your ministers was in the delegation of your united republic which came this time, did you meet him?

Ali: That was Babu. I met him.

The chairman: I saw him for the first time, he is very tall.

Ali: Yes

The chairman: Is he now working in the capital of Tanganyika?

Ali: No, he is not. Maybe he will go there in the future.

The chairman: You were friends in the past?

Ali: Yes. As a matter of fact, he was the one who suggested that I come to China.

The chairman: When you leave, there will be no one else here.

Ali: There will, there are still six people from Zanzibar who are working here.

The chairman: After you two leave, there will still be four?

Ali: No, I am saying that there still will be six. One at the radio station, four at the Diplomatic Publications Bureau, and one in the Foreign Language Institute.

The chairman: They are all from Zanzibar, none from Tanganyika?

Ali: There is one; he is working at the China Map Publishing House, translating Swahili.

The chairman: Is the climate in your country different from the climate here?

Ali: Yes, but we have become acclimated. We do not have snow in our country.

The chairman: Several winters already!

Ali: But we have become acclimated.

The chairman: Is your country in the southern or northern hemisphere, the southern or northern latitudes?

Ali: It is actually on the equator.

The chairman: Isn’t it very hot along the equator?

Ali: Yes, but our country is merely a small island, and it isn’t too hot.

The chairman: Maritime climate.

Ali: Yes.

The chairman: Do you have any Chinese friends?

Ali: A great many, a great many.

The chairman: Have you toured and visited other places?

Ali: We have. In 1961, we went to Harbin, Canton, Shanghai, Hangchow, as well as other localities. Recently, we were fortunate enough to go to Ching-kang-shan once.

The chairman: Ah, you climbed the mountain.

Ali: We have also been to Jui-chin.

The chairman: Ah.

Ali: We saw the site of the first soviet administration. We chatted with the people of Ching-kang-shan, we chatted with the old cadres and the people in the old area. They provided us much information on the situation.

The chairman: We were there from 1927 to 1928, that is 37 years ago! We later shifted to Jui-chin. The district of Jui-chin was relatively large, it had a population of several million  —  not only the one county of Jui-chin, there were several tens of counties, and we won many victories in battles there.

Later, we made the Long March to the north. From 1934 to 1935, I went to the northern part of Shensi. I have also been to Kansu. I have also been to Shansi. We crossed the Yellow River in the vicinity of T’ai-yuan. Shansi is next to Hopeh. Later on, we fought the Japanese mainly in the various provinces north of the Yangtze River, with Yenan as the centre. Afterwards, the fighting spread to Manchuria. After the Japanese had gone, Chiang Kai-shek came again. Chiang Kai-shek fought us, so we fought against him; we fought for 3.5 years and defeated most of Chiang Kai-shek’s troops, 90 percent of his troops. The remainder all fled to Taiwan. He has always depended on the U.S. for protection, and he is still depending on their (the U.S.) Seventh Fleet. That is why the U.S. is still not at peace with us. U.S. imperialism is a very ferocious imperialism. It is also the greatest of imperialism. It has an influence on you people, too.

Ali: Yes, the U.S. is devising all ways and means to infiltrate into Zanzibar.

The chairman: Were Tanganyika and Zanzibar formerly colonies or semi-colonies of Britain?

Ali: Britain colonized Zanzibar and called it a “protectorate.”

The chairman: There was a king, called a sultan.

Ali: It was because there was a sultan that it was called a “protectorate.”

The chairman: What about Tanganyika

Ali: It was called a “territory.”

The chairman: Then it didn’t have any king? Was it under the direct control of the British?

Ali: Yes.

The chairman: There are also Kenya and Uganda?

Ali: Kenya is a colony, Uganda still has kings and is also called a “protectorate.”

The chairman: How about Northern and Southern Rhodesia?

Ali: There are no kings, they are colonies.

The chairman: Are there still quite a number of white people there?

Ali: Yes, there are immigrants in Tanganyika and Kenya. Because of the relatively cooler climate in Kenya, there are many settlers.

The chairman: How many are there? It is said that there are several hundreds of thousands.

Ali: Yes, there are several hundreds of thousands.

The chairman: It is said that there are 3,00,000.

Ali: Yes.

The chairman: What is the population of Kenya? Three million?

Ali: Eight and one-half million.

The chairman: It has that many people?

Ali: Yes, and the population of Tanganyika is larger, with some 9 million people.

The chairman: There are 10 million.

Ali: That is possible. My figures came from a census taken a long time ago.

The chairman: Have you ever been in Tanganyika?

Ali: I only passed through it.

The chairman: Have you ever been in Kenya?

Ali: I passed through it when I went to Uganda.

The chairman: Which route will you be taking when you return home?

Ali: I shall pass through Pakistan and Kenya, and maybe through Tanganyika and then to Zanzibar. There are two routes, one is a direct route from Kenya to Zanzibar, and the other is from Kenya to Zanzibar via Tanganyika.

The chairman: It seems to me that your skin complexion is slightly different from that of the people of Tanganyika.

Ali: Yes, the people of Tanganyika are a bit darker.

The chairman: There is also Madagascar. The skin of the people there is also different from the other localities in Africa.

Ali: Ahem.

The chairman: I hope you will have the opportunity to come back to China again sometime.

Ali: China has already become our home.

The chairman: Come for a trip, tour country. Shall we end our chat here? Do you still have any questions?

Ali: I have; I would like to ask you several questions. The struggle of the peoples of Africa at the present time is developing by leaps and bounds, and as the struggle develops, our blows against imperialism become heavier. However, this struggle still has a long way to go. Although I have read quite a number of documents, I still would like to have you digress on whatever views you may have regarding the outlook of the struggle of the peoples of Africa.

The chairman: I am not very familiar with the situation in Africa. However, according to the way I see it, in the past 10 or 11 years, starting with 1952 when Egypt overthrew the regime of King Farouk, the changes in Africa have been tremendous. The British and the French were unwilling to admit their defeat and carried out attacks against the Suez movement. Another place is Algeria, where war was waged for 8 years. Algeria resisted several hundreds of thousands of French troops with a few troops. As a result French imperialism was defeated and Algeria was victorious. Recently, there were changes in your country; your country merely has a population of 3,00,000, and dared to overthrow the lackey of imperialism, and the imperialists did not dare to do anything. Tanganyika also became independent and the British troops have gone. What about Kenya?

Ali: Kenya has become independent, but after the military coup, the British troops are still there.

The chairman: They are? I heard the troops in the African countries had left.

Ali: That was in Tanganyika.

The chairman: Oh, in Tanganyika.

Ali: In Kenya, the situation is a bit different. Kenya has an agreement with Britain; the British have bases in Kenya. The British troops will be withdrawn by the end of the year.

The chairman: Eventually, they will leave.

Ali: Correct!

The chairman: In the Congo, I speak of Greater Congo, there was a Lumumba, a national hero, who was put to death, but the struggle is still developing. In the recent greater part of the year, there has been development in the struggle. In Southwest Africa and Angola, the Portuguese colony, struggle is still underway. Although I am not familiar with Africa, as I see it, according to the circumstances of the past 10 years, it can be said that there will be still greater changes in the next 10 years. Maybe you also see it that way. We must look at it from the standpoint of history and development! South Africa is a bit more difficult. That area has more than 3 million white people, and they are unwilling to leave. That place must be liberated, but I’m afraid that it will take a little longer.

Asia, Africa, and Latin America, these three continents all have the conditions for revolution at the present time, and these three continents make up the vast majority of the world’s population. This is a fact. They constitute the vast majority of the world; Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and North America the minority.

(Ali offers a cigarette to the chairman)

Ali: Africa does not have a communist party at present. Do you believe that the time is ripe for the establishment of a communist party in Africa? Do you have any views regarding a united front in Africa?

The chairman: The question of establishing a communist party must rest on whether there are any industrial workers. I see that there are industries in Africa. Many of the countries have industries, some have been established by the imperialists and some have been established by the Africans themselves; there are mines, railroads, highways, and other industries. Although there is no communist party at present, there will be one of these days. It isn’t that there is no communist party at present time, because there are communist parties in Algeria, Morocco, and South Africa. The Communist Party of Algeria is not a revolutionary party, it is a revisionist party. Revisionist parties, such as the party in Algeria, are not like a national liberation front which conducts a war for national liberation; the communist party in Algeria is against a war for liberation, it follows the dictates of the French communist party. The communist party in Algeria is against us, it opposes China; the Algerian Government and the Algerian National Liberation Front cooperate with us. I do not know why they oppose us. They might be opposing us for some reason that we don’t understand.

There is still another example. The Iraqi communist party in Asia also opposes China. It only pays attention to opposing the Communist Party of China and does not pay any attention to the dangers of coups which it faces. Even during the past year a coup took place and Kassem was executed and the secretary general of the party was also killed. Do you know of this incident?

Ali: I know about it. I read about it in the newspapers.

The chairman: Many in the communist party were killed, many of the revisionists were killed, and many progressive persons were killed. You tell me, why does the communist party of Iraq oppose us?

Ali: They follow the conductor’s baton.

The chairman: Follow the conductor’s baton and carry on peaceful transition.

Then there is Brazil, which is also not in favour of us because we do not agree with peaceful transition. Several months ago, a coup took place and its president was kicked out. The leader of the revisionist party was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. The leader of this party had been to China. His name is [Luis Carlos] Prestes. He was a noted member of the communist party who later became a revisionist. The U.S. imperialists and their lackey did not care whether one was a revisionist or not. Nine Chinese were arrested, of which six were traders and three were newsmen.

This is to say that revisionists do not oppose imperialists; they compromise with the imperialists and reactionaries. The working class of Africa will learn their lesson. It is possible that some revisionist parties will make their appearance, and it is also possible that some Marxist parties will make their appearance.

The question of a united front is a question of opposing imperialism or not opposing imperialism. Those who oppose imperialism must unite. Speaking of the categories of bourgeois democratic revolution, they determine whether one opposes imperialism or does not oppose imperialism. As for establishing a genuine socialist state (not one in name only), establishing an economy with systems of ownership by all the people and collective ownership under proletarian leadership, that is another thing. This not only stimulates the interests of the imperialists, but it will stimulate the interests of the bourgeoisie. Let us say, for example, that at the present time, it is possible for Algeria to go socialist. The older group of people will not be able to keep pace, including premier [Ferhat] Abbas of the provisional government and Belkacem. They will be unable to keep pace with the others.

Class struggle. Genuine Marxist-Leninists preach class struggle; there is class struggle in society. On two occasions we had a united front with the Kuomintang. One was the Northern Expedition, in 1927[1]. The second was during the war against Japan. During the first united front, the Northern Expedition fought to the Yangtze River Valley, and when the Kuomintang held the power and opposed us, we could only fight with them. We went up to Ching-kang-shan, and later came to Jui-chin.

After that, the Japanese fought their way in. Chiang Kai-shek felt that it would not do to continue his fight with us. The second united front was then established. This united front lasted for a period of 8 years. On the one hand, the Kuomintang united with the Communist Party to oppose Japan; on the other hand, the Kuomintang also opposed us each day. What could we do? On one side, there was Japan; on the other side, there was also the Kuomintang, so we adopted the policy of uniting while waging struggle, with unity as the main factor. In this way, we endured with the Kuomintang for 8 years. With the surrender of Japan, the Kuomintang fought against us, and the united front disintegrated. We did not have any large cities. We did not have the assistance of foreign powers, our troops were few in numbers, we had no air force, we had no navy, we had no airplanes, and we had no artillery. We only had light weapons. They were not made by us; they had been seized by us.

Thus, it is not so that there is no united front? We drove them to Taiwan, but there still is a united front. In reality our united front is more widespread. Our China has eight democratic parties[2]. When the Kuomintang existed, the contacts between the intellectuals, university professors, middle and primary school teachers, and us were not very extensive. After liberation, they did not run away. We united with them. The university professors in Peking, such as the professors at Peking and Tsing-hua universities, and the university professors in Shanghai and Canton did not all run away. They felt that there was no future in following the Kuomintang.

The fundamental united front is the united front with the workers and the peasants. It was also after liberation that the Workers and Peasants’ Alliance was realized on a national scale.

The Kuomintang represents the big bourgeoisie, the comprador class, and the feudalist landlord class. I am talking about its later period. The Kuomintang had represented the national bourgeoisie and the broad masses of people. At that time, with Mr. Sun Yat-sen as its representative, it was China’s only and most progressive political party. There was no Communist Party at that time. The Communist Party only came into being afterwards; it was 1921 before there was a Communist Party. Afterwards, the Communist Party and the Kuomintang set up the first united front.

Later on, the Kuomintang opposed the Communist Party. They fought each other for 10 years. It turned into an agent of imperialism  —  U.S. and British imperialism. Why were we still able to form the second united front with it when it turned into an agent of big bourgeoisie and the big landlord class? It was because Japan was fighting its way into our country.

When Japan invaded the Northeast, the Kuomintang was still battling us. It was when the Japanese had fought their way down through the pass and were advancing toward the mainland that it felt it would have to make peace with the Communist Party. It was then that the second united front of the Communist Party and the Kuomintang was formed.

Chiang Kai-shek stood on the side of the U.S. Britain, and France in opposing Japan, Hitler, and Mussolini; it was one faction of imperialism fighting another faction of imperialism. The three countries of Germany, Italy, and Japan became vanquished nations. It is necessary to look at certain conditions; at the time, the U.S., Britain, France, and we were also able to cooperate with them. Changes took place after the war; the U.S. wanted to dominate the world. Japan had been defeated; Italy and Germany had been defeated; Britain and France had been weakened. Why did Africa rise up? It was because imperialism had been weakened. Britain and France had been weakened.

In general, Africa . . . , as far as the broad masses of people are concerned, none have any good feelings toward Britain, the U.S., Belgium, Portugal, or Spain. Why is it that we are on speaking terms with you Africans and the black people? We have things in common.

Ali: We people of Africa carried on a protracted struggle with imperialism. We saw that China had been liberated and the struggle of the Chinese people greatly inspired us. After the Liberation of China, we had a much better understanding of China.

Our struggle continued to develop because China provided us with a great deal of experience; China provided the people of Africa with a tremendous amount of support and encouragement for which we are extremely grateful. China issued many statements expressing support for us. In recent years, we have been able to come to China and visit many places, and this has been a great help to us.

The Soviet revisionists told us that we must coexist peacefully and carry out disarmament; they told us that this was our main task and said that they would use the money saved through disarmament to give us aid. However, our struggle must depend on our own efforts.

The chairman: Right!

Ali: In this aspect, the revisionists are colluding more and more with the imperialists. According to your way of thinking, how far will their collusion go?

The chairman: They might carry their collusion a step further. The imperialists and the revisionists have their collusions and they also have contradictions. Revisionists and revisionists also have contradictions. The revisionists have several tens of parties, but they are not very united. The imperialists are also not very united among themselves. You see, France and Britain are not very united either. The Japanese monopolistic capitalists and the Japanese Government first struck the U.S. at Pearl Harbor; afterwards, they occupied the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaya, and Indonesia; they fought on to the eastern part of India and occupied the greater part of China. As for Korea, it goes without saying that it was originally its colony. Now these places have all gained their independence, and some are still under U.S. control. Among those controlled by the U.S. are: South Korea, South Vietnam, and the Philippines. Japan is also partially controlled by the U.S. You can say that Japan, but you must not say the people, is big bourgeoisie. Can they feel comfortable? I don’t think so. I do not believe that there are no contradictions between the U.S. imperialists and the Japanese monopolistic capitalists.

We have said that there are two buffer zones. Asia, Africa, and Latin America are the first buffer zone. Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan are the second buffer zone. The Japanese monopolistic capitalists were deceived [on this] by the U.S., and we oppose [this] deception. There are other people who subscribe to [this] interpretation of going into the buffer zone.

This is not the first time I am saying this; I said it in 1946[3]. At the time I said nothing about a first and second zone, but only one buffer zone, the buffer zone between the Soviet Union and the U.S., which included China. 1946, 1956, 1964,. . . that’s 18 years ago. At that time, we were in Yenan; I said it to the American correspondent, her name is Strong.

Ali: I know who she is.

The chairman: She is already more than 70 years old!

At that time, the U.S. had taken the place of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and it wanted to dominate the world; its objective was to invade the buffer zone and not to fight the Soviet Union. The anti-Soviet slogan was a smoke-screen. Like the anti-China characteristics, its objective was to manipulate the buffer zone with an anti-China slogan.

Ali: I deeply appreciate the time the chairman has given me. May I be permitted to express my feelings to you? Ever since my arrival in China, I have looked forward to this day. There are no words which can express my feelings.

The chairman: Have you read any Marxism-Leninism works?

Ali: I have, and I have also read your works.

The chairman: I have learned from Marx and Lenin.

Ali: You have developed Marxism-Leninism. Your works are much easier to understand than those of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

The chairman: They are somewhat easier to understand.

Ali: That is my feeling, your works are very readable.

The chairman: I do not have many writings.

Ali: No, you have a great many.

The chairman: Good, let us end our conversation here!

Ali and Mrs. Ali: Till we meet again!

The chairman: Till we meet again!

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk with Mao Yuan-hsin

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talks With Mao Yüan-hsin

July 5, 1964

[Comrade Mao Yüan-hsin is Chairman Mao’s nephew who studied at the Harbin Military Engineering Institute.]

First Talk

THE CHAIRMAN: Have you made any progress in the course of the past half year? Have you raised [your level]?

YÜAN-HSIN[1]: I’m a bit mixed up about it myself, I wouldn’t venture to say that I have made any progress; if I have, it is merely superficial.

THE CHAIRMAN: I think you have after all made some progress, your way of looking at problems is no longer so simple. Have you read the ‘Ninth Reply’ or not?[2] Have you seen the five criteria for successors?

YÜAN-HSIN: I have seen them. (Following on from this, he talked for a while, setting forth the main content of the ‘Ninth Reply’ as regards successors.)

THE CHAIRMAN: You have talked about it, all right, but do you understand it? These five criteria are indissolubly linked to one another. The first is theory, or also orientation. The second is the aim  —  i.e. when you come right down to it, whom do you serve? This is the most important. When you have mastered this point, you can do anything. The third, fourth and fifth criteria relate to questions of methodology. You must unite with the majority, you must implement democratic centralism, you must not allow everything to be settled by the word of one man, you must carry out self-criticism, you must be modest and prudent. Isn’t all this methodology?

(When talking about the first criterion for successors the Chairman said:) Are you going to study Marxism-Leninism, or revisionism?

YÜAN-HSIN: Naturally, I’m studying Marxism-Leninism.

THE CHAIRMAN: Don’t be too sure, who knows what you’re studying? Do you know what Marxism-Leninism is?

YÜAN-HSIN: Marxism-Leninism means that you must carry on the class struggle, that you must carry out revolution.

THE CHAIRMAN: The basic idea of Marxism  —  Leninism is that you must carry out revolution. But what is revolution? Revolution is the proletariat overthrowing the capitalists, the peasants overthrowing the landlords, and then afterwards setting up a workers’ and peasants’ political power, and moreover continuing to consolidate it. At present, the task of the revolution has not yet been completed; it has not yet been finally determined who, in the end, will overthrow whom. In the Soviet Union, is not Khrushchev in power, is not the bourgeoisie in power? We, too, have cases in which political power is in the grip of the bourgeoisie; there are production brigades, factories, and hsien committees, as well as district and provincial committees, in which they have their people, there are deputy heads of public security departments who are their men. Who is leading the Ministry of Culture? The cinema and the theatre are entirely in their service, and not in the service of the majority of the people.[3] Who do you say is exercising leadership? To study Marxism-Leninism is to study the class struggle. The class struggle is everywhere; it is in your Institute, a counter-revolutionary has appeared in your Institute, are you aware of this or not? He wrote a reactionary diary filling a dozen or so notebooks, every day he cursed us, shouldn’t he be considered a counter-revolutionary element? Are you people not completely insensitive to class struggle? Isn’t it right there beside you? If there were no counter-revolution, then why would we still need revolution?

(Yüan-hsin reports on some circumstances regarding the ‘five antis’ in the factory where he had gone for practical training, from which he had learned a great deal.)

THE CHAIRMAN: Everywhere there is counter-revolution, how could it be absent from the factories? Middle-and low-ranking Kuomintang officers, secretaries of hsien [Kuomintang] party offices, etc., have all crept in. No matter what guise they have been transformed into, we must now clean them all out. Everywhere there is class struggle, everywhere there are counter-revolutionary elements. Is not Ch’en Tung-p’ing sleeping right next to you? I have read all the various materials [of his] denounced by your Institute. You were sleeping together with a counterrevolutionary, and yet you did not know it!

(The Chairman next asked about political and ideological work in the Institute. Mao Yüan-hsin gave his views of this.)

YÜAN-HSIN: They call meetings and talk a lot; outwardly it’s very stirring, but they don’t solve many real problems.

THE CHAIRMAN: The whole country is engaged in learning from the People’s Liberation Army on a vast scale. You are members of the PLA; why aren’t you learning from it? Does the Institute have a political department? What is it doing? Do you have political training or not?

(Yüan-hsin explains the way political training is carried out at the Institute.) All this is nothing but attending classes and discussing things, what is the use of it? You should go and study reality. You have not even applied the principle that ideology comes first, you have no real knowledge at all, so when people talk about those things how can you understand them?

(The Chairman especially advocates swimming in great winds and waves, and moreover urges Mao Yüan-hsin to practice it resolutely every day.) You have already come to know water, and have mastered it, that is excellent. Do you know how to ride horseback?

YÜAN-HSIN: I don’t know how [to ride].

THE CHAIRMAN: To be a soldier, and not to know how to ride this should not be. (The Chairman calls on Mao Yüan-hsin to go and learn to ride; the Chairman himself constantly practices riding, and has also made his secretary and staff go and learn.) Have you done any rifle shooting or not?

YÜAN-HSIN: I haven’t touched a gun for four years.

THE CHAIRMAN: At present the militia all shoot very well, but you members of the PLA haven’t done any shooting; you discuss this criticism of mine with XXX, what kind of soldier is it that doesn’t know how to shoot?

(Once when he was swimming, and the weather was relatively cold, so that it was warmer in the water than above it, Mao Yüan-hsin after he had come out and felt a bit cold, said: ‘It is after all a bit more comfortable in the water.’)

THE CHAIRMAN (staring angrily at Mao Yüan-hsin): In fact, you like comfort, and fear difficulties. (The Chairman, in discussing the second criterion for successors, said:) You know how to think about yourself, you spend all your time pondering your own problems. Your father (Comrade Mao Tse-min) was dauntless and resolute in the face of the enemy, he never wavered in the slightest, because he served the majority of the people.[4] If it had been you, wouldn’t you have got down on both knees and begged for your life? Very many members of our family have given their lives, killed by the Kuomintang and the American imperialists. You grew up eating honey, and thus far you have never known suffering. In future, if you do not become a rightist, but rather a centrist, I shall be satisfied. You have never suffered, how can you be a leftist?

YÜAN-HSIN: Is there still some hope for me?

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, yes, there is hope, but if you surpass the criteria I have set, that will be even better.

(The Chairman also talked about the third criterion, saying:) When you people hold a meeting, how do you hold it? You are a squad leader; how does one go about being a squad leader? When everyone criticizes you, can you accept it? Can you accept their criticisms even if they are wrong? Can you accept a false and unjust charge? If you cannot accept it, then how can you unite people? You must especially learn to work with people who disagree with you. If you like to have people praise you, if you like to have honey on your lips, and songs to your glory in your ears, that is the most dangerous thing, and that is exactly what you do like.

(In talking about the fourth criterion, the Chairman said:) Do you unite with the masses or not? Is it not the case that you spend your time with the sons and daughters of cadres, and look down on other people? You must let people talk, and not be satisfied with letting one person settle everything.

(In talking about the fifth criterion, the Chairman said:) In this respect you have already made some progress, you have engaged in a bit of self-criticism, but it’s barely a beginning, you mustn’t think everything is all right.

(Afterwards, the Chairman once again talked about the work at the Institute: The most fundamental defect of your Institute is that you have not applied the ‘four firsts’.[5] Didn’t you say you wanted to study Marxism-Leninism? What method of study do you employ? How much can you learn merely by relying on listening to lectures? The most important thing is to go and learn from practice.

YÜAN-HSIN: A faculty of science and engineering and faculty of letters are different; [the former] doesn’t provide for so much time to go and enter into contact with society.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is wrong; the class struggle is your most important subject, and it is a compulsory subject. I have already discussed this question with XXX. Your Institute should go down to the countryside to carry out the ‘four clean-ups’, from the cadres to the students all of you should go, and not one should remain. You should go this winter, or in the spring of next year; it is better to go earlier than later, you must definitely go. As for you, you must not only spend five months participating in the ‘four clean-ups’, you must also go to a factory and spend half a year carrying out the ‘five antis’. Isn’t it true that you don’t understand a thing about society? If you don’t carry out the four clean-ups, you won’t understand the peasants, and if you don’t carry out the five antis, you won’t understand the workers. Only when you have completed such a course of political training can I consider you a university graduate. Otherwise, if the Military Engineering Institute lets you graduate, I won’t recognize your diploma. If you don’t even know about the class struggle, how can you be regarded as a university graduate? If you are to graduate, I will set you this additional subject. Your Institute has not carried out ideological work; so many counter-revolutionaries, and you were not aware of it; Ch’en Tung-p’ing was right next to you and you didn’t know it.

(Mao Yüan-hsin says that while Ch’en Tung-p’ing was at home during the holidays, he listened to the enemy’s radio and was thus corrupted.) How can you believe the enemy’s radio if you listen to it? Have you listened to it or not? The enemy doesn’t even have food to eat, can you believe what he says? Wei Li-huang[6] was in business in Hong Kong; having lost his money, he returned. Everybody looks down on people like Wei Li-huang; it’s hard to imagine that the enemy doesn’t despise him (Ch’en Tung-p’ing) too.

What are the four firsts? (Mao Yüan-hsin talks about this.) You know about this; why, then, do you not grasp living ideology? I hear there are a lot of political cadres in your Institute, but they do not grasp the essential, so naturally they do not grasp ideology. Naturally, your Institute has scored some successes; there’s nothing so remarkable if it has a few problems. We’ve been engaged in military engineering for only a decade. Our army has no experience in running technical schools. It’s like when we learned to fight in 1927: at first we didn’t know how, and we kept being defeated, but afterwards we learned how.

(The Chairman also asked:) How is it with the reform of teaching in your Institute?

YÜAN-HSIN: The last time we had examinations, our unit tried out a new method. Everyone thought it was good, and gave a correct evaluation of the level [of each student]. It also had an influence on the method of study as a whole, making it possible to study in a lively fashion.

THE CHAIRMAN: This should have been done long ago.

YÜAN-HSIN: In the past, the notion of marks prevailed, so that we did not study with initiative.

THE CHAIRMAN: It’s good that you are able to recognize this. I can’t blame you for this either, for the whole educational system brazenly calls on you to strive for a mark of five. If you don’t strive for such a perfect mark, they may block [your advancement] completely. Your elder sister, too, suffered from this kind of thing. There was a student at Peking University who never took notes at ordinary times, and scored between three-and-a-half and four marks in examinations, yet at graduation time the dissertation he presented was of the highest level in the class. There are people who have seen through all this, and have taken the initiative in study. There are some people like that who have seen through marks, and who study boldly, and with initiative. Your teachers teach by inculcation. Every day you attend lectures. Do they really have that much to say? The teachers should distribute their lecture notes to you. What are they afraid of? They should let the students study them by themselves. To keep the lecture notes secret from the students, allowing them only to take notes in class, hampers the students terribly. In the past, when I was teaching at K’ang Ta, I used to distribute lecture notes to my students in advance. I only talked for thirty minutes, and let the students themselves do their own study; afterwards the students would ask questions and the teacher would answer. With university students, especially the senior students, the main thing is to let them study and work out problems. What is the point of talking so much?

In the past they openly called on everyone to strive for perfect marks. People were perfect in school, but they weren’t necessarily perfect in their work. In Chinese history, none of the highest graduates of the Hanlin Academy had true talent or learning. These were found rather among those who failed even to pass as second-degree graduates. The two greatest poets of the T’ang dynasty[7] did not even obtain the degree of chü-jen. Don’t put too much emphasis on marks; you should concentrate your energies on fostering and training your ability to analyse and solve problems. Do not run along behind the teachers and be fettered by them. The problem of educational reform is primarily a problem of teachers. The teachers have so many books, and they can do nothing without their lecture notes. Why don’t they distribute their lecture notes to you and study problems together with you? When the students in the senior classes ask questions, the teachers will only answer half of them, and will know nothing about the rest, so they will study and discuss the problems together with the students. This is not bad either. They must not put on arrogant airs to frighten people off. Even the bourgeoisie has opposed the cramming method of teaching. Why shouldn’t we oppose it? It will be all right so long as the students are not treated as targets of attack. Teachers are the key to educational reform.

(Once Mao Yüan-hsin had urged the Chairman to visit an exhibition of new scientific achievements; the Chairman had said: ‘I’m busy now, I can’t go and look at it. I haven’t time to look at it carefully, and to look at flowers while riding by on horseback isn’t worthwhile either.’)

How is it that you are interested in this, but not in Marxism-Leninism? In any case, I rarely hear you ask questions about this aspect of things most of the time. What newspaper do you usually read?

YÜAN-HSIN: I read the People’s Daily.

THE CHAIRMAN: There’s nothing worth looking at in the People’s Daily. You should read Liberation Army Daily, or Chinese Youth Daily.[8] The things the workers and soldiers write are real and lively, and they know how to explain problems. Have you read the discussion on ‘two combines into one’?

YÜAN-HSIN: I’ve read only very little, and I didn’t understand much of what I did read.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is that so? Have a look at this newspaper (the Chairman hands him a copy of Chinese Youth Daily), see how the workers analyse things, see how the cadres of the Youth League analyse things, they analyse things very well, it’s easier to understand than People’s Daily.

(The Chairman also said:) Your political study is nothing but talk. If you want to learn a lot of things, the most important point is to go and study in the midst of reality. Why are you interested in your professional speciality, but not in Marxism-Leninism?

When you study history, if you don’t combine it with present reality it’s no good. If you study modern history and don’t carry out work compiling village histories and family histories, it’s a complete waste of time.[9] When you study ancient history, this too must be combined with present reality, and cannot be divorced from excavations and archaeology. Did Yao, Shun, and Yü[10] exist or not? I don’t believe it, you don’t have any real evidence. There are oracle-bones to provide evidence regarding the Shang dynasty, we can believe in that. If you go and burrow into a pile of books, the more you study, the less knowledge you’ll have.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

We Must Prevent China from Changing Colour

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

We Must Prevent China From
Changing Colour

July 14, 1964

[Complete text of a passage attributed to Mao in the Ninth Chinese Reply to the Soviet open letter of 14 July 1963, published on 1 July 1964, and there identified as a note on documents, from Checking province regarding the participation of cadres in physical labour, dated 9 May 1963. (Hung-ch’i, no 13-2.) This extract has now been included in Chapter III of Quotations from Chairman Mao.]

Class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment are the three great revolutionary movements for building a mighty socialist country. These movements are a sure guarantee that communists will be free from bureaucracy and immune against revisionism and dogmatism, and will forever remain invincible. They are a reliable guarantee that the proletariat will be able to unite with the broad working masses and realize a democratic dictatorship. If in the absence of these movements, the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and monsters of all kinds were allowed to crawl out, while our cadres were to shut their eyes to all this and in many cases fail even to differentiate between the enemy and ourselves but were to collaborate with the enemy and were corrupted, divided and demoralized by him, if our cadres were thus pulled out or the enemy were able to sneak in, and if many of our workers, peasants and intellectuals were left defenseless against both the soft and the hard tactics of the enemy, then it would not take long, perhaps only several years or a decade, or several decades at most, before a counter-revolutionary restoration on a national scale inevitably occurred, the Marxist-Leninist party would undoubtedly become a revisionist party or fascist party, and the whole of China would change its colour.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Comment on Report by Comrade Wang Tung-hsing

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Comment On Report By
Comrade Wang Tung-hsing

July, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Decorations of potted flowers are things which have been handed down from the old society. This is a plaything of the feudalist official class, the bourgeoisie, and those young gentlemen who carry cages with roosting birds. Those people who have nothing to do after eating a meal have the ability to cultivate and dabble in flowers.

It has already been more than 10 years since the liberation of the country. But growing flowers has not been reduced. Instead, it has become more developed than ever before. Now it must be changed. I do not like the display of flowers in the room; during the day, there seems to be some good points. But at night, there are bad points. Long ago, I had them remove the flowers from my room. Henceforth, let them also dispose of the flowers in the courtyard. Wouldn’t it be satisfying and fine if you were to plant some trees in the courtyard? They can still be planted. Your flower cellars must be abolished. The majority of the flowers must be reduced and taken away; it is only necessary that a few people take charge of the yards and gardens. Henceforth, more trees must be planted in the yards and gardens and more fruit trees must be planted; some foodgrains, vegetables, and oil-bearing crops may also be planted. The public parks and Hsiang-shan in the metropolitan area of the city of Peking must gradually change to planting some fruit trees and oil-bearing crops; thus, while they are pleasant to look at, they will also be practical and beneficial and will be advantageous to the future generations.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interview with the Japanese Socialists on the Theory of the Intermediate Zone

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interview With The Japanese Socialists
On The Theory Of The
Intermediate Zone

August 11, 1964

[SOURCE: Japanese journal Sekat Shuho, 11 August, 1964]

Chairman Mao first raised the following subject. Japan and China should act jointly, work together one with the other. Japan is a country which is relatively developed industrially; therefore she can aid us in many ways. But we must also support each other politically. Why should we oppose each other as was the case a few years ago?

Exchanging remarks with Kojo Sasaki and other political leaders about past Japanese aggression against China, Chairman Mao broached the question of American imperialism and of intermediate zones, and developed the following thoughts:

As a result of the war, Japan came under the domination of American imperialism, exactly as American imperialism rules South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and so on. The hands of the United States have stretched out into the western part of the Pacific Ocean and into South-east Asia. These stretched-out hands are very long.

The United States rules over Europe; it rules over Canada; it rules over Latin America, except for Cuba. Its hands reach all the way to Africa.

All the nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are rising against imperialism; even Europe, Canada, and other countries are rising against imperialism. Imperialists are even rising against imperialists. Isn’t that what De Gaulle is doing?

At the present time, there exist two intermediate zones in the world. Asia, Africa, and Latin America constitute the first intermediate zone. Europe, Northern America, and Oceania constitute the second. Japanese monopoly capital belongs to the second intermediate zone, but even it is discontented with the United States, and some of its representatives are openly rising against the United States. Though Japanese monopoly capital now is dependent on the United States, the time will come when it too will shake off the American yoke.

The Japanese people are a great people. They waged war with the United States, with England and France. They carried out the attack on Pearl Harbor; they occupied Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaya, Indonesia. Their advance reached the eastern part of India.

Obviously, this by no means indicates that I favour repetition of aggression by Japanese imperialism.

However, I do not think that Japanese monopoly capital will allow the United States to sit on its neck forever. Wouldn’t it be best for Japan to be completely independent, to establish relations and enter into cooperation with those forces in Asia striving for national independence?

On the Sino-Soviet Dispute

Referring to the so-called Sino-Soviet dispute, Mao raised the question of Soviet military aid to India, of the withdrawal from China of Soviet specialists and technicians, and so on. Noting that ‘relations between us and the Soviet Union have been getting worse and worse since the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956’, he further declared:

They challenged us to this, and we are responding. They proposed that we halt open discussions, even for only three months. We indicated that we would not stop them even for three days. We have waged war for twenty-five years, twenty-two of them civil war and the war against Japan, and three of them the war in Korea. Earlier I was a teacher; I did not know what war was. Three instructors taught me what war is: Chiang Kai-shek, Japanese imperialism, and American imperialism. We know this about wars  —  when one fights them, people die. As a result of twenty-five years of war, the losses of the Chinese people amounted to several tens of millions of killed and wounded.

But when it comes to wars on paper, in such a war no one gets killed. We have been waging such a war for several years now, and not one person has died. And we are ready to continue this war for another twenty five years.

On the Territorial Question

Tetsho Ara, head of the delegation of the staff of the Socialist Party on the island of Hokkaido asked: ‘At a time when we had no knowledge of it, the Kurile Islands were taken from us, according to the Yalta Agreement and the Potsdam Declaration. We demand their return, and we would like to hear the opinion of Chairman Mao in this connection. ’

The following was said in response:

The places occupied by the Soviet Union are very many. In accordance with the Yalta Agreement, the Soviet Union, under the pretext of assuring the independence of Mongolia, actually placed that country under its domination. Mongolia covers an area much greater than that of the Kurile Islands. When Khrushchev and Bulganin were in China in 1954 we raised this question, but they refused to speak to us about it. They annexed a part of Rumania. They cut off a part of East Germany and chased the local inhabitants into the western part. They cut off a part of Poland and included it in Russia, and as compensation gave Poland a part of East Germany. The same happened in Finland. They cut off everything that was possible to cut off. Some people have declared that Sinkiang Province and the territory north of the Amur River should be included in the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R is concentrating troops on its borders.

The Soviet Union covers an area of 22 million square kilometers and its population totals 200 million people. The time has come for it to stop annexations. Japan covers an area of 370,000 square kilometers and has a population of 100 million. It has been only 100 years that the land east of the Baikal has been Russian territory, and it is from those times that Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Kamchatka, and other points can be considered territory of the Soviet Union. We have not yet presented accounts on this score. As far as the Kurile Islands are concerned, the question is clear for us  —  they should be returned to Japan.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk on Questions of Philosophy

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk On Questions Of Philosophy

August 18, 1964

[SOURCE: Mao chu-hsi tui P’eng, Hua-ng, Chang, Chou fan-tang chi-t’uan ti p’i-p’an]

It is only when there is class struggle that there can be philosophy. It is a waste of time to discuss epistemology apart from practice. The comrades who study philosophy should go down to the countryside. They should go down this winter or next spring to participate in the class struggle. Those whose health is not good should go too. Going down won’t kill people. All they’ll do is catch a cold, and if they just put on a few extra suits of clothes it’ll be all right.

The way they go about it in the universities at present is no good, going from book to book, from concept to concept. How can philosophy come from books? The three basic constituents of Marxism are scientific socialism, philosophy, and political economy.[1] The foundation is social science, class struggle. There is a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Marx and the others saw this. Utopian socialists are always trying to persuade the bourgeoisie to be charitable. This won’t work, it is necessary to rely on the class struggle of the proletariat. At that time, there had already been many strikes. The English parliamentary inquiry recognized that the twelve-hour day was less favourable than the eight-hour day to the interests of the capitalists. It is only starting from this viewpoint that Marxism appeared. The foundation is class struggle. The study of philosophy can only come afterwards. Whose philosophy? Bourgeois philosophy, or proletarian philosophy? Proletarian philosophy is Marxist philosophy. There is also proletarian economics, which has transformed classical economics. Those who engage in philosophy believe that philosophy comes first. The oppressors oppress the oppressed, while the oppressed need to fight back and seek a way out before they start looking for philosophy. It is only when people took this as their starting-point that there was Marxism-Leninism, and that they discovered philosophy. We have all been through this. Others wanted to kill me; Chiang Kai-shek wanted to kill me. Thus we came to engage in class struggle, to engage in philosophizing.

University students should start going down this winter  —  I am referring to the humanities. Students of natural science should not be moved now, though we can move them for a spell or two. All those studying the humanities  —  history, political economy, literature, law  —  must every one of them go. Professors, assistant professors, administrative workers, and student should all of them go down, for a limited period of five months. If they go to the countryside for five months, or to the factories for five months, they will acquire some perceptual knowledge. Horses, cows, sheep, chickens, dogs, pigs, rice, sorghum, beans, wheat, varieties of millet they can have a look at all these things. If they go in the winter, they will not see the harvest, but at least they can still see the land and the people. To get some experience of class struggle  —  that’s what I call a university. They argue about which university is better, Peking University or People’s University.[2] For my part I am a graduate of the university of the greenwoods, I learned a bit there. In the past I studied Confucius, and spent six years on the Four Books and the Five Classics.[3] I learned to recite them from memory, but I did not understand them. At that time, I believed deeply in Confucius, and even wrote essays [expounding his ideas]. Later I went to a bourgeois school for seven years. Seven plus six makes thirteen years. I studied all the usual bourgeois stuff  —  natural science and social science. They also taught some pedagogy. This includes five years of normal school, two years of middle school, and also the time I spent in the library.[4] At that time I believed in Kant’s dualism, especially in his idealism. Originally I was a feudalist and an advocate of bourgeois democracy. Society impelled me to participate in the revolution. I spent a few years as a primary-school teacher and principal of a four-year school. I also taught history and Chinese language in a six-year school. I also taught for a short period in a middle school, but I did not understand a thing. When I joined the Communist Party I knew that we must make revolution, but against what? And how would we go about it? Of course we had to make revolution against imperialism and the old society. I did not quite understand what sort of a thing imperialism was, still less did I understand how we could make revolution against it. None of the stuff I had learned in thirteen years was any good for making revolution. I used only the instrument  —  language. Writing essays is an instrument. As for the content of my studies, I didn’t use it at all. Confucius said: ‘Benevolence is the characteristic element of humanity.’ ‘The benevolent man loves others.’[5] Whom did he love? All men? Nothing of the kind. Did he love the exploiters? It wasn’t exactly that, either. He loved only a part of the exploiters. Otherwise, why wasn’t Confucius able to be a high official? People didn’t want him. He loved them, and wanted them to unite. But when it came to starving, and to [the precept] ‘The superior man can endure poverty,’ he almost lost his life, the people of K’uang wanted to kill him.[6] There were those who criticized him for not visiting Ch’in in his journey to the West. In reality, the poem ‘In the Seventh Month the Fire Star Passes the Meridian’ in the Book of Odes refers to events in Shensi. There is also ‘The Yellow Bird’, which talks about the affair in which three high officials of Duke Mu of Ch’in were killed and buried with him on his death.[7] Ssu-ma Ch’ien[8] had a very high opinion of the Book of Odes. He said the 300 poems it contains were all written by sages and worthies of ancient times when they were aroused. A large part of the poems in the Book of Odes are in the manner of the various states, they are the folk songs of the common people, the sages and worthies are none other than the common people. ‘Written when they were aroused’ means that when a man’s heart was filled with anger, he wrote a poem!

You sow not nor reap;
How do you get the paddy for your three hundred round binns?
You do not follow the chase;
How do we see the quails hanging in your courtyards?
O that superior man!
He would not eat the bread of idleness![9]

The expression ‘to neglect the duties of an office while taking the pay’ comes from here. This is a poem which accuses heaven and opposes the rulers. Confucius, too, was rather democratic, he included [in the Book of Odes] poems about the love between man and woman. In his commentaries, Chu Hsi characterized them as poems about clandestine love affairs.[10] In reality, some of them are and some of them aren’t; the latter borrow the imagery of man and woman to write about the relations between prince and subject. In Shu [present-day Szechwan] at the time of the Five Dynasties and Ten Countries, there was a poem entitled ‘The Wife of Ch’in Laments the Winter’, by Wei Chuang.[11] He wrote it in his youth, and it is about his longing for his prince.

To return to this matter of going down, people should go beginning this winter and spring, in groups and in rotation, to participate in the class struggle. Only in this way can they learn something, learn about revolution. You intellectuals sit every day in your government offices, eating well, dressing well, and not even doing any walking. That’s why you fall ill. Clothing, food, housing and exercise are the four great factors causing disease. If, from enjoying good living conditions, you change to somewhat worse conditions, if you go down to participate in the class struggle, if you go into the midst of the ‘four clean-ups’ and the ‘five antis’,[12] and undergo a spell of toughening, then you intellectuals will have a new look about you.

If you don’t engage in class struggle, then what is this philosophy you’re engaged in?

Why not go down and try it? If your illness gets too severe you should come back  —  you have to draw the line at dying. When you are so ill that you are on the verge of dying, then you should come back. As soon as you go down, you will have some spirit. (K’ang Sheng interjects: ‘The research institutes in the Departments of Philosophy and Social Science of the Academy of Science should all go down too. At present, they are on the verge of turning into institutes for the study of antiquities, of turning into a fairyland nourishing itself by inhaling offerings of incense. None of the people in the Institute of Philosophy read the Kuang-ming jih-pao.’) I read only the Kuang-ming jihpao and the Wen-hui pao,[13], I don’t read People’s Daily, because the People’s Daily doesn’t publish theoretical articles; after we adopt a resolution, then they publish it. The Liberation Army Daily is lively, it’s readable. (Comrade K’ang Sheng: ‘The Institute of Literature pays no attention to Chou Kuch’eng,[14] and the Economics Institute pays no attention to Sun Yeh-fang[15] and to his going in for Libermanism, going in for capitalism.’)

Let them go in for capitalism. Society is very complex. If one only goes in for socialism and not for capitalism, isn’t that too simple? Wouldn’t we then lack the unity of opposites, and be merely one-sided? Let them do it. Let them attack us madly, demonstrate in the streets, take up arms to rebel  —  I approve all of these things. Society is very complex, there is not a single commune, a single hsien, a single department of the Central Committee, in which one cannot divide into two. Just look, hasn’t the Department of Rural Work been disbanded?[16] It devoted itself exclusively to accounting on the basis of the individual household, and to propagating the ‘four great freedoms’  —  freedom to lend money, to engage in commerce, to hire labour, and to buy and sell land. In the past, they put out a proclamation [to this effect]. Teng Tzu-hui had a dispute with me. At a meeting of the Central Committee, he put forward the idea of implementing the four great freedoms.[17]

To consolidate New Democracy, and to go on consolidating it for ever, is to engage in capitalism.[18] New Democracy is a bourgeois-democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat. It touches only the landlords and the comprador bourgeoisie, it does not touch the national bourgeoisie at all. To divide up the land and give it to the peasants is to transform the property of the feudal landlords into the individual property of the peasants, and this still remains within the limits of the bourgeois revolution. To divide up the land is nothing remarkable  —  MacArthur did it in Japan. Napoleon divided up the land too. Land reform cannot abolish capitalism, nor can it lead to socialism.

In our state at present approximately one third of the power is in the hands of the enemy or of the enemy’s sympathizers. We have been going for fifteen years and we now control two thirds of the realm. At present, you can buy a [Party] branch secretary for a few packs of cigarettes, not to mention marrying a daughter to him. There are some localities where land reform was carried out peacefully, and the land reform teams were very weak; now you can see that there are a lot of problems there.

I have received the materials on philosophy. [This refers to the materials on the problem of contradictions  —  note by stenographer.] I have had a look at the outline, [This refers to the outline of an article criticizing ‘two combine into one’[19]  — note by stenographer.] I have not been able to read the rest. I have also looked at the materials on analysis and synthesis.

It is a good thing to collect materials like this on the law of the unity of opposites, what the bourgeoisie says about it, what Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin say about it, what the revisionists say about it. As for the bourgeoisie, Yang Hsien-chen talks about it, and Hegel of old talked about it. Such people existed in the olden days. Now they are even worse. There were also Bogdanov and Lunacharsky, who used to talk about deism. I have read Bogdanov’s economics. Lenin read it, and it seems he approved of the part on primitive accumulation. (K’ang Sheng: ‘Bogdanov’s economic doctrines were perhaps somewhat more enlightened than those of modern revisionism. Kautsky’s economic doctrines were somewhat more enlightened than those of Khrushchev, and Yugoslavia is also somewhat more enlightened than the Soviet Union. After all, Djilas said a few good things about Stalin, he said that on Chinese problems Stalin made a self-criticism.’)

Stalin felt that he had made mistakes in dealing with Chinese problems, and they were no small mistakes. We are a great country of several hundred millions, and he opposed our revolution, and our seizure of power. We prepared for many years in order to seize power in the whole country, the whole of the Anti-Japanese War constituted a preparation. This is quite clear if you look at the documents of the Central Committee for that period, including On New Democracy. That is to say that you cannot set up a bourgeois dictatorship, you can only establish New Democracy under the leadership of the proletariat, you can only set up a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the proletariat. In our country, for eighty years, all the democratic revolutions led by the bourgeoisie failed. The democratic revolution led by us will certainly be victorious. There is only this way out, there is no other way out. This is the first step. The second step will be to build socialism. Thus, On New Democracy was a complete programme. It discussed politics, economics, and culture as well; it failed to discuss only military affairs. (K’ang Sheng: ‘On New Democracy is of great significance for the world communist movement. I asked Spanish comrades, and they said the problem for them was to establish bourgeois democracy, not to establish New Democracy. In their country, they did not concern themselves with the three points: army, countryside, political power. They wholly subordinated themselves to the exigencies of Soviet foreign policy, and achieved nothing at all.’) These are the policies of Ch’en Tu-hsiu! (Comrade K’ang Sheng: ‘They say the Communist Party organized an army, and then turned it over to others.’) This is useless.

(Comrade K’ang Sheng: ‘They also did not want political power, nor did they mobilize the peasantry. At that time, the Soviet Union said to them that if they imposed proletarian leadership, England and France might oppose it, and this would not be in the interests of the Soviet Union.’)

How about Cuba? In Cuba they concerned themselves precisely to set up political power and an army, and also mobilized the peasants, as [we did] in the past; therefore they succeeded.

(Comrade K’ang Sheng: ‘Also, when they [the Spanish] fought, they waged regular war, in the manner of the bourgeoisie, they defended Madrid to the last.[20] In all things, they subordinated themselves to Soviet foreign policy.’)

Even before the dissolution of the Third International, we did not obey the orders of the Third International. At the Tsunyi Conference we didn’t obey, and afterwards, for a period of ten years, including the Rectification Campaign and down to the Seventh Congress, when we finally adopted a resolution (‘Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of our Party’),[21] and corrected [the errors of] ‘leftism’, we didn’t obey them at all. Those dogmatists utterly failed to study China’s peculiarities; ten-odd years after they had betaken themselves to the countryside, they utterly failed to study the land, property, and class relationships in the countryside. You can’t understand the countryside just by going there, you must study the relations between all the classes and strata in the countryside. I devoted more than ten years to these problems before I finally clarified them for myself. You must make contact with all kinds of people, in tea houses and gambling dens, and investigate them. In 1925 I was active at the Peasant Movement Training Institute,[22] and carried out rural surveys. In my native village, I sought out poor peasants to investigate them. Their life was pitiable, they had nothing to eat. There was one peasant whom I sought out to play dominoes (the kind with heaven, earth, man, harmony, Mei Ch’ien, Ch’ang Sang, and the bench), afterwards inviting him to have a meal. Before, after, and during the meal, I talked to him, and came to understand why the class struggle in the countryside was so acute. The reasons he was willing to talk to me were: first, that I looked on him as a human being; second, that I invited him to have a meal; and third, that he could make a bit of money. I kept losing; I lost one or two silver dollars, and as a result he was very well satisfied. There is a friend who still came to see me twice, after Liberation. Once, in those days, he was really in a bad way, and he came looking for me to borrow a dollar. I gave him three, as non-refundable assistance. In those days, such nonrefundable assistance was hard to come by. My father took the view that if a man did not look after himself, heaven and earth would punish him. My mother opposed him. When my father died, very few people followed the funeral procession. When my mother died, a great many followed the procession. One time the Ko Lao Hui robbed our family. I said they were right to do so, for people had nothing. Even my mother could not accept this at all.

Once there broke out in Changsha rice riots in which the provincial governor was beaten up. There were some hawkers from Hsiang Hsiang who had sold their broad beans and were straggling back home. I stopped them and asked them about the situation. The Red and Green Gangs in the countryside also held meetings, and ate up big families. This was reported in the Shanghai newspapers, and the troubles were only stamped out when troops were sent from Changsha. They did not maintain good discipline, they took the rice of the middle peasants, and so isolated themselves. One of their leaders fled hither and thither, finally taking refuge in the mountains, but he was caught there and executed. Afterwards, the village gentry held a meeting, and killed a few more poor peasants.  At that time, there was as yet no Communist Party; these were spontaneous class struggles.

Society pushed us on to the political stage. Who ever thought of indulging in Marxism previously? I hadn’t even heard of it. What I had heard of, and also read of, was Confucius, Napoleon, Washington, Peter the Great, the Meiji Restoration, the three distinguished Italian [patriots]  —  in other words, all those [heroes] of capitalism. I had also read a biography of Franklin. He came from a poor family; afterwards, he became a writer, and also conducted experiments on electricity. (Ch’en Po-ta: ‘Franklin was the first to put forward the proposition that man is a tool-making animal.’)

He talked about man being a tool-making animal. Formerly, they used to say that man was a thinking animal, ‘the organ of the heart can think’[23]; they said that man was the soul of all creation. Who called a meeting and elected him [to that position]? He conferred this dignity on himself. This proposition existed in the feudal era. Afterwards, Marx put forward the view that man is a tool-maker, and that man is a social animal. In reality it is only after undergoing a million years [of evolution] that man developed a large brain and a pair of hands. In the future, animals will continue to develop. I don’t believe that men alone are capable of having two hands. Can’t horses, cows, sheep evolve? Can only monkeys evolve? And can it be, moreover, that of all the monkeys only one species can evolve, and all the others are incapable of evolving? In a million years, ten million years, will horses, cows and sheep still be the same as those today? I think they will continue to change. Horses, cows, sheep, and insects will all change. Animals have evolved from plants, they have evolved from seaweed. Chang T’ai-yen knew all this. In the book in which he argued about revolution with K’ang Yu-wei, he expounded these principles.[24] The earth was originally dead, there were no plants, no water, no air. Only after I don’t know how many tens of millions of years was water formed; hydrogen and oxygen aren’t just transformed immediately in any old way into water. Water has its history too. Earlier still, even hydrogen and oxygen did not exist. Only after hydrogen and oxygen were produced was there the possibility that these two elements could combine to give water.

We must study the history of the natural sciences, it won’t do to neglect this subject. We must read a few books. There is a great difference between reading because of the necessities of our present struggles, and reading aimlessly. Fu Ying[25] says that hydrogen and oxygen form water only after coming together hundreds and thousands of times; it is not at all a simple case of two combining into one. He was right about this, too; I want to look him up and have a talk. (Speaking to Lu P’ing:[26]) You people should not oppose absolutely everything by Fu Ying.

Hitherto, analysis and synthesis have not been clearly defined. Analysis is clearer, but there hasn’t been much said about synthesis. I had a talk with Ai Ssu-ch’i.[27] He said that nowadays they only talk about conceptual synthesis and analysis, and do not talk about objective practical synthesis and analysis. How do we analyse and synthesize the Communist Party and the Kuomintang, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the landlords and the peasants, the Chinese and the imperialists? How do we do this, for example, in the case of the Communist Party and the Kuomintang? The analysis is simply a question of how strong we are, how much territory we have, how many members we have, how many troops, how many bases such as Yenan, what are our weaknesses? We do not hold any big cities, our army numbers only 1,200,000, we have no foreign aid, whereas the Kuomintang has a great amount of foreign aid. If you compare Yenan to Shanghai, Yenan has a population of only 7,000; adding to this the persons from the [Party and government] organs and from the troops [stationed in Yenan], the total comes to 20,000. There is only handicrafts and agriculture. How can this be compared with a big city? Our strong points are that we have the support of the people whereas the Kuomintang is divorced from the people. You have more territory, more troops, and more arms, but your soldiers have been obtained by impressment, and there is opposition between officers and soldiers. Naturally there is also a fairly large portion of their armies which has considerable fighting capacity, it is not at all the case that they will all just collapse at one blow. Their weak point lies here, the key is their divorce from the people. We unite with the popular masses; they are divorced from the popular masses.

They say in their propaganda that the Communist Party establishes community of property and community of wives, and they propagate these ideas right down to the primary schools. They composed a song: ‘When Chu Te and Mao Tse-tung appear, killing and burning and doing all kinds of things, what will you do?’ They taught the primary-school pupils to sing it, and as soon as they had sung it, the pupils went and asked their fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, thus producing the opposite effect of propaganda for us. There was a little child who heard [the song] and asked his daddy. His daddy replied: ‘You mustn’t ask; after you have grown up, you will see for yourself and then you’ll understand.’ He was a middle-of-the-roader. Then the child also asked his uncle. The uncle scolded him, and replied: ‘What is this about killing and burning? If you ask me again, I’ll beat you.’ Formerly, his uncle was a member of the Communist Youth League. All the newspapers and radio stations attacked us. There were a lot of newspapers, several dozen in each city, every faction ran one, and all of them without exception were anti-communist. Did the common people all listen to them? Nothing of the kind! We have some experience of Chinese affairs, China is a ‘sparrow’.[28] In foreign countries, too, it’s nothing else but the rich and the poor, counter revolution and revolution, Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. You mustn’t believe at all that everybody will take in anticommunist propaganda, and join in opposing communism. Didn’t we read newspapers at the time? Yet we were not influenced by them.

I have read the Dream of the Red Chamber five times, and have not been influenced by it. I read it as history. First I read it as a story, and then as history. When people read the Dream of the Red Chamber, they don’t read the fourth chapter carefully, but in fact this chapter contains the gist of the book. There is also Leng Tzu-hsing who describes the Jung-kuo mansion, and composes songs and notes. The fourth chapter ‘The Bottle-Gourd Monk decides the affair of the bottle gourd, talks about the ‘Talisman for Officials’, it introduces the four big families:

Shout hip hurrah
For the Nanking Chia!
They weigh their gold out
By the jar.
The Ah-pang Palace
Scrapes the sky,
But it could not house
The Nanking Shih.
The King of the Ocean
Goes along,
When he’s short of gold beds,
To the Nanking Wang.
The Nanking Hsueh
So rich are they,
To count their money
Would take all day. . .[29]

The Dream of the Red Chamber describes each of the four big families. It concerns a fierce class struggle, involving the fate of many dozens of people, though only twenty or thirty of these people are in the ruling class. (It has been calculated that there are thirty-three [in this category].) The others are all slaves, over three hundred of them, such as Yueh Yang, Ssu-ch’i, Second Sister Yu, Third Sister Yu, etc. In studying history, unless you take a class-struggle view as the starting-point, you will get confused. Things can only be analysed clearly by the use of class analysis. More than 200 years have elapsed since the Dream of the Red Chamber was written, and research on the book has not clarified the issues, even down to the present day; from this we can see the difficulty of the problem. There are Yu P’ing-po and Wang K’un-lun, who are both of them specialists.[30] Ho Ch’i-fang[31] also wrote a preface. A fellow called Wu Shih-ch’ang[32] has also appeared on the scene. All this refers to recent research on the Dream of the Red Chamber, I won’t even enumerate the older studies. Ts’ai Yuan-p’ei’s view of the Dream of the Red Chamber was incorrect; Hu Shih’s was somewhat more correct.[33]

What is synthesis? You have all witnessed how the two opposites, the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, were synthesized on the mainland. The synthesis took place like this: their armies came, and we devoured them, we ate them bite by bite. It was not a case of two combining into one as expounded by Yang Hsien-chen, it was not the synthesis of two peacefully coexisting opposites. They didn’t want to coexist peacefully, they wanted to devour you. Otherwise, why would they have attacked Yenan? Their army penetrated everywhere in North Shensi, except in three hsien on the three borders. You have your freedom, and we have our freedom. There are 250,000 of you, and 25,000 of us.[34] A few brigades, something over 20,000 men. Having analysed, how do we synthesize? If you want to go somewhere, you go right ahead; we still swallow your army mouthful by mouthful. If we could fight victoriously, we fought; if we could not win, we retreated. From March 1947 to March 1948, one whole army [of the enemy] disappeared into the landscape, for we annihilated several tens of thousands of their troops. When we surrounded I-ch’uan, and Liu K’an came to relieve the city, the commander-in-chief Liu K’an was killed, two of his three divisional commanders were killed and the other taken prisoner, and the whole army ceased to exist. This was synthesis. All of their guns and artillery were synthesized over to our side, and the soldiers were synthesized too. Those who wanted to stay with us could stay, and to those who didn’t want to stay we gave money for their travelling expenses. After we had annihilated Liu K’an, the brigade stationed in I-ch’uan surrendered without fighting. In the three great campaigns Liao-Shen, Huai-Hai, and Peking-Tientsin  —  what was our method of synthesis? Fu Tso-i was synthesized over to our side with his army of 400,000 men, without fighting, and they handed over all their rifles.[35] One thing eating another, big fish eating little fish, this is synthesis. It has never been put like this in books. I have never put it this way in my books either. For his part, Yang Hsien-chen believes that two combine into one, and that synthesis is the indissoluble tie between two opposites. What indissoluble ties are there in this world? Things may be tied, but in the end they must be severed. There is nothing which cannot be severed. In the twenty-odd years of our struggle, many of us have also been devoured by the enemy. When the 300,000-strong Red Army reached the Shen-Kan-Ning area, there were only 25,000 left. Of the others, some had been devoured, some scattered, some killed or wounded.

We must take life as our starting-point in discussing the unity of opposites. (Comrade K’ang Sheng: ‘It won’t do merely to talk about concepts.’)

While analysis is going on, there is also synthesis, and while synthesis is going on, there is also analysis.

When people eat animals and plants, they also begin with analysis. Why don’t we eat sand? When there’s sand in rice, it’s not good to eat. Why don’t we eat grass, as do horses, cows and sheep, but only things like cabbage? We must analyse everything. Shen Nung tasted the hundred herbs,[36] and originated their use for medicine. After many tens of thousands of years, analysis finally revealed clearly what could be eaten, and what could not. Grasshoppers, snakes, and turtles can be eaten. Crabs, dogs, and aquatic creatures can be eaten. There are some foreigners who don’t eat them. In North Shensi they don’t eat aquatic creatures, they don’t eat fish. They don’t eat cat there either. One year there was a big flood of the Yellow River, which cast up on shore several tens of thousands of pounds of fish, and they used it all for fertilizer.

I am a native philosopher, you are foreign philosophers.

(Comrade Sheng: ‘Could the Chairman say something about the problem of the three categories?’)

Engels talked about the three categories, but as for me I don’t believe in two of those categories. (The unity of opposites is the most basic law, the transformation of quality and quantity into one another is the unity of the opposites quality and quantity, and the negation of the negation does not exist at all.) The juxtaposition, on the same level, of the transformation of quality and quantity into one another, the negation of the negation, and the law of the unity of opposites is ‘triplism’, not monism. The most basic thing is the unity of opposites. The transformation of quality and quantity into one another is the unity of the opposites quality and quantity. There is no such thing as the negation of the negation. Affirmation, negation, affirmation, negation . . . in the development of things, every link in the chain of events is both affirmation and negation. Slave-holding society negated primitive society, but with reference to feudal society it constituted, in turn, the affirmation. Feudal society constituted the negation in relation to slave-holding society but it was in turn the affirmation with reference to capitalist society. Capitalist society was the negation in relation to feudal society, but it is, in turn, the affirmation in relation to socialist society.

What is the method of synthesis? Is it possible that primitive society can exist side-by-side with slave-holding society? They do exist side-by-side, but this is only a small part of the whole. The overall picture is that primitive society is going to be eliminated. The development of society, moreover, takes place by stages; primitive society, too, is divided into a great many stages. At that time, there was not yet the practice of burying women with their dead husbands, but they were obliged to subject themselves to men. First men were subject to women, and then things moved towards their opposite, and women were subject to men. This stage in history has not yet been clarified, although it has been going on for a million years and more. Class society has not yet lasted 5,000 years, cultures such as that of Lung Shan and Yang Shao[37] at the end of the primitive era had coloured pottery. In a word, one devours another, one overthrows another, one class is eliminated, another class rises, one society is eliminated, another society rises. Naturally, in the process of development, everything is not all that pure. When it gets to feudal society, there still remains something of the slaveholding system, though the greater part of the social edifice is characterized by the feudal system. There are still some serfs, and also some bond-workers, such as handicraftsmen. Capitalist society isn’t all that pure either, and even in more advanced capitalist societies there is also a backward part. For example, there was the slave system in the Southern United States. Lincoln abolished the slave system, but there are still black slaves today, their struggle is very fierce. More than 20 million people are participating in it, and that’s quite a few.

One thing destroys another, things emerge, develop, and are destroyed, everywhere is like this. If things are not destroyed by others, then they destroy themselves. Why should people die? Does the aristocracy die too? This is a natural law. Forests live longer than human beings, yet even they last only a few thousand years. If there were no such thing as death, that would be unbearable. If we could still see Confucius alive today, the earth wouldn’t be able to hold so many people. I approve of Chuang-tzu’s approach.[38] When his wife died, he banged on a basin and sang. When people die there should be parties to celebrate the victory of dialectics, to celebrate the destruction of the old. Socialism, too, will be eliminated, it wouldn’t do if it were not eliminated, for then there would be no communism. Communism will last for thousands and thousands of years. I don’t believe that there will be no qualitative changes under communism, that it will not be divided into stages by qualitative changes! I don’t believe it! Quantity changes into quality, and quality changes into quantity. I don’t believe that it can remain qualitatively exactly the same, unchanging for millions of years! This is unthinkable in the light of dialectics. Then there is the principle, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’. Do you believe they can carry on for a million years with the same economics? Have you thought about it? If that were so, we wouldn’t need economists, or in any case we could get along with just one textbook, and dialectics would be dead.

The life of dialectics is the continuous movement toward opposites. Mankind will also finally meet its doom. When the theologians talk about doomsday, they are pessimistic and terrify people. We say the end of mankind is something which will produce something more advanced than mankind. Mankind is still in its infancy. Engels spoke of moving from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom, and said that freedom is the understanding of necessity. This sentence is not complete, it only says one half and leaves the rest unsaid. Does merely understanding it make you free? Freedom is the understanding of necessity and the transformation of necessity  —  one has some work to do too. If you merely eat without having any work to do, if you merely understand, is that sufficient? When you discover a law, you must be able to apply it, you must create the world anew, you must break the ground and edify buildings, you must dig mines, industrialize. In the future there will be more people, and there won’t be enough grain, so men will have to get food from minerals. Thus it is that only by transformation can freedom be obtained. Will it be possible in the future to be all that free? Lenin said that in the future, aeroplanes would be as numerous in the skies as flies, rushing hither and thither. Everywhere they will collide, and what will we do about it? How will we manoeuvre them? And if we do, will things be all that free? In Peking at present there are 10,000 buses; in Tokyo there are 100,000 [vehicles] (or is it 800,000?), so there are more automobile accidents. We have fewer cars, and we also educate the drivers and the people, so there are few accidents. What will they do in Peking 10,000 years hence? Will there still be 10,000 buses? They may invent something new, so that they can dispense with these means of transport, so that men can fly, using some simple mechanical device, and fly right to any place, and land wherever they like. It won’t do just to understand necessity, we must also transform things.

I don’t believe that communism will not be divided into stages, and that there will be no qualitative changes. Lenin said that all things can be divided. He gave the atom as an example, and said that not only can the atom be divided, but the electron, too, can be divided. Formerly, however, it was held that it could not be divided; the branch of science devoted to splitting the atomic nucleus is still very young, only twenty or thirty years old. In recent decades, the scientists have resolved the atomic nucleus into its constituents, such as protons, anti-protons, neutrons, anti-neutrons, mesons and anti-mesons. These are the heavy ones; there are also the light ones. For the most part, these discoveries only got under way during and after the Second World War. As for the fact that one could separate the electrons from the atomic nucleus, that was discovered some time ago. An electric wire makes use of dissociated electrons from the outside of copper or aluminium. In the 300 li of the earth’s atmosphere, it has also been discovered that there are layers of dissociated electrons. There, too, the electrons and the atomic nucleus are separated. As yet, the electron has not been split, but some day they will certainly be able to split it. Chuang-tzu said, ‘A length of one foot, which is divided in half each day, will never be reduced to zero.’ (Chuang-tzu, Chapter [33 G] ‘On the various schools’, quoting Kung-sun Lung.) This is the truth. If you don’t believe it, just consider. If it could be reduced to zero, then there would be no such thing as science. The myriad things develop continuously and limitlessly, and they are infinite. Time and space are infinite. As regards space, looking at it both macroscopically and microscopically, it is infinite, it can be divided endlessly. So even after a million years scientists will still have work to do. I very much appreciate the article on basic particles in the Bulletin of Natural Science by Sakata.[39] I have never seen this kind of article before. This is dialectical materialism. He quotes Lenin.

The weakness of philosophy is that it hasn’t produced practical philosophy, but only bookish philosophy.

We should always be bringing forward new things. Otherwise what are we here for? What do we want descendants for? New things are to be found in reality, we must grasp reality. In the last analysis, is Jen Chi-ü[40] Marxist or not? I greatly appreciate those articles of his on Buddhism. There is some research [behind them], he is a student of T’ang Yung-t’ung.[41] He discusses only the Buddhism of the T’ang dynasty, and does not touch directly on the Buddhism of later times. Sung and Ming metaphysics developed from the Ch’an School of the T’ang dynasty, and it was a movement from subjective idealism to objective idealism.[42] There is both Buddhism and Taoism, and it is wrong not to distinguish between them. How can it be proper not to pay attention to them? Han Yu didn’t talk sense. His slogan was, ‘Learn from their ideas, but not from their mode of expression.’ His ideas were entirely copied from others, he changed the form, the mode of composition of the essays. He didn’t talk sense, and the little bit he did talk was basically taken from the ancients. There is a little something new in writings like the Discourse on Teachers. Liu Tzu-hou was different, he knew the ins and outs or Buddhist and Taoist materialism.[43] And yet, his Heaven Answers is too short, just that little bit. His Heaven Answers is a product of Ch’u Yuan’s Heaven Asks.[44] For several thousand years, only this one man has written a piece such as Heaven Answers. What are Heaven Asks and Heaven Answers all about? If there are no annotations, to explain it clearly, you can’t understand it if you read it, you’ll only get the general idea. Heaven Asks is really fantastic, thousands of years ago it raised all kinds of questions, relating to the universe, to nature, and to history.

(Regarding the discussion on the problem of two combining into one:) Let Hung Ch’i reprint a few good items, and write a report.

Notes

As a symbol to cover this whole spectrum of policies, emphasizing the role of material stimulants, the private plot, etc., the expression ‘four great freedoms’ is less common, in documents published since the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, than ‘Sanzi yibao’ (‘three freedoms and one fix, or guarantee’). On this concept, which is supposed to sum up the reactionary line of Liu Shao-ch’i and his sympathizers in the countryside, see the article ‘Struggle between Two Roads in China’s Countryside’, Peking Review, No. 49 (1967), pp. 11-19.

For Mao’s criticism of Yü P’ing-po see above, Text 8, note 8. Wang K’un-lun was Vice-Mayor of Peking in the 1950s.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk on Sakata's Article

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk On Sakata’s Article

August 24, 1964

[SOURCE: Long live Mao Tse-Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Chairman: I have asked you to come here today because I want to look into the article by Sakata [Shoichi]. Sakata says that basic particles are indivisible while electrons are divisible. In saying this, he is taking the stand of dialectical materialism.

The world is infinite. In both time and space, the world is boundless and inexhaustible. Beyond our solar system are numerous stars which together from the Milky Way. Beyond this galaxy are numerous other galaxies. Regarded broadly the universe is infinite: regarded narrowly, the universe is also infinite. Not only is the atom divisible, but so too is the atomic nucleus and it can be split ad infinitum. Chuang Tzu said: “One can take away half of a hammer measuring one foot long daily, but there will still be no end to it even after ten thousand generations.” This is true. Thus, our cognition of the world is also infinite and inexhaustible. Otherwise, the science of physics would not develop any further. If our cognition were finite, we would already have recognized everything, and what would there be left for us to do?

Chairman: Man’s cognition of things must undergo a great many repetitions, and there must be a process of accumulation. A large amount of emotional data must be accumulated in order to induce the jump from emotional cognition, to rational cognition. As to the reasons for the leaps from practice to emotion, and from emotion to reasoning, neither Marx nor Engels discussed it very clearly. Nor did Lenin discuss it very clearly. In his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin elaborated only on materialism, without elaborating upon the theory of cognition. Recently, Ai Ssu-ch’i discussed this point at the Higher Party School and he was correct in doing so. Even the men of the ancient past in China, including Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, did not explain it clearly. Mo Tzu did discuss some things concerning the theory of cognition, but not very clearly. Others like Chang Tsai, Li Chuo-wu, Wang Ch’uan-shan and T’an Ssu-t’ung also did not explain it clearly. What is philosophy? Philosophy is the theory of cognition, nothing else. I wrote the first ten articles of the Double Ten Articles [Shuang-shih T’iao], I discussed how substance changes into spirit and spirit into substance. I also said that the time devoted to teaching philosophy must not be too long, one hour at most. The more one talks about it, the more confused one becomes. I also said that philosophy ought to be liberated from classrooms and studies. My words touched the soft spots of some people who thereupon came out with “combining two into one” to oppose me.

Chairman: At present our cognition of many things is still rather unclear. Cognition is always developing. With a large telescope, we will be able to see more stars. In regard to the solar system and the earth, we have not as yet overthrown Kant’s nebular hypothesis that both the earth and the sun were formed by the contraction of extremely hot gases. Our earth is most probably still in its youth, and it is growing larger steadily because many things such as meteorites and sunlight, are falling on it every day. The sun has most probably reached its middle age, and it is no longer as hot as before. If the sunshine on the earth’s surface is so strong as to reach 100 degrees, how can human beings withstand it? The temperature of the sun’s surface is 5,000 or 6,000 degrees, and there is a layer on the surface with a temperature of some 1,000 - 3,000 degrees. If we say that we do not understand the sun too well, it goes without saying that we also are none too clear about the enormous space between the sun and the earth. Now, with the satellites, our understanding in this field has been considerably enhanced. We are not too clear about climatic changes on the earth, and we must study them. In regard to the glacial problem, scientist are still arguing it out. Li Szu-kuang maintains that there is a glacial period every one-million years. Whenever this happens, drastic changes occur in the biological world. Ancient dinosaurs became extinct because they could not withstand the frigid cold of the glacial age. Man was produced in between the two recent glacial periods. When it comes to a later glacial age, it would become a problem to mankind, and one must be prepared to cope with the advent of the next glacial period.

X X X: Chairman just mentioned something about telescope which reminds me of a question: Can’t we generally categorize such things as telescopes and satellites as being “tools of cognition?”

Chairman: What you say about the concept of “tools of cognition” seems very plausible. The tools of cognition should comprise such things as the axe, machinery, etc. Man’s cognition stems from practice. We use the axe and machinery to transform the world, and our cognition, is thus deepened. Tools are extensions of human organs. The axe is an extension of our arms while the telescope is an extension of our eyes. The human body and its organs can all be extended. Franklin said that man is the animal that creates tools. The Chinese say that the human being is the wisest of all creatures. Animals have their own pecking order, but the ape does not know how to fashion sticks to knock fruit off the trees. There are no concepts in the brains of animals.

XXX: Philosophical works usually only take the individual as the subject of cognition, but in practical life, the subject of cognition is often not an individual, but a collective. Are we right to regard our party as the subject of cognition?

Chairman: A class is the subject of cognition. In the beginning, the working class was a class in and of itself, and it had no knowledge of capitalism. Later, it developed from a class in and of itself into a class that existed for itself, and by that time, it began to understand capitalism. This was a case of the development of cognition based on class as the subject.

Chairman: There was no water on the earth in the beginning. In earliest times, the earth’s temperature was so high that it was impossible to have water, for it would have exploded to become hydrogen and oxygen. There was an article two days ago in the Kuang-ming Daily which says that it took millions of years for hydrogen and oxygen to combine and form water. Fu Ying said that it would take tens of millions of years. I don’t know if the author of that article has discussed it with Fu Ying. Only after there was water was it possible for living things to emerge from the water. Man evolved from fish, and there was a developmental stage in which the human embryo resembled fish.

Chairman: All individual and all specific things have their births, development, and deaths. Every person must die, because he was born. Man must die, and Chang San [i.e., any Tom, Dick or Harry] being a man, Chang San must die. None can see Confucius who lived 2,000 years ago, because he had to die. Mankind is born, and therefore mankind must also die. The earth was born, and so the earth must also die. Nonetheless, when we say that mankind will die and the earth will die, it is different from what Christians say about the end of the world. When we talk about the death of mankind and the death of the earth, we mean that something more advanced than mankind will come to replace it, and this is a higher stage in the development of things. I saw that Marxism also has its birth, its development and its death. This may seem to be absurd. But since Marx said that all things which happen have their death, how can we say that this is not applicable to Marxism itself? To say that it won’t die is metaphysics. Naturally, the death of Marxism means that something higher than Marxism will come to replace it.

Chairman: Things are continually in motion. Concerning the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, thus forming a day by self-orbit and a year by complete orbit, there were only three persons in the time of Copernicus in Europe who believed it, namely Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. There was not a single person in China. However, there was a Hsin Ch’i-chi of the Sung dynasty who said in his poem that when the moon went down from us here, it would be shining somewhere else[1]. Chang Hua (courtesy name: Chang Mou-hsuan) of the Chin Dynasty wrote in one of his poems: “When T’ai-i [a constellation] moves in its orbit, heaven will return and earth will travel.” That poem is found in the Sources of Ancient Poems (Ku-Shih Yuan).

Chairman: All things are both constant and inconstant. The universe was constant, but later, the Chinese scientists Li Ch’eng-tao and Yang Ch’en-ning who live in the United States said it is not constant. Does this also apply to the constancy of mass and energy? There is nothing in the world that absolutely does not change. Changing and unchanging, then changing and unchanging combine to form the universe. Constancy and inconstancy, this is both equilibrium and disequilibrium. There is also the case where the equilibrium is completely disrupted. A generator is a good example to illustrate movement and transformation. What kind of movement is there when the coal is burning?

X X X: It is the energy emitted by the outer layer of electrons of the atoms of the compound when they change their orbit of motion.

Chairman: The transformation of its form in which the water expands and becomes steam is what produces the movement.

X X X: The movement of the molecules produces energy.

Chairman: But this also causes the rotor of the generator to turn. This is mechanical movement which eventually generates electricity which flows into the copper and lead wires.

Everything in the world is changing, physics is changing, Newton’s laws of physics are changing. The world has evolved from one in which there was no Newtonian theory to one in which there was, and thereafter, from Newton’s theory to the theory of relatively. This is dialectics in itself.

Things are always happening in unexpected ways. Sun Yat-sen originally studied medicine, but he later became involved in politics. Kuo Mo-jo also started out studying medicine, but he later became a historian. Lu Hsun also studied medicine, but he later became a great writer. I myself have engaged in politics step by step. I studied the Confucian classics for six years, attended seven years of school, became a primary school teacher, and later taught middle school. I did not even know then what Marxism was; nor had I heard of Marx or Engels. I knew only about Napoleon and Washington. It was also like this when I found myself involved with military affairs. I served as director of the propaganda department in the Political Department of the National Revolutionary Army, and I also stressed the importance of fighting at the Institute of the Peasant [Movement], but I never thought that I myself would ever undertake military affairs and fight in battle. Later, I led my own men to fight and went to Ching-kang-shan. While at Ching-kang-shan, I had a small victory at first, but this was followed by two disastrous defeats. I then summed up my experiences and summarized them into a set of guerrilla war tactics:

“When the enemy advances we retreat; when the enemy rests we harass; when the enemy is tired we fight; when the enemy retreats we pursue.” Thanks to Generalissimo Chiang who gave us these lessons; thanks to some of those in the party who said that I did not even have a modicum of Marxism and that they were 100 percent Bolsheviks.[2] Nonetheless, it was also these 100 percent Bolsheviks who caused the party in the white area to suffer 100 percent losses, and the party in the Soviet area to suffer 90 percent losses.

Chairman: We produce neither food grains nor machinery, but what we produce are lines and policies. Line and policy are not produced from within a vacuum. For instance, we did not invent the “four cleanups” or the “five antis,” but it was the common people who told us about them. We must thank a counter-revolutionary in Kwangtung for the emergence of the “four clean-ups” and the “five antis.” He wrote to X X and X X to get me to abdicate political power and hand over the armed forces.

The scientists should align themselves with the masses; it behooves them to form close links with the young workers and the veteran workers. Our brain is a processing factory. Factory equipment must be renovated, and so our brains must also be renovated. The various cells of our body are being renewed continuously. The cells in our skin are no longer those with which we were born, but have been changed innumerable times.

There are several types of Chinese intellectuals. Engineering and technical personnel have accepted socialism more satisfactorily. Next come those who study science, while those who study liberal arts are the worst. I can see that this Feng Ting of yours must be a revisionist, because what he wrote in his books is all Khrushchev’s stuff.

Chairman: Ts’ao Hsueh-ch’in’s Dream of the Red Chamber was intended to patch up the heaven  —  the heaven of feudalism. Nonetheless, what Ts’ao Hsueh-ch’in wrote was about the decline of feudal families, and this may be regarded as a contradiction between Ts’ao’s world outlook and his creation. Ts’ao Hsuch-ch’in’s family fortune declined during the reign of Emperor Yung-cheng. Emperor K’ang-hsi had a number of children among whom Yung-cheng was one. Yung-cheng used his secret service operation to oppress his adversaries, and dubbed two other sons of K’ang-hsi, possibly it was the 9th and 10th, as pig and dog.

Chairman: Dissection is rather important. It is like the cook butchering a cow [’“Chung Tzu” parable; very skillfully done]. When Engels mentioned medicine, he paid special attention to dissection. Medicine is built upon the foundation of dissection.

We should study the origins of cells. The cell has its nucleus, a mass of protoplasm, and a membrane. The cell is organic, and so there must have been noncellular forms [cytooes] before there was the cell. What was there before the cell was formed? How was the noncellular form changed into the cell? There is a woman scientist in the Soviet Union who has been studying this problem, but no result has been reported.

X X X: After China reported to the International Surgical Conference in Rome about the rejoining of a severed hand, Americans said that they could not assess the ability of China’s science and technology, and they were a little scared of us.

Chairman: It is good that they were scared; it would be bad if they were not We are afraid of America because America is our enemy. When America is afraid of us, it means that we are her enemy, and also a formidable enemy. In science and technology, we should pay attention to security so that they won’t be able to assess our secret capability.

Notes

“Mu-lan-hua Man:” At a party with the wine drinking close to dawn, some guest stated that among the poems written by men of old, there were some which spoke about waiting for the moon to arise, but none about bidding farewell to the moon. Thus, this poem is about the direction taken by the moon: Pity the moon of tonight, wither does it go, and will it be gone forever? Is there another world which will see it, with its bright shadow in the east? Out beyond the vastness of heaven are there long winds to send off the mid-autumn moon? Who can fasten the rootless mirror flying, and if the Moon Goddess never marries, who can tie her down?

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interjections at an Anti-Revisionist Reports Meeting

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interjections At An
Anti-Revisionist
Reports Meeting

September 4, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, A Red Guard Publication]

Is it easier to beat the snake by luring it to come out or by crawling into the dark snake hole? (We supported the release of Suslov’s report. It was not released, but it came out after eight commentaries were made.)

Ever since 1956, the Soviet Union has denounced Stalin.[1] After we have published our first and second comments,[2] they lost their own initiatives.

Not only have our two families taken this stand, but Eastern Europe has also begun to follow suit. (The Soviet Union criticized Romania for its self-reliance. Romania fought back, using our own criticisms against the Soviet Union.) This is no longer an internal affair, but has become publicly announced in radio broadcasts.

China is not the first to be involved in the conflict between control and anti-control; it is the countries of Eastern Europe. (Romania has already made preparations to sever her economic relations with the Soviet Union. She cannot make her own armaments, and has asked China to send someone to visit Romania. We won’t have to talk to make people scared; we don’t have to talk there. It would be very important if we only shake hands with them.)

We must get prepared, prepared for the break, and try to let the situation drag If anything should happen, it must not catch us by surprise. What happens in the world is that after a long union, there will be division, and after a long division, there will be union (Sino-Soviet relations).

The Nanchang Uprising[3] was a tremendous event, and in the wake of it, there were left only a few persons, growing later into an outfit of 3,00,000 men. After the Long March, a few thousand troops were left, and they were developed later. A mountain does not have to go very high. (The old Communist party of Brazil had 40,000 members, and a new party has been formed with only 6,000 members. Which is more reliable: 40,000 or 6,000 members?)

It is only with revisionism that there can be long live Leninism!

If one does not pay attention, there is bound to be revisionism. If one pays attention to it, it may appear or may not appear. When one is prepared for its appearance, it may not appear at all.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

American Imperialism is Closely Surrounded by the Peoples of the World

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

American Imperialism Is Closely
Surrounded By The
Peoples Of The World

November 28, 1964

[SOURCE: Full text of Mao’s declaration of 28 November 1964 in support of the people of the Congo (Leopoldville). The last paragraph, is from Chapter VII of Quotations from Chairman Mao.]

U.S. imperialism is the common enemy of the people of the whole world. It is engaged in aggression against South Vietnam, it is intervening in Laos, menacing Cambodia and blustering about extending the war in Indochina. It is trying everything to strangle the Cuban revolution. It wants to turn West Germany and Japan into two important nuclear bases of the United States. It ganged up with England in creating so-called Malaysia to menace Indonesia and other-southeast Asian countries. It is occupying South Korea and China’s Taiwan province. It is dominating all Latin America. It rides rough shod everywhere. U.S. imperialism has over-extended its reach. It adds a new noose around its neck every time it commits aggression anywhere. It is closely surrounded by the people of the whole world.

In their just struggle, the Congolese people are not alone. All the Chinese people support you. All the People throughout the world who oppose imperialism support you. U.S. imperialism and the reactionaries of all countries are paper tigers. The struggle of the Chinese people proved this. The struggle of the Vietnamese people is now proving it. The struggle of the Congolese people will certainly prove it too. Strengthening national unity and persevering in protracted struggle, the Congolese people will certainly be victorious, and U.S. imperialism will certainly be defeated.

People of the world, unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs! People of the world, be courageous, dare to fight, defy difficulties and advance wave upon wave. Then the whole world will belong to the people. Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed.

The U.S. imperialist armed aggression against the Congo (Leopoldville) is a very grave matter.

The United States has all along attempted to control the Congo. It used the United Nations forces to carry out every sort of evil deed there. It murdered the Congolese national hero Lumumba, it subverted the lawful Congolese government. It imposed the puppet Tshombe on the Congolese people, and dispatched mercenary troops to suppress the Congolese national liberation movement. And now, it is carrying out direct armed intervention in the Congo in collusion with Belgium and Britain. In so doing, the purpose of U.S. imperialism is not only to control the Congo, but also to enmesh the whole of Africa, particularly the newly independent African countries, in the toils of U.S. neo-colonialism once again. U.S. aggression has encountered heroic resistance from the Congolese people and aroused the indignation of the people of Africa and of the whole world.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

China Will Take a Great Stride Forward

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

China Will Take A Giant
Stride Forward

December 13, 1964

[SOURCE: Peking Review, no. 52, December, 1977.]

(This was a passage Comrade Mao Tsetung added when he went over Premier Chou En-lai’s Report on the Work of the Government to the First Session of the Third National People’s Congress.)

We cannot just follow the beaten track traversed by other countries in the development of technology and trail behind them at a snail’s pace. We must break away from conventions and do our utmost to adopt advanced techniques in order to make China a powerful modern socialist country in not too long a historical period. This is what we mean by a giant stride forward. Is this impossible of attainment? Is this boasting or bragging? Certainly not. It can be done. It is neither boasting nor bragging. We need only review our history to understand this. In our country haven’t we fundamentally overthrown imperialism, feudalism and capitalism, which were seemingly so strong? Starting as we did from “poverty and blankness,” haven’t we scored considerable successes in all fields of socialist revolution and socialist construction after 15 years of endeavor? Haven’t we too exploded an atom bomb? Haven’t we wiped out the stigma of “the sick man of the East” imposed on us by westerners? Why can’t the proletariat of the East accomplish what the bourgeoisie of the west has been able to? Early this century Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the great Chinese revolutionary and our precursor, said that China would take a giant stride forward. His prediction will certainly come true in the coming decades. This is an inevitable trend no reactionary force can stop.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Highlights of Forum on Central Committee Work

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Highlights Of Forum On
Central Committee Work

December 20, 1964

[SOURCE: Long live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Why can’t Yu Ch’iu-li serve as deputy director of planning? Isn’t he brave and enterprising? There is also planning work in the Ministry of Petroleum. He must bring with him some new working style.

(XX: has come.)

(General discussion: The context of “four clean-ups” was positively presented in the First Ten Articles. It was added by the Chairman, and has been reported by X X X later. The Hopeh provincial party committee has also elaborated on it from the opposite viewpoint.)

(Someone suggested: We should set up revolutionary committees. There is so much corruption in the trade unions which won’t work now.)

He was even more harsh towards vagrant proletarians by stressing their negative aspect. But they also have their positive aspect and according to our experience, are also amenable to transformation.

Notes

The ‘four firsts’ are: in man’s relationship with his weapons, man comes first; in all activities, political activities come first; in political work, ideological work comes first; in ideological work, creative study comes first.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interjections at a Central Work Conference

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interjections At A Central Conference

December 27, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

(Note: Remarks in brackets were made by Comrade Ch’en Po-ta[1])

[What is the principal contradiction? The Chairman has summed up everyone’s view. The principal contradiction is the contradiction between socialism and capitalism. Four cleans and four uncleans do not explain the nature of the problem. The feudal society is the problem of clean officials and corrupt officials. The drama Four Imperial Scholars (Ssu Chin-shih) is one which is opposed to corrupt officials!]

When the viceroy of the province made an inspection tour, the earth would shake and mountains would tremble. It was so formidable!

[Clean officials during the feudal era were fictitious in substance “Serving three years as a clean perfect official, one can earn 100,000 ounces of silver.” The word clean has different class meaning in different societies. There are also so-called clean officials in capitalist society, but these clean officials are plutocrats.]

In Lao-ts’an’s Travels (Lao-ts’an Yu-chi by Liu O of the Ch’ing dynasty, it is stated that clean officials were even more pernicious than corrupt ones. Later, I discovered that they held the same view in the Wei-History (Wei Shih) of the history of Southern and Northern dynasties.

[Which epoch had no internal contradictions? Contradictions intertwine both inside and outside the party, and there are parties within the party. The Kuomintang also has had this problem].

There are at least two factions in our party: one is the socialist faction, and the other the capitalist faction.

[The Chairman has stressed that we must listen to the words of all quarters; Good words, bad words, especially words of opposition. We must listen patiently. This determines whether or not work is done well.]

What if one has talked too long? As Comrade Li Hsueh-feng[2] has said one will be given zero for a grade if one is long-winded. Let him ramble on, and anyway, nobody would listen to him!

[Many people have forgotten whence they have come. One should not forget one’s origin! If I myself did not join the revolution, I’d be at best a primary school or a middle school teacher.]

Big officials came from small officials, and small officials came from the people. We have all come from the people, and are still common people! “Generalissimo Chiang” was not named Chiang, but his family name was Cheng, and was called Cheng San Fa-tzu. He was a native of Honan. He knows only his mother but not his father. Didn’t he also come from the people?

[The Chairman has often said that one must not consider one’s self as being right. When a village cadre reaches a position of authority, he’d consider his own opinion as the correct one.]

One must not consider that his own opinion is right when he gains power. When one believes he is always in the right he would never believe he is. Why then should there be meetings? Because opinions are divided. If they are unanimous, why should they meet?

[One isn’t afraid of officials; one is afraid of control!]

Small officials are afraid of big officials; big officials are afraid of foreigners.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech at the Central Work Conference

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech At The Central Work Conference

December 28, 1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

I don’t have much to say. Is this document (referring to the 23 Articles[1]) all right?

Article one, regarding the nature of the problem, is such a provision feasible?

There are three kinds of presentation. Are the first two better or is the third one better?

I have discussed it with members of the Standing Committee and also with several local comrades, deeming that the third method of presentation is better.

This is because the name of the movement is the socialist education movement, not a four clean-up education movement, nor an educational movement on intertwining contradictions.

At the Pei-tai-ho conference in 1962, the 10th plenary session of the Central Committee issued a communiqué, stating that we should undertake socialism, not capitalism.

During the first half of 1962, there was blown the “wind of individual farming.” There were also “three conciliations and one reduction” and “three freedoms and one contract” which blew with terrific force. Teng Tzu-hui[2] was one of those in the “wind of individual farming,” there being several others beside him. Some comrades were persuaded; others listened, but would not reply or answer questions.

We have undertaken socialism for so many years, yet some comrades would not respond or answer questions.

In April and May there was not a single local comrade who said that situation was fine, and only army comrades said it was all right. I heard this directly from Hsu Shih-yu[3], X X X, and indirectly from Yang Te-chih and Han Hsien-ch’u. It was then in May, and they would say only that the situation was bad, and that there was such a general atmosphere.

When I went to Tsinan in June, several comrades told me that the situation was good. Why was there this change? They did not reap wheat in May, but in June they did.

Why should I talk about the situation at Pei-tai-ho? It is because someone said then that if “production was not contracted to each household, it would take some eight to ten years to recover.” Should we undertake socialism, or capitalism? This was a kind of class struggle. Consequently, it was asked “whether class, and class contradiction exist?”

Thus, it was felt by the standing members of the Political Bureau and through public discussions that the third method of presentation was more appropriate because it envisages the nature of the problem.

The focus was to rectify the power holders within the party taking the capitalist road. Comrade Ch’en I[4] said that he was also a power holder, and if you wouldn’t take the capitalist road, you could still be the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Article 16, regarding working attitude; this means that democracy must be stressed.

When you say every day there must be democracy, this is undemocratic. When you ask others to be democratic, you are not democratic yourself.

There have always been three great democracies in the army. When you cannot capture a fortress, you will summon the soldiers, fighter and squad leaders to hold a meeting and discuss strategy. You will then find the way. This is military democracy.

Political democracy  —  the three great disciplines.

Economic democracy  —  the mess should be managed by fighters. Do they still manage it now? This cannot be left entirely to the care of the quartermaster. There are two officers in each company: a sergeant clerk and a quartermaster. The sergeant clerk is in charge of copying work, which is to write reports. It seems terrific, because he knows a few characters.

One should listen to both good words and bad. There is no problem if you prefer to hear good words. The problems is with bad works. I once spoke at a rally of some 7,000 people, saying although “one should not touch the buttocks of a tiger, I [Lao-tzu] insist on touching it.” [5] Later, I realized that expression was uncouth and changed it. In this case the I denotes the laboring people and lower echelon cadres, and people like us aren’t too good to touch. If you wish to expose his scar or blister, it won’t be too easy!

One should listen to both correct words and incorrect words. You should listen to what is right, but even though it’s wrong, continue to listen. If others should criticize you wrongly, what does it matter? You are correct, and when someone makes a wrong criticism, the responsibility is his. What does it matter if you listen to him? But if you won’t listen, it is no good. When it is correct, and when the criticism is apt, you must listen. If the criticism is wrong, it behoves you all the more to listen. Moreover, especially when they say something against you, you must listen patiently. That is rather difficult to do.

You must allow the other person to finish his talk which is also somewhat difficult to do. He may talk quite long, and there may be too much water and too little rice, resembling a bowl of congee; I have suffered from such ordeals many times. There was someone who talked for two hours, but still didn’t get to the point. I asked him if I could help him, and then he got to the point. When at Yenan, X X X once came to visit me. He rambled on for two hours without getting anywhere. I asked him what he wanted from me, and then he mentioned his purpose. There was then another comrade who would only lecture, and would refuse to answer my questions. I could only listen to his lecturing. There are many such people in the world whose purpose is to lecture others. They want to lecture people like me, copiously and ramblingly.

There is a distinction between propaganda and incitement. In propaganda many concepts are linked together, in incitement, there is only one concept or one slogan. For instance, when you conduct a strike, you present a slogan which is very simple. This is called incitement. When you write articles, make reports, and engage in lengthy discourses, this is propaganda. When you hang up posters, this is incitement (mobilization for a specific event.)

X X X discovered this, and he talked about it twice, taking 50 minutes one time, and zero minutes another time because nobody wanted to listen to him! I have always advocated that in listening to speeches, one must not clap hands. If you don’t like to listen, you may take a nap. When your talk is boring, it’d be better for him to take a nap to maintain his health. It is better to maintain one’s health against such ordeals. Another way is to read a novel. I did this when I was attending school, and in this way I kicked out the teacher. (He related his story as a student.) This could have been my fault, or perhaps it was because what the teacher lectured on was uninteresting that I began to read novels, and later I invented napping. Don’t say that I have had no inventions, because I also invented (laughter). I used this method to punish those who, instead of engaging in some form of dialogue, would merely lecture, and to harass those teachers who were prone to giving lecture, but would not allow their students to ask questions or question their students as a way of stimulation. If there is a teaching syllabus in a class, the teacher won’t have to lecture. All he has to do is to let the students read it, and raise some questions for student discussions. When the government work report was presented this time, I suggested that it need not be read. But they said there might be some illiterates, so I conceded and it was read. I also clapped. In this kind of meeting, I am also for clapping hands.

Among comrades, you must not make others afraid of you. But in the case of the enemy, you must make him afraid. One must by no means make others afraid of you among comrades! If you do so, there must be some trouble with you, for otherwise, why would you want others to be afraid of you? When you make others afraid of you, it must be because you are weak in reasoning.

In army units in old days, the squad leader would train his soldiers with these methods: beating, scolding, and detention, and nothing else. He was undemocratic. Later, we said that beating and scolding should not be permitted, and now detention has also been abolished. Soldiers desert, and if they desert, let them go and why apprehend them? To capture the deserter and shoot him, why! Why would others desert? It is most probably because they could not live in your place. Let them run away. If you want to get the deserter back, you will have to admit your errors to him and invite him to eat rice and pork. You should tell him that if he still wants to run away, he could do so, but if not, he could stay. You can’t use the method of beating and scolding and incarceration to deal with deserters. Let the deserter run away, because such a soldier has a rather low positiveness, and what is the use of keeping him? He could flee to some foreign country, and what does that matter? China has so many people. They might denounce us, but then so many people have denounced us, including Khrushchev and Kennedy who are not Chinese. The musician Fu Ts’ung has fled to England. I say this is good. What’s the use of keeping this kind of person in the country?

I have spoken only on these two points: the nature of the problem, and the working attitude.

Notes

Since the Tenth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee of the Party in September 1962, as a result of the socialist education movement which has developed in the cities and in the countryside, as a result of the application of a series of Central Committee policies by the whole Party, as a result of the active efforts of the popular masses, numerous party members and cadres, an excellent situation has come into being on the political, economic, ideological and cultural, and military fronts in our country. In the course of the past few months, more than a million cadres throughout the country have gone deep down into units at the grass-roots level in the villages, and a new high tide has emerged in the movement for socialist revolution.

The many great successes which our country has obtained so rapidly in the course of the past year, demonstrate that our Party’s general line for building socialism is correct. At the same time, this has demonstrated even further that our Chinese Communist Party, headed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, is a great, glorious and correct Party. . .

Serious and sharp class struggles persist both in our cities and in the countryside. Once the socialist transformation of the system of property has been basically carried out, the class enemies who oppose socialism endeavor to use the method of ‘peaceful evolution’ in order to re-establish capitalism. This situation of class struggle is necessarily reflected within the Party. The leadership of some communes, brigades, enterprises, and other units has been corrupted, or usurped. . . Experience has shown that if only the whole Party. . . thoroughly applies the various directives of the Party Central Committee regarding the Socialist Education Movement, grasps the essential principle of class struggle, relies on the working class, the poor and lower, middle peasants, the revolutionary cadres, the revolutionary intellectuals, and other revolutionary elements, and takes care to unite over ninety-five per cent of the masses, and over ninety-five per cent of the cadres  —  provided we do this, the numerous questions still persisting in the cities and in the countryside will not be hard to locate and to solve. . .

The important point in this campaign is rectifying those people within the party who are in authority and are taking the capitalist road. . . Some of those people in authority taking the capitalist road do so openly, others act behind the scenes. Some of those who support them are at lower levels, some are at higher levels. At the lower levels, there are landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, and other bad elements who have already been identified, and also similar elements who have not been detected. At the higher levels, there are those who oppose building socialism in the communes, the ch’u, the hsien, the special districts, and even in the work of provincial and Central Committee departments. Among them are those who were originally class alien elements; there are those who have shed their skins and changed their nature; and there are those who have taken bribes and traitorously banded together to break the law and cause disorder. . .

The overwhelming majority of our cadres want to take the socialist road, but there are few people among them who do not have a clear understanding of the socialist revolution, do not employ people properly, do not investigate the work energetically, and commit bureaucratic errors. . .

The socialist education movement in the cities and the countryside will henceforth be called simply the four clean-ups movement, i.e. political economic, organizational and ideological clean-up. In the cities, the socialist education movement was known in the past as the ‘five-antis’ movement. Henceforth, it will also be known as the four clean-ups, and the term five-antis will be abolished. . .

In June 1964, at a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Central Committee, attended by the first secretaries of all the regional bureaus of the Central Committee, Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:

What are the criteria for carrying out the socialist education movement well?

1.  One must see whether the poor and lower middle peasants are really stirred into action or not.

2.  Has the problem of the ‘four uncleans’ among the cadres been solved or not?

3.  Have the cadres taken part in manual labour or not?

4.  Has a good leadership core been established or not?

5.  When landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries and bad elements are discovered who indulge in disruptive activities, is this contradiction simply handed over to higher authorities, or are the masses mobilized to watch them seriously and reform them on the spot?

6.  One must see whether the result is to increase or to decrease production

. . . Throughout the whole movement, we must make use of contradictions, win over the majority, oppose and smash the minority; those who resolutely take the capitalist road are always an extreme minority. There are some people who have committed errors who can still correct them. As for those people who are the target of the four clean-ups, we must be good at dissociating them, at treating them in a discriminating fashion, and at isolating the worst offenders to the greatest extent possible. . . .

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Why the "First Ten Articles" and "Sixty Articles" Can Mobilize Manpower

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Why The “First Ten Articles”
“Sixty Articles” Can
Mobilize Manpower

1964

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

It is because they have resolved contradictions among the people, the relationship between leaders and those who are led, and has organized strength. Man is the foremost factor among such factors as productive forces. Man, means of labor (including animal labor, farm implements, fertilizers), and objects of labor constitute the three great elements of productive forces. By implementing the “Sixty Articles” and “Double Ten Articles,” it is possible to bring about vastly different results with the same manpower, animals, farm implements, land, and so forth.

(After talking about rural socialist education, “if the poor and lower-middle peasants are righteous, landlords and rich peasants will be convinced”): This may not be necessarily so. If poor and lower-middle peasants are righteous, there may be such a possibility later, and they must also not be righteous. When you say that landlords and rich peasants will be convinced, it does not imply that they will all be convinced.

(On a spurious labour model at Hsiao-chan who did not work, but earned 15,000 wage points in a year, worth 2,000 yuan): That makes him an exploiter, and we must dismiss him. The accounts must be cleared, and he must be made to return what he has earned.

There are also some little despots who should also be rectified.

In cases of corruption and violation of laws, there are both bourgeoisie and proletariat. Things are so complex that it would be strange if there were no such cases. It is better to have some opposite sides.

(On Ch’en Yu-mei of Ch’en-chia-chuang, Ch’u-fo, whose per mou production dropped from 500 catties to 300 catties after she was struggled against but last year, her per mou yield recovered from 300 catties to 600 catties: One must still rely on self-help. Things can always change. To strike down good people is like striking down Molotov, from 500 catties to 300 catties. When Molotov rises, it increases from 300 to 600 catties. It is possible for people like Ch’en Yu-mei, who never attended primary school, not to mention college, to do remarkable things.

The advent of revisionism, marks the ascent of the bourgeoisie onto the [political] stage. That is the dismal truth. It is like what has happened to Ch’en-chia-chuang where they chopped the trees and destroyed the vineyards. They even took away tables and chairs from the house. But good people regained power, everything changed. Khrushchev would also change the Soviet Union into such a dismal place where trees would be chopped down and the vineyards would be destroyed. Were it profitable, he would even borrow money from the devil. We won’t take such a road. The devil won’t give us loans, and even if he did we wouldn’t accept them. We will rely on Ch’en-chia-chuang’s Ch’en Yu-met and Tachai’s Wang Yung-kuei.

Don’t just look at the dark side. Anything can be divided from one into two. Ten percent of the models can mobilize the majority, and rectify some 10 to 20 percent of bad elements.

Some of the party branches have been usurped by wayward veteran party members. They have a way of harassing the county committee members. They ask you how many Central Committee members you know and what are their names. If you cannot answer, they say your problems are insoluble. People at the upper echelons basically won’t go down; they don’t understand the situation.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

On Education - Conversation with the Nepalese Delegation of Educationists

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

On Education – Conversation With
The Nepalese Delegation Of
Educationists

1964

Our education is fraught with problems, the most prominent of which is dogmatism. We are in the process of reforming our educational system. The school years are too long, courses too many, and various methods of teaching unsatisfactory. The children learn textbooks and concepts which remain [merely] textbooks and concepts; they know nothing else. [They] do not use use their four limbs; nor do [they] recognize the five kinds of grain.[1] Many children do not even know what cows, horses, chickens, dogs, and pigs are; nor can they tell the differences between rice, canary seeds, maize, wheat, millet, and sorghum.[2] When a student graduates from his university, he is already over twenty. The school years are too long, courses too many, and the method of teaching is by injection instead of through the imagination. The method of examination is to treat candidates as enemies and ambush them. (laughter) Therefore I advice you not to entertain any blind faith in the Chinese educational system. Do not regard it as a good system. Any drastic change is difficult, [as] many people would oppose it. At present a few may agree to the adoption of new methods, but many would disagree. I may be pouring cold water on you. You expect to see something good, but I only tell you what is bad. (laughter)

However, I am not saying that there is nothing good at all. Take industry and geology for instance. The old society left to us only 200 geologists and technicians; now we have more than 2,00,000.

Generally speaking, the intellectuals specializing in engineering are better, because they are in touch with reality. Scientists, pure scientists, are worse, but they are still better than those who specialize in art subjects. [Liberal] art subjects are completely detached from reality. Students of history, philosophy, and economics have no concern with studying reality; they are the most ignorant of things of this world.

As I have said before, we have nothing marvellous, only things we have learnt from ordinary people. Of course, we have learnt a little Marxism-Leninism, but Marxism-Leninism alone won’t do. [We] must study Chinese problems, starting from the characteristics and facts of China. We Chinese, myself included, did not know much about China. We knew that we ought to fight against imperialism and its lackeys, but we did not know how to do it. So we had to study the conditions of China, just as you study the conditions of your country. We spent a long time, fully twenty-eight years from the foundation of the CPC to the liberation of the whole country, in forging step by step a set of policies suitable to Chinese conditions.

The source of [our] strength is the masses. If a thing does not represent the people’s wish, it is no good. [We] must learn from the masses, formulate our policies, and then educate the masses. Therefore if we want to be teachers, we have to be pupils to begin with. No teacher begins [his career] as a teacher. Having become a teacher, he should continue to learn from the masses in order to understand how he himself learns. That is why there are courses on psychology and education in teachers’ training. What [one] learns becomes useless if [one] does not understand the reality.

There is a factory attached to the science and engineering faculties at Tsingua University[3] because students must learn from [both] books and work. But [we] cannot set up factories for arts faculties such as a literature factory, a history factory, an economics factory, or a novel factory; these faculties, should regard the whole of society as their factory. Their teachers and students should make contact with the peasants and urban workers as well as with agriculture and industries. How else can their graduates be of any use? Take students of law, for example. If they do not understand crimes in a society, they cannot be good students of law. It is out of the question to set up a law factory; so society is their factory.

Comparatively speaking, our arts faculties are the most backward owing to a lack of contact with reality. Students and teachers do only class work. Philosophy is book philosophy. What is the use of philosophy if it is not learnt from society, from the masses, and from nature? It can be composed only of vague ideas. Logic is the same. [One] does not understand much of it if one merely reads through the textbook once. But one understands it gradually through application. I did not understand much when I read logic. The understanding came to me when I used it.

I have been talking about logic. There is also grammar which one does not quite understand simply by reading it. But one grasps the use of sentence structure when one is actually writing. We write and speak according to the customary usages and it is not really necessary to study grammar. As to rhetoric, it is an optional subject. Great writers are not always rhetoricians. I studied rhetoric myself, but did not understand it at all. Do you study it before you write?

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Instructions

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Instructions

1964

Courses And Examinations

There are too many courses offered at schools [and universities] which place a heavy burden on students. They are not often properly taught. The examination system treats students like enemies; it pounces on them suddenly. These are detrimental to the development, in a lively and spontaneous manner, of the moral, intellectual, and physical capabilities of the young people.

10-3-1964

Literature And Art

In the last fifteen years these associations,[1] most of their publications (it is said that a few are good, and by and large the people in them (that is, not everybody) have not carried out the policies of the party. They have acted as high and mighty bureaucrats, have not gone to the workers, peasants, and soldiers, and have not reflected the socialist revolution and socialist construction. In recent years, they skid right down to the brink of revisionism. Unless they remould themselves in real earnest, at some future date they are bound to become groups like the Hungarian Petofi Club.

27-6-1964

Comments On The Report Of The Public Showing And Criticism Of The Films ‘South China In The North’ (Pei-Kuo Chiangnan) And ‘Early Spring In The Second Month’ (Tsao-Ch’un Erth-Yueh)  –  I By The Department Of Propaganda Of The Centre

There may not be only these two films [of this kind]. Others should be criticized also, so that revisionist material is made known to the public.

August 1964

Notes On The Directive Of Strengthening Political Work By Learning From The PLA

Now the whole country is learning from the PLA and the Tach’ing [oilfield] and schools too should learn from the PLA. What the PLA excels in is the field of political ideology. It is also necessary to learn from the advanced units in the cities, agriculture, industries, commerce, and education, throughout the country.

1964

There are people who suggest that the industrial departments at all levels (from the Departments to the factories and communes) throughout the country should learn from the PLA by setting up political departments and political bureaux and appointing political commissars and by adopting the ‘four firsts’ and the ‘three-eight style’[2] It seems that this is the only way to arouse the revolutionary spirit of millions of cadres and workers in the industrial (as well as agricultural and commercial) departments.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk on the Four Clean-Ups Movement

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk On The Four Clean-ups Movement

January 3, 1965

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

I won’t visit your honourable place if there is no business, and when there is, we will hold a meeting. Some comrades ask me, “how do you fight a war of annihilation?” In a county of 280,000 people, 18,000 were assembled together, and after two months, the battle still had not been fought. It took 40 days to study the documents, and why should they be studied so long? I think this amounts to some sort of scholasticism. I don’t advocate this kind of study. It’s no use merely to read documents. (Liu X X: Several ten thousand people in Honan were concentrated in a few places, and they devoted some 40 days to it, which was to oppose the rightist trend. They have clarified some problems.) (Liu Tzu-hou: We also concentrated on anti-rightism and relieving ourselves of our burdens.) Was there any result? One could study the documents in a day, and discuss them on the ensuing day. It might take a week to discuss, and then go down to the countryside. The main thing is to study in the rural areas and learn from the poor and lower-middle peasants. One of my security guards, 21 years old, has written me saying “After studying the documents for some 40 days, I basically did not understand them, and only began to understand something after I came down to the countryside.” This means one should only study documents for one week, and then go down to the countryside in order to learn from the poor and lower-middle peasants! He said that he was afraid of a number of things: being afraid people might die, and the wrong roots would be planted. He was afraid of this and that, and how could it be possible if one was so timid? Although there are 18,000 cadres in a county of 280,000 people, they will still say it is not enough. Why should there be so many? I think it is definitely too many. Since the work teams have so many people, and you must rely on the work teams, then why don’t you rely on the 280,000 people of that county? When you rely on the good people there, even thoug! h there may be a bad one in 28, you will still have 27 good people. Even though there may be two bad persons, you will still have 26 good ones. Why don’t you rely on these people? Even with some 10,000-20,000 people, you still could not finish it after one or two months. You say you will take root and make contacts, but what roots and what contacts? It was all so dreary which means that you did not rely correctly. If you had relied on the right people, it would be sufficient to have a dozen or more people for each county. In short, we did not make revolution like this before. Some 10,000-20,000 people were mobilized to undertake the movement in a small county like a torrential rain, and after several months the work still was not launched. When a trade union was launched at the An-yuan colliery before, we did not know a single person among An-Yuan’s workers. As soon as we arrived there, we made speeches. We asked who would like to enrol in night school, and found out who the foreman was. He had several wives. Did we organize a club? (X X X: We didn’t.) After three months, a strike was launched there.[1]

I think that after entering a village and meeting the masses, we must first of all announce several things:

First, we should announce to commune members that we have not come for the purpose of rectifying them. Maybe we could also announce to some of the honest landlords and rich peasants that we would not rectify them. With the exception of some landlords and rich peasants that have escaped [class] determination and some of the counter-revolutionary elements and speculators with serious problems, all petty thieves and pickpockets could be exempt. We should announce openly that what we would rectify is the inside of the party, not the commune members. We should announce that our purpose is not to rectify you. If you have done something wrong, you should discuss it among yourselves. If there are serious cases among some members, we could discuss them individually, but this number is extremely small.

Second, we should also announce the purpose of our visit to the cadres. Cadres of teams, brigades and communes generally fall into these categories: large, medium, small, and nothing. There are some who eat more and own more, others who eat more but own very little, and still others who have nothing whatsoever. Where it involves a few tens of dollars, 100 dollars or 200 dollars, you can admit to it yourself. If you can return it, good, but if not, it can be cancelled with the approval of the masses, since that is all you have done! After you have confessed, there will be no trouble, but there will be trouble if you don’t.

Where the reimbursement has been made satisfactorily in the cases of corruption and theft and speculation and hoarding, no labels will be given. Where the performance is good, one can continue to serve as cadre with the approval of the masses.

After entering the village, a rally should be held within a month or so. The rally should be held with the county as the unit; each team being represented by its leader and two poor and lower-middle peasants; and each brigade being represented by the branch party secretary and brigade leader; and each commune being represented by the party secretary and commune leader. Several rallies should be held, each lasting one day. First, we should tell them the purpose of the visit. It should not be long. A half-hour speech should be sufficient, for if one should talk for an hour, they would be bored listening to it. Let them convey the message to lower echelons. In a county with a population of 280,000, there are about 3,000-odd teams. With three persons from each team, there would be some 10,000 people. It would be impossible to assemble everyone at one rally and so it should be divided into two or three rallies, each lasting one day. Then a rally of 10,000 people could be held and the people would feel pacified. What you have been doing seems so insipid. So many work teams have been set up, and after several months of endeavor, the movement still has not developed. They lack experience, and the majority consists of people who don’t know how to work. Some 20,000 people went to T’unghsien, and after one year, the work there was not completed. Some of them did not work well, and others were bureaucratic. I think if we make revolution this way, the revolution will take 100 years. Some professors were in the work teams, and they weren’t as good as their assistants, while some of the assistants weren’t as good as the students. The more books one reads, the more stupid one becomes, knowing almost nothing. That is all.

You won’t annihilate the enemy if you fight the battle of annihilation this way. It behoves you to rely on the masses and to mobilize them. You are lackadaisical in taking root and making contacts, and this atmosphere is too thick. This method is different from the method we used before. In order to annihilate the enemy in a matter of months, I think you must change the method. If you don’t rely on the masses, the movement cannot be launched in a few months. Please think up some methods!

Your (referring to Liu Tzu-hou and Chang Ch’eng-hsien) local committee’s secretary, Li Yueh-nung, is the team leader, and he has not launched the movement after several months. Try to think up some remedy! Why couldn’t he get the work done? (Liu: he has been too slow in stressing taking root and making contacts, and while I was in Jen-hsien, big rallies and small meetings were held simultaneously.) Cadre meetings and meetings of poor and lower-middle peasants may be held in the brigade or in the county. Last year, an all-province poor and lower-middle peasants representative conference was held in Hunan with salutary results. Hunan’s grain production this year has increased some two billion catties, and so it has yielded results. If you are so afraid that you will plant the wrong roots, then where can you hide yourself? A rally must be held as soon as we enter the village, and it should be attended by all poor and lower-middle peasants, including landlords and rich peasants that have escaped [class] determination. We must promulgate a few articles, but not read the Double Ten Articles one by one.

Genuine leaders and good people stand out only in a struggle, but you can’t see them by visiting and interviewing the poor and impoverished people. First they aren’t relatives, and secondly, they aren’t friends. Thus, I don’t believe in visiting and interviewing them. I was in Changsha when a strike was being organized by the Hankow-Canton railway. Although we didn’t recognize a single person there, we looked for the two foremen. One of them was Chu Shao-lien who had two wives. He also wanted to make revolution because, as foreman, he was oppressed and his wage was too meagre. This man was heroically sacrificed later. Where did we get a method to take root and make contacts like this? When you go out to develop and engage in mass movement, or to lead a mass struggle, the masses will do what they want to do in the struggle, and they will then create their own leaders in the struggle. (Liu Tzu-hou spoke about his own methods of holding struggle meetings when he was stationed at Jen-hsien.) In these struggle meetings one should also discuss last year’s distribution and wage points, and pay attention to production. What they have in the south, they don’t have in the north. Relieve famine where there is famine; where there is no famine, settle wage points, and engage in distribution for the current year as well as winter production. The four clean-ups can be deferred to a later stage. Four clean-ups means cleaning up cadres and cleaning up a few people. Where there is something unclean, clean it up; where it is clean, no cleaning up will be necessary. There must be some clean people! When there are no lice on a person, how can you find lice? (Liu X X: One high tide follows another, and we must not procrastinate). One cannot be thorough by procrastinating. There was a time when it took 40 days to study documents, to engage in scholasticism. My personal security guard wrote to tell me that after studying documents for 40 days, he still did not understand them. After ! he had gone to the countryside to stay at a selected primary unity, he began to understand. I have always opposed reading documents in this manner. It is a superstition that it takes 40 days to study documents. You should hold rallies, engage in struggle  —  three levels of area and county struggle rallies.

Hsieh Fu-chih’s method deserves adoption. Recruit 20 percent of the people for training. In a factory of 6,000 people, there must be 5,000 that are reliable. Why won’t you rely on these 5,000 people instead of relying on your work team’s 500 people? I think it is sufficient to have you alone. How could a minister fail to launch a movement with some 5,000 people to depend on? Don’t be engrossed in documents and don’t take so long to train. Go and get the struggle under way. When we fought wars before, we fought from the outset. We won some and lost some, and never read any books. Some people say that I brought Romance of Three Kingdoms in the fight but who would fight a battle in accordance with the book. Commander Lin was a professional in fighting before, and X X was also a professional before. X X X is also a professional. Whether one is a professional or an amateur, you can only learn it by fighting. If you don’t fight and merely learn, how can it be possible? (Asking Hsieh Fu-chih): Were you also studying the Double Ten Articles when you launched a training class of some 1,000 people or more? How did you study and for how long? (Answer: We studied some, and very soon we went to take up the struggle.) Why cannot training classes be held with the brigade or with the commune as the centre? The so-called training class is tantamount to a struggle meeting whose purpose is to understand conditions and understand diverse personalities in order to engage in investigation and study. After most of the people have been struggled against, then someone can be designated to make a summing up. In short, what I mean is we must rely on the worker-peasant masses. Chang Ch’eng-hsien and Li Yueh-nung, who have served as cadres in Hsin-ch’eng County, Hopeh, and still do not understand how to launch a mass movement. With so many people [you] still failed to develop it. Li X X was the secretary of the local committee of Pao-ting. He first suggested the four cleanups, but w! hen he went to the countryside, he engaged in something else. Yet when the masses insisted that four clean-ups be undertaken, he listened to them. . . . This is the Li X X, secretary of Pao-ting local committee, who in 1962 launched the four clean-ups campaign. That was because at that time we were confronted with oppressions. Whether we were fighting, or engaging in a peasant movement, or launching a labor movement, there were capitalists in the factories and landlords and gentry in the countryside. The Kuomintang oppressed us both politically and militarily, and we had no alternative but to rely on the masses. We had then very few cadres who were party members. There was not a single party member in a factory of 1,000 or 10,000 people. If there were one, we could make revolution or stage a strike. There was not a single party member in the Canton-Hankow Railway, yet it launched a mammoth strike. Now that you have founded a party, entered cities, and become bureaucrats, you are no longer adept at launching mass movements.

Why is it that those who attended military academies would not consult books when they were fighting? During five months at the Whampoa Military Academy, cadets became regular officers for four months. The cadets underwent some training, did some drill, and then graduated. Comrade Lin Piao said that when he came out to be a company commander, he did not know how to fight. A squad leader was experienced, and so he listened to him. After fighting a few battles, one becomes adept. I won’t believe that one will be able to fight after studying. Can an intellectual fight after a few years of reading? Not being able to fight is reasonable, and one will know how after a few years of fighting. Haven’t our work teams also offered some ideas? (Liu X X: The poor and lower-middle peasants have plenty of ideas, and though we also offered some, primarily they are their ideas.) It is necessary to listen to them, to the masses, and to the poor and lower-middle peasants. What we must do is mobilize the masses to revolt against the corrupt and speculative elements. It is important to get the arch wrongdoers, the lesser ones should be left alone. (Liu: One is to mobilize the masses; the other is that after the masses have been mobilized to a certain degree, the work team should control the temperature, and be adept at observing the situation, deciding when to attack and when to retreat.) It is like in a strike: when to strike and when to resume work. The same is true in battle. You must decide whether to attack or to retreat. Won’t you retreat if the situation becomes impossible? Sometimes, both sides have to retreat. When we were attacking Kao-hsing-yu, Chiang and Ts’ai retreated towards Kanchou while we retreated into the mountainous ravines, each on his own.

(Asking Ch’en Po-ta) How big a rally was held at Tientsin? (Ch’en’s answer deleted.) Impossible. Terrible! Such a waste of time. Better not to have held it! (Ch’en’s rejoinder omitted) So many work teams for 1,000 odd households, and the work could not be developed because there were too many people. It is impossible to engage in a human sea tactic. Where there are some 1,000 households, you can develop the movement by relying on 700 or 800 of them, and one Ch’en Po-ta would be enough. If you feel that there aren’t enough men, you can bring another fellow. What you do is nothing more than to announce: My name is Ch’en Po-ta and I won’t visit your honorable place if there is no business. If there is, a meeting should be held. Most of the people are innocent, and only a few are guilty. Let’s rely on the majority!

(The Premier interjected: Ch’en I just said that Chang Hsi studied for two months before she went into the city). The more she studied the more stupid she became. Strongly anti-rightist, in the end she leaned towards the right. In what county was Chang Hsi? (X X X: In Chu-jung County). I have always opposed the study of documents. It takes only a few hours to read a document. You should bring it down with you to study. When going down to the countryside, the first thing is that you must not study documents; secondly, don’t bring too many people; thirdly, don’t take root and make contacts isolatedly. Meetings should not be too long, longer when there are things to say, and shorter when there is not much to talk about. It is necessary to give the masses a free hand. It is no good if you trust only work teams, but not the masses. One of my own boys spent 40 days studying documents and still was ignorant about their contents, but he began to understand them as soon as he went to the country-side. There was another one at T’ung-hsien who said that the professors did not understand, though assistants were better, and the students understood even more. I told my boys: You have studied for 10 or more years, and have become all the more ignorant knowing almost nothing. Tell everybody that for 20-odd years I grew up by eating honeydew, being ignorant about everything. Ask your uncles and aunts for guidance. It seems that students proved to be better than assistants, and assistants better than professors. The professors have read too many books. Otherwise how could they become professors? When these people go down, they obstruct the four clean-ups. Their purpose is not to engage in the four clean-ups movement

One is Hsieh Fu-chih’s experience, in which struggle was launched through training classes. The other is the experience of Honan in which “triple alliance” struggle meetings were held. They undertook struggle for one month to 40 days. They did not read documents; rather they engaged in struggle, mobilized the masses, and understood the conditions. In short, they waged struggle. (X X X: In the brigade where I was stationed, we worked for two months, and succeeded in surfacing some 20,000 dollars [of illicit money] and 100,000 catties of grain.) There is still some oil to squeeze; we can borrow some money from them since they have plenty of money. The masses can still be hopeful, whether it is looking after the five-guarantee households or undertaking production. The meeting should not be too small. Some teams have only a dozen or more households, with a dozen or more members. It would be difficult to talk with them straightforwardly. In a brigade there are usually a dozen or more teams, and when a rally is held, a few hundred people will attend it at the most!

I could never see that so many people would be needed, and with that many people, I believe it cannot be handled well.

In short, we must rely on the masses, not the work teams. The work team either does not understand the situation or is ignorant. Some of them have become bureaucrats and obstruct the movement. Some of the persons on the work teams are not dependable. Now, a front such as this has been formed: one is T’ung-hsien, and the other is Hsin ch’eng county. If someone says there aren’t enough men, we will cut it down by one-half, and if someone still is not satisfied, we can cut the other half. One-half of T’ung-hsien’s 20,000 people have been sent to other areas. Is it still impossible if a county has 5,000 people? (K’ang-sheng interjected: Taking root and making contacts was discovered by Old Teng . . .) True, these were invented by Old Teng! Mystifying! Don’t announce the purpose of our visit. It is necessary to announce what we wish to do: production, distribution and wage points, and devote ourselves to these matters. We may talk a little about the four clean-ups. Whether to clean-up or not must be discussed by the masses. If there is something to be cleared up, we will clean it up, but if not let it go. What belongs to the masses won’t be liquidated. There must be several hundred people to hold a rally, which should be based on the brigade as the unit. The team, with its dozen or more households, is too small. When they say that a rally is to be held in the county, news will travels fast. County committee secretaries who have serious problems should go to some other county to serve on work teams. I think the present method of doing it is too erratic. There were some 1,000 households in the area assigned to you  —  Ch’en Po-ta, and at the beginning, a few persons launched the movement successfully. The number was increased to some 500 later. Why should you have so many people? (Teng X X interjects: Let us set a longer time and oppose rashness.) Wouldn’t it be better if it were accomplished in five or six years, three or four years! , or two or three years? Methodology is very important It is too much to concentrate 10,000 or more people in one county. It was developed by the peasants themselves, with only a few cadres. There were then seven or eight departments: agriculture department, finance department, militia department . . . They were all brave elements at the beginning. It was these elements who besieged the county government. Their demands were too excessive; in reality they could not be that excessive. A few of the power holders wormed their way in, which constituted a serious problem, but the majority could be won over and utilized. If it is excessive, the masses may not approve of it. We can be more liberal, and it may be faster, but not too excessive. (Liu interjects: Reliable workers must constitute a majority in factories.)

The work team is not all that clean. Won’t it be necessary to dismiss all questionable persons? Not necessarily. There might be in the work team some corrupt people and speculators. They must confess.

People like us have neither knowledge of nor experience with corruption and speculation, but they have, and so they are indispensable. When concentrating forces to fight a battle of annihilation, how can we fight if the problem of direction is not resolved? So many people, and yet we cannot develop the movement. It would be better to adopt Ch’en Po-ta’s method. It is not possible to rely on the human sea tactic which is bound to cause problems.

Wang X raised the question of switching cadres from one county to another and from one commune to another. When there is a newcomer whose background is unknown, the masses will dare to speak out. With a new commune leader and new party secretary, they will dare to talk about their predecessors. The movement can be developed very quickly. Why should it take so long?

For now the work team should not be so pure. Taking root and making contacts is dreary without any mass movement. With some 10-20,000 people concentrated in one county, they still complain it is not enough. (Liu X X, Teng X X . . .)

It behoves the poor and lower-middle peasant associations to clarify the problems and talk with T’ao [and] X.

Notes

The year 1922 and the early part of 1923 witnessed a vigorous development of the working class movement in Hunan and the country as a whole. Heroic strikes for wage increase and political rights spread over the whole province. The one that had the greatest influence over the working-class movement in Hunan and the rest of the country was the great Anyuan strike.

The Anyuan Colliery was an enterprise owned by bureaucrat capitalists under the control of Japanese imperialism. The successive directors were all corrupt bureaucrats, real power concerning the mining projects being in the hands of foreign supervisors. The entire enterprise was run on the feudal gangmaster system. The workers groaned under the treble oppression of imperialism, bureaucrat-capitalism and feudalism. Therefore the Anyuan Colliery contained immense revolutionary possibilities.

After 1921, the Party at first ran spare-time schools for the workers at the mine to carry on Marxist education; then it organized a trade union, which was formally founded on May 1, 1922. Meanwhile, a branch of the Socialist Youth League was formed among the workers, the best members of which were later absorbed into the Party.

The big strike of the Anyuan coal-miners, which had repercussions throughout the country, broke out on September 10, 1922.

The authorities of the mine and the railway had delayed payment to the workers for several months and attempted to dissolve their union. Further, the workers were encouraged by the victory of the strike in the Hanyang Iron Works. They demanded the safe-guarding of their political rights, improvement in their working conditions and an increase in wages.

Pickets were organized after the outbreak of the strike to keep order in the mining district. When the warlords of Kiangsi Province sent troops to suppress the strike, the workers under the guidance of the Party went to agitate among the soldiers, and soldiers refused to open fire on them. The authorities tried through sham “negotiations” to arrest leaders of the strike, but thousands of strikers surrounded the meeting place and foiled the warlords plan.

Owing to the solidarity of the workers and their vigorous struggle, the authorities were forced to accept the workers’ demands on the fifth day of the strike and thus the strike was victoriously concluded.

After the victory of the strike the trade union was organized along new lines. The basic unit of organization was a ten-man group. Each group had a representative, every ten groups an intermediate representative, and each pit or workshop a chief representative. Every pit and workshop had its board of representatives or intermediate representatives; and above them all was the supreme conference of the chief representatives. Thus the workers were better and more strictly organized. Their political rights were extended and their living conditions markedly improved. The workers also expanded their schools and opened consumers’ co-operatives. The Anyuan trade union was at that time one of the strongest in the country. It alone stood firm when nearly all the unions in the other big enterprises were destroyed during the low ebb of the working-class movement which followed the massacre of the Peking-Hankow Railway workers on February 7, 1923. In the course of the Northern Expedition in 1926 the Anyuan workers gave strong support to the Expeditionary Army. They also took part in the armed struggle during the Autumn Harvest Uprising in 1927. From 1928 onwards, Anyuan was the liaison centre of the Chingkang Mountains revolutionary base.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directives After Hearing the Reports of Ku Mu and Yu Chiu-li on Planning Work

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directives After Hearing The
Reports Of Ku Mu And Yu Ch’iu-li
On Planning Work

January 1965

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

(In January 1965, Comrades Ku Mu and Yu Ch’iu-li reported to the Chairman on planning work. They mentioned dare to think and dare to do.)

One must dare to think and dare to do, instead of being random; one must break down superstitions, not science. Don’t try to spend half a day talking, with planning and with experimenting, or there will be no results in the end.

(They reported on how many X X ten thousand tons of steel can be produced this year)

Isn’t there such a report that when the British heard that we were engaged in making adjustments and consolidation, they were afraid? Don’t undertake adventurism, but do concern yourself with quality, variety and specifications; then they will be afraid. Add quantity slowly. Don’t be impatient.

(They mentioned three-line construction.)

We must grasp three-line construction firmly, especially during the time of struggle with imperialism and with revisionism.

(They reported that our technology must catch up with and surpass international standards.?)

Yes, we must have . . . no matter what country, no matter what missiles, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, we must surpass them. I have said before, when the atomic bomb is exploded, even if one-half of mankind perishes, there will still be one-half left. When Snow[1] was talking with me, he asked me why I did not deny the rumour, and I said I did not want to. I simply said that if war breaks out and one-half of mankind dies, the other half will still be left. There are some people who are even more terrible than me. There is an American movie which describes the situation so terribly. Khrushchev has said much, much more than I. He said there is a weapon which could wipe out mankind, a death ray. I did not refer to China, but said that one third of the world’s population will perish, and at most, one-half will die! With three-line construction, we will develop the steel industry, national defense, machinery, chemical and petroleum industries, and railway bases. By that time, we won’t be afraid if war breaks out. If they are not completed, what can we do if there is war? We can fight them with conventional weapons. Before we did not have aircraft and artillery. . . and no TNT, and did we not win? We can continue to construct even when we are fighting: you fight your war and we do our construction.

(They mentioned that new technology must be adopted in designing.)

One must compare in designing, as to what costs less and accomplishes more, and what costs more and accomplishes less. Should the design personnel design at their own home or on-the-spot? I have seen an article on the design of a 12,000-ton hydraulic press, and some designs have failed once, twice, or even hundreds of times. There won’t be success without failure.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

You Fight Your Way and I'll Fight My Way: Conversation with the Palestine Liberation Organization Delegation

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

You Fight Your Way And I’ll Fight
My Way – A Conversation With The
Palestine Liberation Organisation Delegation

March 1965

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Japan had capitulated, and we were again forced to fight. There were two methods; you fight your way and I’ll fight my way. Whatever the military logic, it can be reduced simply to these two sentences. What is you fight your way? He seeks me out to fight but cannot be found, thus ending abortively. What is I’ll fight my way? We concentrate a few army divisions and brigades, and eat him up.

Everything is divisible. Since imperialism is a thing, it also is divisible, and can be eliminated piece by piece. Chiang Kai-shek’s 8 million-man armed force is also a thing which can be eliminated piece by piece. This is known as smashing the enemy one by one which is the logic expounded in ancient books of Europe and China. It is very simple, and has no profound logic at all. Don’t read books, for who would ever bring a book to read when fighting? I would never read when fighting. Read less, for it won’t do any good to read a lot.

The battlefield is a school. I don’t oppose military academies. They can remain open, but the school term should not be too long. It would be too long if it lasted two or three years. A few months would suffice. No army, naval or airforce academy can be all that outstanding.

There are certain modern sciences which require a longer time to learn, such as guided missiles and atomic bombs which must be researched and manufactured. It does not take long to train soldiers in the use of weapons. One month is enough to train artillery troops. Several months or at most a year is enough to train drivers and aviators. The principal thing is to train on the battlefield. During peacetime, training should be conducted at night. During wartime, learn by fighting. Haven’t you said that you have read my articles? These things may not be very useful, but there are two principal lines: you fight your way and I’ll fight my way. The sentence I’ll fight my way may be divided into two more sentences: if I can win, I will fight; if I cannot win, I will run away. Imperialists are most afraid of this method. If I can win, I will eat you up; if I cannot win, I will run away, making it impossible for you to find me. In the beginning, we used guerrilla warfare in both offensive and defensive operations. The basic method was guerrilla warfare. When we were fighting Chiang Kai-shek, we moved from small battles to large battles. Later, we used 300,000 troops to wipe out his 500,000 troops. We used three fingers to bite off his five fingers. We were a minority, so how could we eat them? We did it piecemeal. The result is that we swallowed them.

There are some foreigners studying military science in China. I advise them to go back, and not to study too long. A few months will do. There is only lecturing in the classroom, which is of no use. After going back, it would be most useful to take part in fighting. Some logic requires little if any explanation. One should spend most of one’s time in his own country. Perhaps, there is no need to go abroad, and one will learn it all right.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directive on Public Health

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directive On Public Health

June 26, 1965

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Tell the Ministry of Public Health that it only works for fifteen per cent of the total population of the country and that this fifteen per cent is mainly composed of gentlemen,[1] while the broad masses of the peasants do not get any medical treatment. First they don’t have any doctors; second they don’t have any medicine. The Ministry of Public Health is not a Ministry of Public Health for the people, so why not change its name to the Ministry of Urban Health, the Ministry of Gentlemen’s Health, or even to Ministry of Urban Gentlemen’s Health?

Medical education should be reformed. There’s no need to read so many books. How many years did Hua T’o[2] spend at college? How many years’ education did Li Shih-chen of the Ming dynasty receive? In medical education there is no need to accept only higher middle school graduates or lower middle school graduates. It will be enough to give three years to graduates from higher primary schools. They would then study and raise their standards mainly through practice. If this kind of doctor is sent down to the countryside, even if they haven’t much talent, they would be better than quacks and witch doctors and the villages would be better able to afford to keep them. The more books one reads the more stupid one gets. The methods of medical examination and treatment used by hospitals nowadays are not at all appropriate for the countryside, and the way doctors are trained is only for the benefit of the cities. And yet in China over 500 million of our population are peasants.

They work divorced from the masses, using a great deal of manpower and materials in the study of rare, profound and difficult diseases at the so-called pinnacle of science, yet they either ignore or make little effort to study how to prevent and improve the treatment of commonly seen, frequently occurring and widespread diseases. I am not saying that we should ignore the advanced problems, but only a small quantity of manpower and material should be expended on them, while a great deal of manpower and material should be spent on the problems to which the masses most need solutions.

There is another peculiar thing. Whenever a doctor makes an examination, he always has to wear a mask no matter what the illness is. Is this because they are afraid they might catch a disease and thus transmit it to others? I am afraid that it is primarily because they are afraid of catching an illness themselves. Different diseases should be dealt with separately. If they wear masks no matter what the illness, this creates a distance between doctor and patient from the start.

We should leave behind in the city a few of the less able doctors who graduated one or two years ago, and the others should all go into the countryside. The ‘four clean-ups’ movement was wound up in the year xx and has been basically completed,[3] but even though the ‘four clean-ups’ has been completed, medical and health work in the villages has not yet been completed!

In medical and health work put the emphasis on the countryside!

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Notes on the Report of the Investigation of the Peking Teachers Training College

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Notes On The Report Of The Investigation
Of The Peking Teachers’ Training College

July 3, 1965

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Students are heavily loaded [with work] and their health suffers. Their study therefore becomes useless. [I] suggest a cut of one third of their total activities [work]. Please ask representatives of staff and students to discuss this problem a few times, take decisions, and carry them out. Please consider whether this is feasible.

The next few decades will be precious and important for the future of our country and the destiny of mankind. The twenty-years-old [of today] will be forty or fifty in twenty or thirty years’ time. This generation of young people will take part in building our ‘poor and bare’ country into a great strong socialist power and will fight and bury imperialism with their own hands. The task is arduous and the road long. Chinese young people of lofty ambitions must dedicate their lives to the accomplishment of our great historic mission! And for this, people of our generation must determine to fight hard for the rat of their lives!

Politics must follow the mass line. It will not do to rely on leaders alone. How can the leaders do so much? The leaders can cope with only a fraction of everything, good and bad. Consequently, everybody must be mobilized to share the responsibility, to speak up, to encourage other people, and to criticize other people. Everyone has a pair of eyes and a mouth and he must be allowed to see and speak up. Democracy means allowing the masses to manage their own affairs. Here are two ways: one is to depend on a few individuals and the other is to mobilize the masses to manage affairs. Our politics is mass politics. Democratic rule is the rule of all, not the rule of a few. Everyone must be urged to open his mouth. He has a mouth, therefore he has two responsibilities to eat and to speak. He must speak up wherever he sees bad things or bad styles of work. He must follow his duty to fight.

Nothing can be done well, if it depends entirely on the leader not on the leadership of the party. [We] must rely on the party and [our] comrades to deal with matters, not on a solitary leader. An active leader followed by inactive masses will not do; it must be established as a practice that the masses use both their hands and their mouths. The only way to have things done well is to depend on the leadership of the party from above and [the support of] the masses from below.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Letter to Corade Chen Yi discussing Poetry

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Letter To Comrade Chen Yi
Discussing Poetry

July 21, 1965

[SOURCE: Peking Review, No. 2; January 13, 1978.]

You asked me to polish your poems, but I am unable to as I have never learnt how to write lu shih in five character lines and have never published any in that form. Your poems have power and range. Only I feel that in form, or metrically, they are not quite lu shih.[1] For it has strict tonal patterns, without which a poem cannot be called lu shih. In this respect, I think, both of us are still beginners. I have occasionally written a few seven-character lu shih, but none of them satisfies me. Just as you are good at writing unorthodox verse, I know a little about tzu[2] with lines of different lengths. Chien-ying [Yeh Chien-ying — Tr.] is good at seven-character lu shih, and old Comrade Tung [Tung Pi-wu — Tr.] at five-character lu shih. If you want to write in these forms, you can ask for their advice.

I made changes in this poem and am still far from satisfied with the result. I am afraid I cannot do the rest.

Another thing is that poetry uses images to convey ideas and should not communicate plainly as in prose. So we cannot dispense with pi (similes and metaphors) or with hsing (association). We may also use the technique of fu (direct statement) as in Tu Fu’s[3] Northern Journey, which may be said to “state in plain terms,” but here too he used pi and hsing. “Pi means comparing one object to another,” and “hsing means speaking first of something else to lead up to the main theme.” Han Yu[4] used prose techniques in poetry, and some people said he knew nothing at all about poetry, but that was going too far, as some of his poems like The Rocks, Mount Hengshan and To Prefectural Official Chang on the Fifteenth Day of the Eighth Moon are really not bad. We can see, therefore, it is not easy to write poetry. Most Sung poets did not understand that poetry must convey ideas by means of images, and they disregarded the tradition of Tang poetry, with the result that what they wrote was quite flat. These random remarks all refer to classical poetry. To write modern poetry, we must use the method of conveying ideas through images in reflecting class struggle and the struggle for production, and must definitely not go in for classicism. But for the last few decades, poetry in the vernacular has not been successful. There have been some good folk songs, however. It is very likely that the future trend will be to draw nourishment and adopt forms from the folk song and develop a new type of poetry which will appeal to the general reading public. Incidentally, Li Po[5] wrote very few lu shih, and Li Ho[6], apart from a few five-character lu shih, never wrote any in seven-character lines. Li Ho is well worth reading. I don’t know if you are interested.

With best wishes,

Mao Tse-tung

July 21, 1965

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech at Hangchow

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech At Hangchow

December 21, 1965

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

I have read three articles in this issue of Che-hsueh yenchiu [i.e., the special issue of philosophical articles written by workers, peasants and soldiers, 1965, No. 6] [Philosophical Research]. Those of you who are engaged in philosophy should go in for practical philosophy, otherwise nobody will read it. Bookish philosophy is very difficult to understand. For whom is it written? Some intellectuals like Wu Han[1] and Chien Po-tsan[2] are going from bad to worse. Someone called Sun Ta-jen has written an article refuting Chien Po-tsan’s idea of the feudal landlord class adopting a policy of concessions towards the peasants. After peasant wars the landlord class would only counter-attack and seek revenge; there was never any question of concessions. The landlord class made no concessions to the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom[3]. The Boxers first said: ‘Oppose the Ch’ing and eliminate the foreigners,’ and later, ‘Support the Ch’ing and eliminate the foreigners,’ thus gaining the support of the Empress Dowager Tz’u-hsi. After the Ch’ing dynasty had suffered defeat at the hands of imperialism the Dowager Empress and the Emperor ran away, and Tz’u-hsi started to ‘support the foreigners and eliminate the Boxers’[4]. Some people say that the Inside Story of the Ching Court is patriotic, but I think it is treasonable  —  out-and-out treason[5]. Why is it that some say it is patriotic? Merely because they think that the Kuang Hsu emperor was a pitiable man who, together with K’ang Yu-wei[6], opened schools, formed the New Armies and put into effect a few enlig! htened measures.

At the end of the Ch’ing dynasty some people advocated ‘Chinese learning for the substance, Western learning for practical application’. The substance was like our General Line, which cannot be changed. We cannot adopt Western learning as the substance, nor can we use the substance of the democratic republic. We cannot use ‘the natural rights of man’ nor the ‘theory of evolution’. We can only use Western technology. ‘The natural rights of man’ represents, of course, an erroneous line of thought. Is there such a thing as rights bestowed by nature? Isn’t it man who bestows rights on man? Were the rights we enjoy bestowed by nature? Our rights were bestowed by the common people, and primarily by the working class and the poor and lower-middle peasants.

If you study a little modern history you will see that there was no such thing as a ‘policy of concession’. The only concessions were made by the revolutionary forces to the reactionaries. The reactionaries always counter-attacked and sought revenge. Whenever a new dynasty emerged in history they adopted a policy of ‘decreased labour service and taxation’. This was because people were very poor and there was nothing to take from them. This policy was of advantage to the landlord class.

I hope that those who are engaged in philosophical work will go to the factories and the countryside for a few years. The system of philosophy should be reformed. You should not write in the old manner and you should not write so much.

A student of Nanking University who came from a peasant family, a student of history, took part in the ‘four clean-ups’ movement. Afterwards he wrote some articles on the subject of the necessity for those engaged in history to go down to the countryside. In these articles, which were published in the Nanking University Journal, he made a confession saying: ‘I have studied now for several years and have lost all notion of manual labour.’ In the same issue of the Nanking University Journal is an article which says: ‘The essence is the major contradiction and, in particular, the major aspect of the major contradiction.’ Even I have not made such a statement before. The outward appearance is visible; it stimulates the senses. The essence is invisible and intangible; it is hidden behind the outward appearance. The essence can only be discovered through investigation and study. If we could touch and see the essence there would be no need for science.

You should gradually get into contact with reality, live for a while in the countryside, learn a bit of agricultural science, botany, soil technology, fertilizer technology, bacteriology, forestry, water conservancy, etc. There’s no need to read big tomes. It’s sufficient to read little books and get a bit of general knowledge.

Now about this university education. From entering primary school to leaving college is altogether sixteen or seventeen years. I fear that for over twenty years people will not see rice, mustard, wheat or millet growing; nor will they see how workers work, nor how peasants till the fields, nor how people do business. Moreover their health will be ruined. It is really terribly harmful. I said to my own child: ‘You go down to the countryside and tell the poor and lower-middle peasants, “My dad says that after studying a few years we became more and more stupid. Please, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, be my teachers. I want to learn from you.” ’ In point of fact pre-school children have a lot of contact with society up to the age of seven. At two they learn to speak and at three they have noisy quarrels. When they grow a little bigger, they dig with toy hoes to imitate grown-ups working. This is the real world. By then the children have already learned concepts. ‘Dog’ is a major concept. ‘Black dog’ and ‘yellow dog’ are minor concepts. His family’s yellow dog is concrete. Man is a concept which has shed a great deal of meaning. Man or woman, great or small, Chinese or foreigner, revolutionary or counter-revolutionary all these distinctions are absent. What is left are only the characteristics which differentiate man from the other animals. Who has ever seen ‘man’? You can only see Mr. Chang and Mr. Li. You cannot see the concept ‘house’ either, only actual houses, such as the foreign-style buildings of Tientsin or the courtyard houses of Peking.

We should reform university education. So much time should not be spent attending classes. Not to reform arts faculties would be terrible. If they are not reformed, can they produce philosophers? Can they produce writers? Can they produce historians? Today’s philosophers can’t turn out philosophy, writers can’t write novels, and historians can’t produce history. All they want to write about is emperors, kings, generals and ministers. Ch’i Pen-yu’s[7] article is excellent, I read it three times. Its defect is that it does not name names. Yao Wen-yuan’s[8] article is also very good: it has had a great impact on theatrical, historical and philosophical circles. Its defect is that it did not hit the crux of the matter. The crux of Hai Jui Dismissed from Office was the question of dismissal from office. The Chia Ch’ing emperor dismissed Hai Jui from office. In 1959 we dismissed P’eng Te-huai from office. And P’eng Te-huai is Hai Jui too.

We must reform the arts faculties in the universities. The students must go down and engage in industry, agriculture and commerce. The engineering and science departments are different. They have factories for practical work and also laboratories. They can work in their factories and do experiments in their laboratories. After they have finished high school they should first do some practical work. Only to go to the countryside is not enough. They should also go to factories, shops, army companies. They can do this kind of work for a few years and then study for two years. This will be enough. If the university has a five-year system, they should go down for three years. Teachers should also go down and work and teach at the same time. Can’t they teach philosophy, literature and history there too? Must they have big foreign-style buildings to teach them in?

Many great inventors, such as Watt and Edison, came from workers’ families. Franklin, who discovered electricity, sold newspapers: he started as a newspaper boy. Many of the great scholars and scientists did not go through college. Not many of the comrades in our Party’s Central Committee are university graduates.

You cannot go on writing books the way you write them now. Take the example of analysis and synthesis. In the past books did not explain them clearly. They said, ‘Within analysis there is synthesis; analysis and synthesis are indivisible.’ This sort of statement may be correct, but it has its inadequacy. One should say, ‘Analysis and synthesis are both divisible and indivisible.’ Everything can be divided. It is all a case of ‘one divides into two’. Analysis has to be applied in differing circumstances. Take, for example, an analysis of the Kuomintang and the communists. How did we analyse the Kuomintang in the past? We said that it occupied extensive territory with a large population, it controlled the large and medium-sized cities, enjoyed the support of imperialism and had large well-equipped armies. But the fundamental point was that it was divorced from the masses the peasants and soldiers. Also it had internal contradictions. Our armies were small, our weapons inferior (only millet and rifles), our territory was small, we had no big cities and no foreign aid, but we had close links with the masses; we had democracy in the three main fields, we had the three-eight working style, and we represented the demands of the masses. This was the fundamental thing.

Those Kuomintang officers who had graduated from military academies could not fight battles, while those who had studied in the Whampoa Military Academy for only a few months could fight. Among our own marshals and generals there are very few who have been to college. I had never studied military books. I had read the Tso Commentary,[9] the Mirror of Good Government[10] and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. These books all described battles, but when I actually went into battle I forgot all about them. When we fought we did not take a single book with us. We only analysed the situation of ourselves and the enemy, analysed the concrete situation.

To synthesize the enemy is to eat him up. How did we synthesize the Kuomintang? Did we not do it by taking enemy material and remoulding it? We did not kill prisoners, but released some of them and retained most of them to replenish our own armies. We took all the weapons, food and fodder and equipment of all kinds. Those we did not use we have ‘aufgehoben’, to use a philosophical term, as in the case of people like Tu Yu-ming.[11] The process of eating is also one of analysis and synthesis. For example when eating crabs you eat the meat but not the shell. The stomach will absorb the nutritious part and get rid of the useless part. You are all foreign-style philosophers. I am a native-style philosopher. Synthesizing the Kuomintang means eating it up, absorbing most of it and eliminating a small part. I’ve learnt this from Marx. Marx removed the shell of Hegel’s philosophy and absorbed the useful inner part, transforming it into dialectical materialism. He absorbed Feuerbach’s materialism and criticized his metaphysics. The heritage had always to be passed on. In his treatment of French utopian socialism and English political economy, Marx absorbed the good things and abandoned the bad.

Marx’s Capital started with the analysis of the dual nature of commodities. Our commodities also have a dual nature. In a hundred years’ time commodities will still have a dual nature. Things which are not commodities have a dual nature too. Our comrades likewise have a dual nature, correct and incorrect. Don’t you have a dual nature? I know I have. Young people easily make the mistake of being metaphysical: they cannot bear to talk about their shortcomings. People improve with experience. In recent years, however, it is the young who have made progress; the hopeless cases are some of the old professors. Wu Han is mayor of a city. It would be better if he were demoted to being head of a county. It would be better if Yang Hsien-chen and Chang Wen-t’ien were demoted too. This is the only way we can really help them.

Recently an article was written about the law of adequate justification. What law of adequate justification? I don’t think such a thing exists. Different classes have different ways of justifying their actions. Which class does not have adequate justification? Doesn’t Russell? He recently sent me a pamphlet which should be translated and read. Russell is now a bit better politically. He is anti-revisionist and anti-American and he supports Vietnam. This idealist has acquired a little materialism. I am talking about his actions.[12]

A man should work in many fields, have contact with all sorts of people. Leftists should not only meet leftists but also rightists. They should not be afraid of this and that. I myself have met all sorts of people; I have met big officials and small ones.

In writing philosophy can you change your methods? You must write in a popular style, using the language of the labouring masses. We all talk like students. (Comrade Ch’en Po-ta interrupts: ‘The Chairman excepted’) I have been involved in the peasant movement, the workers’ movement, the student movement, the Kuomintang movement, and I have done military work for over twenty years, so I am somewhat better.

In tackling the study of Chinese philosophy, we must study Chinese history and the historical process of Chinese philosophy. One should first study the history of the past 100 years. Isn’t the historical process the unity of opposites? Modern history is a continual process of one dividing into two and continual struggle. In these struggles some people compromised, but the people were dissatisfied with them and went on struggling. Before the 1911[13] Revolution we had the struggle between Sun Yat-sen and K’ang Yu-wei. After the 1911 Revolution had overthrown the emperor there was the struggle between Sun and Yuan Shih-kai. Afterwards the Kuomintang had continual internal schisms and struggles.

The Marxist-Leninist classics not only need to have prefaces written, but also annotations. Political prefaces are easier to write than philosophical ones, which are none too easy. It used to be said that there were three great laws of dialectics, then Stalin said that there were four. In my view there is only one basic law and that is the law of contradiction. Quality and quantity, positive and negative, external appearance and essence, content and form, necessity and freedom, possibility and reality, etc., are all cases of the unity of opposites.

It has been said that the relationship of formal logic to dialectics is like the relationship between elementary mathematics and higher mathematics. This is a formulation which should be studied further. Formal logic is concerned with the form of thought, and is concerned to ensure that there is no contradiction between successive stages in an argument. It is a specialized science. Any kind of writing must make use of formal logic.

Formal logic does not concern itself with major premises: it is incapable of so doing. The Kuomintang call us ‘bandits’. ‘Communists are bandits’, ‘Chang San is a communist’, therefore ‘Chang San is a bandit’. We say ‘The Kuomintang are bandits’, ‘Chiang Kai-shek is Kuomintang’, therefore we say ‘Chiang Kai-shek is a bandit’. Both of these syllogisms are in accordance with formal logic.

One cannot acquire much fresh knowledge through formal logic. Naturally one can draw inferences, but the conclusion is still enshrined in the major premise. At present some people confuse formal logic and dialectics. This is incorrect.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at the National Work Conference of the Politburo

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At The National Work Conference
Of The Politbureau

January 1965

During the transitional period, there exist class struggle, the conflict between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, and the conflict between the socialist and capitalist roads. If we forget this fundamental theory and practice of our party, we may go astray.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Comment on the Article - "How to Play Table Tennis" by Comrade Hsu Yin-sheng

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Comment On The Article — ‘How
To Play Table Tennis’ By
Comrade Hsu Yin-sheng

January 1965

Comrade Hsu Yin-sheng’s talk and Comrade Ho Lung’s comment should be printed and circulated among the comrades in the Centre, who, I hope, will have more of this kind of thing printed and distributed when they go back to their regions. Comrades, this is young ‘generals’ ’ challenge to us, the old ones! Should we refuse to learn anything from them? The talk is full of dialectical materialism and is throughout opposed to idealism and metaphysics. [I] have not read anything so good for years. What he [Hsu] talks about is a ball game; what we can learn from it are theory, politics, economy, culture, and military affairs. If we do not learn from the young ‘generals’, we shall be doomed.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Notes on Comrade Cheng-jen's Report on his "Squatting Point"

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Notes On Comrade Ch’en Cheng-jen’s
Report On His ‘Squatting Point’[1]

January 29, 1965

Management is a form of socialist education. If the managerial staff do not go to the lathe shop to work on the ‘three sames’[2] and to look for teachers from whom they may learn one or two crafts, then they will live in a state of class conflict with the workers. In the end they will be knocked down like capitalists by the workers. They cannot manage well, if they do not learn and remain ignorant of any productive skill. It is impossible to make other people understand, if they themselves are confused.

The bureaucrats and the workers and the middle-poor peasants are acutely antagonistic classes.

Such people [the bureaucrats] are already or are becoming capitalist vampires to the workers. How can they have sufficient understanding? They are the objects of struggle and revolution; socialist education cannot depend on them. We can only rely on those cadres who are not hostile to the workers and are imbued with revolutionary spirit.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at a Work Conference of the Center

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At A Work Conference
Of The Centre

September 1965

If revisionism appears in the Centre, what are you going to do? It is probable that [revisionism] will appear [in the Centre] and this is a great danger.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Broadcasting

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Broadcasting

December 9, 1965

Use the broadcasting service well, for the peoples of China and the world.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interview with Andre Malraux

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interview With Andre Malraux[1]

1965

[SOURCE: Extracted from Andre Malraux: Anti-Memoirs.]

Mao reflects “Plekhanov and the Mensheviks were Marxists, even Leninists. They cut themselves off from the masses and ended up by taking up arms against the Bolsheviks or rather they mainly ended up exiled or shot.

“There are now two paths for every Communist: that of socialist construction, and that of revisionism. We are beyond the bark-eating stage, but we have only got as far as a bowl of rice a day. To accept revisionism is to snatch away the bowl of rice. As I told you, we made the Revolution with peasant rebels. Then we led them against the cities ruled by the Kuomintang. But the successor of the Kuomintang was not the Chinese Communist Party, however important that may be, it was the New Democracy. The history of the Revolution, like the weakness of the proletariat of the big cities, forced the communists into collaboration with the petty-bourgeoisie. For that reason, too, our revolution, in the last analysis, will no more resemble the Russian Revolution than the Russian Revolution resembled yours. Even today, broad layers of our society are conditioned in such a way that their activity is necessarily orientated toward revisionism. They can only obtain what they want by taking it from the masses”

I think of Stalin: “We did not bring about the October Revolution in order to give power to the kulaks!”.

“Corruption, law-breaking, the arrogance of intellectuals, the wish to do honour to one’s family by becoming a white-collar worker and not dirtying one’s hands anymore, all these stupidities are only symptoms. Inside the party and out. The cause of them is the historical conditions themselves. But also the political conditions”

I know his theory: you begin by no longer tolerating criticism, then you abandon self-criticism, then you cut yourself off from the masses, and since the party can draw its revolutionary strength only from them, you tolerate the formation of a new class; finally like Khrushchev, you proclaim peaceful co-existence on a durable basis with United States and the Americans arrive in Vietnam. I have not forgotten his old saying “Here seventy percent of the people are poor peasants, and their sense of the Revolution has never been at fault.” He has just explained how he interprets it: one must learn from the masses in order to be able to teach them.

“That is why” he says, “Soviet revisionism is an . . . apostasy”

*     *     *

“When he [Khrushchev] came here for the last time, on his return from Camp David, he believed in compromise with American imperialism. He imagined that the contradictions had almost disappeared there. The truth is that of the contradictions due to victory are less painful than the old ones, luckily they are almost as deep. Humanity left to its own devices does not necessarily re-establish capitalism (which is why you are perhaps right in saying they will not revert to private ownership of the means of production), but it does re-establish inequality. The forces tending toward the creation of new classes are powerful. We have just suppressed military titles and badges of rank; every ‘cadre’ becomes a worker again, at least one day a weak; whole train loads of city dwellers go off to work in people’s communes. Khrushchev seemed to think that a revolution is done when a communist party has seized power  —  as if it were merely a question of national Liberation.

“Lenin was well aware that at this juncture the revolution is only just beginning. The forces and traditions he was referring to are not only the legacy of the bourgeoisie. They are also our fate. . . The revisionists mix up cause and effect. Equality is not important in itself, it is important because it is natural to those who have not lost contact with masses. . . You remember Kosygin at the 23rd Congress! ‘Communism means the raising of Living standards’, of course! And swimming is a way of putting on a pair of trunks! Stalin had destroyed the kulaks. It isn’t simply a question of replacing the Tsar with Khrushchev, one bourgeoisie with another, even if it’s called communist. The thought, culture and customs which brought China to where we found her must disappear, the thought, customs, and culture of proletarian China, which does not yet exist, must appear”.

*     *     *

“What is expressed in that commonplace term ‘revisionism’ is the death of revolution. What we have just done in the army must be done everywhere. I have told you that the revolution is also everywhere. I have told you that the revolution is also a feeling. If we decide to make of it what the Russians are now doing  —  a feeling of the past  —  everything will fall apart. Our revolution cannot be simply a stabilization of the past”.

*     *     *

I am alone with the masses. Waiting . . .

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk With Mao Yuan-hsin 

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talks With Mao Yüan-hsin (2)

[Comrade Mao Yüan-hsin is Chairman Mao’s nephew who studied at the Harbin Military Engineering Institute.]

Second Talk[1]

(February 18, 1966)

Chairman Mao and his nephew discussed the question of whether the Military Engineering Institute should go in for two or three years of study first and then do another year of part-time work and part-time study: and also the question of coordination and assignment of work.

[Chairman Mao:] The science and engineering faculties should still have their own language. With their six-year syllabus we could start by trying to do it in three years first and see how it works out, and not necessarily be in a hurry to shorten it to two years. With advanced science, if there is a clear-cut objective, then three years of study would perhaps be all right, and if three years are not enough they could later add on a bit.

Only when there is a clear-cut objective can you do less but do it well, and only then can you combine the general and the particular. The six-year system can then be altered into a three-year system, and after we have done that our steps can be sure and steady and our direction will be right.

When you try new things, the only way to do it is to carry on for a few years, constantly summarizing your experience.

The science and engineering faculties have their specific nature and have their own special terminology, so you have to read a few books. But they also have something in common with other subjects, it’s no good just to read books. One had only to study at Whampoa Academy for half a year and after graduation one served as a soldier for one year. In that way many talented officers were produced, but after it was changed to the Army University (I have not made a note of how long they studied) the result was that when people graduated, they kept on being defeated in battle and becoming our captives.

I don’t know anything about the science and engineering faculties, but I do claim a little knowledge about the medical faculty. When you listen to an eye doctor talk it all sounds very mysterious, but the human body should be viewed as a whole.

The development of science proceeds from a low level to a high level, from the simple to the complex, but when one teaches one cannot follow the sequence of development. When we study history, we should concentrate on modern history. Now we only have three thousand-odd years of recorded history; what will happen when we have ten thousand years of history, how will we teach it then?

Advanced science, including those fundamental theories which practice has proved useful, must get rid of those parts which practice has proved useless and irrational.

When one lectures on nuclear physics it will suffice to talk about the Sakata model; one needn’t start from the theories of Bohr of the Danish school; otherwise you won’t graduate even after ten years of study. Even Sakata uses dialectics  —  why don’t you use it?

Man’s understanding of things always starts from the concrete and proceeds to the abstract. In medicine they start by teaching abstract things such as psychology, the nervous system, etc. I think this is wrong: they should start by teaching anatomy. Mathematics was originally derived from physical models. Nowadays one cannot associate mathematics with physical models: instead one has gone a step further and made it abstract.

Third Talk

1966

[Chairman Mao:] Formerly, I was principal of a primary school, and a teacher in a middle school. I am also a member of the Central Committee, and was once a department chief for the Kuomintang.[2] But when I went to the rural areas and spent some time with the peasants, I was deeply struck by how many things they knew. I realized their knowledge was wide, and I was no match for them, but should learn from them. To say the least, you are not a member of the Central Committee, are you? How can you know more than the peasants? When you return, tell your political commissar that I said from now on you should go to the countryside once each year. There are great advantages in this!

You don’t understand dialectics; you don’t understand that one divides into two. Formerly, you thought you were something extraordinary, and now you do not think you are worth a tinker’s damn. Both views are wrong.

Those who are guilty of errors should be encouraged. When someone who has made errors sees his mistakes, you should point out his good points. Actually, he will still have many good points. Those who have made errors should be washed clean in warm water. If it is too hot they can’t stand it; warm water is most suitable. Young people who make mistakes should not be dismissed. Dismissal harms them, and there cannot be any confrontations. People like Pu-yi and K’ang Tse[3] were transformed. Among the young people who have not been transformed are some Party members and some [Youth] League members. To dismiss them would be to simplify matters to excess.

At the Institute are you a leftist? I saw an article praising you.[4] To have people flatter you is no good at all. Young people like you should be told off. If they tell you off too little it won’t do. Everything is subject to this kind of compulsion. When I wrote XXX, I was compelled to do it. If I had to write it now, I could not do it.

What do we mean by advanced? To be advanced is to do the work of the backward, to analyse those who are around us, to be intent on making inquiries and making friends wherever we go. Our young people must study dialectics, and master the use of dialectics in analysing problems. Take me, for example. I am not at all more intelligent than others, but I understand dialectics and I know how to use it in analysing problems. If we use dialectics to analyse an unclear problem, the problem becomes clear in a trice. You must diligently study dialectics, its efficacy is very great.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Down with the Prince of Hell, Liberate the Little Devil - A Talk with Such Comrades as Kang Sheng

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Down With The Prince Of Hell, Liberate
The Little Devil – A Talk With Such
Comrades As K’ang Sheng

February 28, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Wu Han[1] has made public so many essays. They never had to be made known. They never had to be approved. So why do the essays of Yao Wen-yuan[2] have to be made known? Do you mean to say that the decisions of the central government are of no consequence? People who confiscate and suppress the manuscripts of the leftists and protect the rightists are of the university clique. The Central Ministry of Propaganda is the palace of the prince of Hell. It is necessary to overthrow the palace of the Prince of Hell and liberate the Little Devil. I have always advocated that whenever the central organs do something wrong, it is necessary to call upon the local authorities to rebel and attack the central government. The local areas must produce several more Sun Wu-k’ung[3] to vigorously create a disturbance at the palace of the king of heaven. If P’eng Chen, the Peking Municipal Party Committee, and the Central Ministry of Propaganda again protect the bad people, then it will be necessary to dissolve the Peking Municipal Committee, and it will be necessary to dissolve the Five-Man Group.[4] Last September, I asked some of the comrades what should be done if revisionism emerged in the central government? This is very possible, and it is also the most dangerous situation: to protect rightists, cultivate the ranks of the rightists in the course of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Notes

Circular of the CC of the CPC on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at Enlarged Standing Commitee Meeting of the Political Bureau

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At Enlarged Standing Committee
Meeting Of The Political Bureau

March 17, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Our policy of taking care of the intellectuals after liberation had advantages as well as disadvantages. At present, the bourgeois intellectuals are holding the real power in the academic and the educational circles. The more penetrating the socialist revolution, the more they resist us, and the more they reveal their opposition to the party and socialism. Such people as Wu Han and Chein Po-tsan are communist party members, but they also oppose communism. They are, in reality, Kuomintang people. At present, this problem is still not properly understood in many places. Academic criticism still has not been unfolded. The various localities must note which hands are grasping the schools, newspapers, periodicals, and publishing houses, and they must carry out sincere criticism against the bourgeois academic authority. We must cultivate our own academic authority among our youths. We must not be afraid that the young people will violate the “law of the land.” We must not confiscate and suppress their manuscripts. The Central Ministry of propaganda must not become a rural work department. (Note: The Central Ministry of Rural Work was abolished in 1962.)

Ch’ien-hsien also belongs to Wu Han, Liao Mo-sha, and Teng T’o.[1] It is also anti-party and anti-socialist .

Literature and art, history, philosophy, law, and economics must carry out the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, they must resolutely carry out criticism. After all, how much Marxism is there?

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at Enlarged Meeting of the Political Bureau

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At The Enlarged Meeting
Of The Political Bureau

March 20, 1966

[SOURCE: Long live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

1. On Not Attending the 23rd Congress of the CPSU

We shall not be attending the “23rd Congress” of the Soviet Union. The convening of this congress by the Soviet Union is under a situation of difficulties both at home and abroad. We shall rely on self-reliance. We shall not depend on the Soviet Union. We shall not become befuddled. If we wish people to stand firm, we ourselves must first be unwavering. We shall not go. The leftist faction has stiffened its back, the middle faction is leaning towards us. If we do not attend the “23rd congress,” then the most they can do is to threaten us with their troops. If they don’t, then it would just lead to a battle on paper. We can write a letter to say that we shall not attend. We have said that traitors, scabs, and the Soviet Union oppose China. Once they opposed us, we shall have essays to write. Traitors and scabs have always opposed China. Our banners must be new and fresh in color, they must not be bedraggled. Castro is nothing more than a bad man in an important position. (Someone asked: This time we do not attend, but when the revisionists convene in the future, do we send a congratulatory message?) We will still have to send a congratulatory message, but it will be sent to the Soviet people.

2. An Academic Question, An Educational Question.

We have been hiding inside a drum and there are many things which we do not know about, in reality, the academic and educational circles are in the hands of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. In the past, our policy towards the intellectuals of the national bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie was to discriminate against comprador bourgeoisie. They should be discriminated against and the discrimination policy is very effective. It is improper to equate them all together. At present, the greater part of the universities, middle schools, and primary schools have been monopolized by intellectuals who have emerged from the ranks of the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and the landlord and rich peasant class. We took care of these people after the liberation. At the time, it was the right thing to do. Now when we are conducting academic critiques, we must also protect some of them, such as Old Kuo and Old Fan (Wen-lan) of the emperor-king group. At present, all medium-sized or large cities and towns have established research departments on literature and art, history, philosophy, law, and economics. In the study of history, there are various kinds of histories. Every academic department has a history. There is history and general history. Philosophy, literature, and natural science all have histories, and there is not a single department that does not have a history. With regard to the natural science department, we have not set anything into motion. From now on, we should do a bit of criticizing of the work done in each 5- or 10- year periods, discuss the pros and cons, and train successors. Otherwise, everything will fall into their hands. With regard to natural sciences, the views of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are not the same. Idealism and materialism are also involved in natural sciences. Old Fan is very fond of emperors, kings, generals, and prime ministers. People like him, including persons of the emperor-king school are very fond of emperors, kings, generals, and prime ministers and they op! posed the 1958 method of studying history. (Lin Piao: This is class struggle.) When criticizing, one must not shoot off clank cannons, one must study historical data. This is a serious class struggle. Otherwise, revisionism shall emerge. It is this group of people who will be the ones to come up with revisionism in the future. For example, Wu Han and Chien Po-tsan were all opposed to Marxism-Leninism. They were members of the Communist Party; Communist Party members who nevertheless opposed the Communist Party, and opposed materialism. (Lin Piao: This is socialist ideological construction.) This is a widespread class struggle. At present, 15 out of 28 provinces and municipalities in the whole country have launched this struggle and there are 13 which have not taken any action.

There are advantages and also disadvantages in our taking care of the intellectuals. Under our care, they earned fixed income, and became teachers and school principals. They were really Kuomintang people. (Lin Piao: We must pay attention to the newspapers, for the newspapers are an important matter. They are the everyday means for transmitting central committee orders.) There is also that Peking periodical Ch’ien-hsien [Frontlines], which is, in reality, the frontlines of Wu Han, Teng T’o and Liao Mo-sha “San-chia-ts’un” (Three-family Village) is their work[1]. Liao had previously given moral support to “Li Hui-niang” and advocated the “theory of devils without harm.” The class struggle is very sharp and very widespread. The various major bureaus and provincial committees must pay a bit of attention to this. For example they must administer academic work, newspapers, publications, literature and art, motion pictures, and the plays.

The essay by X X has been made public. It is well-written. X X is the head of the history office, he is the younger brother of Chao X X. His essay was written in 1964 but was suppressed for one-and-a-half years before it was made public. Essays written by young people must not be suppressed, whether they are good or bad. Do not be afraid of running into matter if it does not deprive them of their bread and butter. One must not be afraid of running into “authority.”

(X X: The literary and art circles and the medical circles have all organized work teams to go into the countryside.)

They have all gone into the countryside, the half-work and half-study students of the middle, vocational, and technical schools have all gone into the countryside. It will not do to study books of classical literature alone; it is necessary to come into contact with reality. X X X was unable to write anything good. One must not begin learning by studying old writings first. This includes the writings of Lu Hsun[2] and myself: One must learn to write. In the department of literature, students must write prose and novels, they must not study the history of literature. How can you accomplish anything if you do not start with writing? It will be fine if one is able to write. Henceforth, with writing the main factor, it will be the same as learning to hear and speak being the main factors in the study of foreign languages. Writing is the equivalent of composing essays. To learn to write essays is to use writing as the main factor. As for learning history, that can wait until the work period. The people in our troop units, those generals and division commanders did not know anything about the kings, Yao and Shun. They had never studied the military tactics of Sun-tzu[3]. Yet, did they not do battle just the same? Not a single person fought any battles in accordance with Sun-tzu on the Art of War. (Lin Piao: There are so many items in the book, when the time came, one was unable to locate the proper item; there is not a single battle, large or small, which is identical, so it was a bit more simpler to do things according to the actual circumstances.)

There are two kinds of methods. One is to initiate criticism. The other is to engage in half-work and half-study and carry on the four clean-ups campaign. The young people must not be suppressed, let them come forward. Lo Erh-kang was criticized by X X X. X was one of the workers in the mail and visitors’ section of the central committee’s General Office. Lo was a professor. Do not be afraid of provoking Lo Erh-kang and Chien Po-tsan. Do not suppress either the bad or the good. On Khrushchev, we issued a complete collection of essays! (Lin Piao: We carried out material construction, they carried out the building of the bourgeois spirit) (P’eng X: Actually, it is their dictatorship. The power of leadership is in their hands. If you oppose them, they would reduce your work points.) Students, lecturers, and a part of the professors were all liberated, it was fine if the remainder of the people were able to reform, if they were unable to reform, they were dragged down. (P’eng X: Promoting a doctrine does not produce co-operation.) (Lin Piao: This is class struggle, they must talk about it.) Nevertheless X X said it properly. X X said that those who were younger and had less education overthrew those who were older and had more education. (Chu X: Overthrow those in authority.) (Ch’en Po-ta: Overthrow the bourgeois authority, bring up newborn strength, establish proletarian authority, and train successors.) Who is the authority at the present time? It is Yao Wen-ynan, X X X, and X X. As to who is able to destroy whom, there is no solution at the present time. (Ch’en Po-ta: The successors must develop naturally. Stalin produced a Malenkov who was not the right man. The former did not wait for him to die. Malenkov met with premature death. Such successors are not wanted.) What is needed are determined people who are young, have little education, a firm attitude, and the political experience to take over the work. This problem is very big.

3. On the Industrial System

There are some questions you do not comprehend. Can you handle so much? (P’eng X: The central and local authorities must be like field armies and territorial armies.) In Nanking, I talked with Chiang X X. When war breaks out; first, the central authorities will not send troops; second, it will not send generals, third, the food it has is not enough, it cannot be delivered; four, there is no clothing, and five, it has some rifles and guns, but not too many. The various administrative areas and provinces must do their own [battles]. The people must fight their own battles. Each province must fight its own battle. The local areas cannot have their own naval and air forces. These forces must be put under the unified control of the central government. When war breaks out, it is best to rely on the local areas. You cannot depend on the central government. The local areas will take charge of the guerrillas and rely on armed struggle.

There are two methods of managing industry in East China. The method practiced in Kiangsu is good. That is, the province has no control in managing industry. This was carried out in Nanking and Soochow; Soochow had 1,00,000 workers with an output value of 800 million yuan. The method practiced in Tsinan is another. The large industries are managed by the province and the small industries by the municipalities, but the breakdown is unclear.

(Liu X X: How can we trial implement the general labor system and the general participation in work and participation in voluntary labor. At present, there are too many people who are not taking part in production work; the number of workers and staff members is 800,000 while the number of dependents is also 800,000.) It is necessary to carry out general propaganda now, break down the old ways, and gradually implement [the new] step by step.

This country of ours is made up of 28 “countries.” There are large “countries” as well as small “countries.” Such “countries” as Tibet and Tsinghai are small “countries,” they do not have many people. (Premier Chou: It is necessary to implement mechanization.) You people of the central bureaus, provinces, regions, and municipalities, carry out blooming and contending when you return to your posts; such places as provinces, regions, and municipalities must all carry out free expression of opinions during the months of April, May, June, and July. The free expression of opinions must be connected with “preparedness against war, preparedness against natural calamities, and everything for the people,” otherwise they will be afraid to express opinions freely. (Premier Chou: I’m afraid to say that they are for decentralization). The local areas must pay attention to wealth accumulation, now everything belongs to the state treasury. Shanghai has some accumulation. First, it has capital; second, it has raw materials; and third, it has equipment. It will not do to have everything concentrated at the central level. It will not do to drain the pond to catch the fish. It is said that the Soviet Union is the one which drains the pond to catch fish. (P’eng X: Shanghai used machinery to support agriculture and changed from unlawful to lawful.) It is unlawful, but it must be recognized as being lawful. In history, everything changed from unlawful to lawful. Sun Yat-sen was unlawful in the beginning and became lawful afterwards. The Communist Party also changed from unlawful to lawful. Yuan Shih-k’ai changed from lawful to unlawful. Being lawful is reactionary. Being unlawful is revolutionary. At present time, being reactionary is not to permit people to have positiveness: it is to limit the people’s role in making revolution. The central government still is in favor of a figure-head republic, the Queen of England and the Em! peror of Japan are all figureheads of republics. The central government is still in favor of a figure-head republic, caring only for major administrative policies. But these policies also came from local blooming and contending. So the central government opened up a processing plant to produce them. The province municipalities, districts, and counties have to release them before the central government can produce them. It is fine to let the central government exercise control in name, but not in fact or only to a slight degree in fact. When the central government takes in too many factories, all those who take over the factories should be told to get out of the central government and go over to the local areas, lock stock, and barrel. (P’eng X: When we operate a trust and have the trust take over the work of the party, we are in fact running an industrial party.) The four clean-ups campaign belongs to you. The central government is only taking care of the Twenty-three Articles. What experience do you of the X X political department have? Troop units still depend on the local military units before they can develop into regular troops. I do not have any experience. The summations of the past three months and the summations for the past half-year were not based on the report below. The operation of arsenals were all dependent on the local areas. The central government provided the spirit. The central government did not even have a single bullet or a single grain of food. They only put forth a bit of spirit. At present, grain is being shipped from the south to the north and coal from the north to the south. This will not do. (Premier Chou: the national defence industry should also be returned to the local areas. In general, this industry should be given to the lower levels and not to the upper levels. The central government should handle only important matters). The aircraft factories still have not been relocated. In time of war, even rifles cannot be supplied. Every province must have a small iron an! d steel plant. There are several hundred thousand people in a province. A hundred thousand tons of steel is not enough. A province must therefore operate several dozen steel plants.

(Yu Ch’iu-li: It is necessary that three veterans take three novices under their wings, that veteran plants lead the way for new plants, and that old bases lead the way for new bases. . . .) (Lin: For the old to lead the new is the Chinese way.) This is similar to the guerrillas during the war of resistance. It is necessary to practice socialism and not individualism. (P’eng X: There are X X small iron and steel plants which have all been controlled by the central government.) Why do you discriminate against what others do? Return them all. (P’eng X: Let’s figure out a method next year.) Why wait until next year? You should hold a meeting upon your return. For those who want to take over other people, tell them to become deputy plant directors. (Premier Chou: At present, to promote agricultural mechanization is still like borrowing the east wind [borrowing without any return]. The Eighth Ministry of Machine Building operated a trust and took over quite a number of plants.) Then tell X X X of the Eighth Ministry of Machine Building to go and become the plant director!

Some of them actually imposed hardship on the peasants. In Kiangsi one tan [50 kgs] of grain was assessed (delivered) three times. I think that they should be punished. A meeting of all civil and military department should be called to punish those who levied excessive taxes and sought excessive contributions.

The plans of the central government must be coordinated with those of the local areas. The central government cannot administer to everything firmly and the provinces cannot embrace everything firmly. (Liu X X: Allocate a part of the plans to the local areas.) You can frighten them with war, at the sound of the explosion of an atom bomb, individualism will no longer be practiced. When war starts, will it be possible to issue Jen-min Jih-pao? It is necessary to pay attention to the division of power. Do not empty the pond to catch fish. At present, there is no one to administer things at the top. At the lower levels there is no one who has the authority to administer things. (T’ao X: The central government also has no authority!) At present, fighting for one’s independence is permitted. There must be independence against bureaucracy. It must be like X X X. The students must also fight, they must bloom and contend on the academic question. There was a manuscript of a lecture delivered by a professor of chemistry which his students failed to understand after studying it for several months. The University students asked him about it but he did not have the answer. The students wanted to uproot his foundations. Wu Han and Chien Po-tsan relied on history for their bread and butter. Yu Po-p’ing is also unlearned. (Lin Piao: He still had to study Chairman Mao’s works.) One must not emulate Chien Po-tsan. One must not emulate me. If one wishes to learn, one must excel in learning. One must not be subjected to limitations, one must not solely interpret and merely compile records. One must not be restricted. Lenin refused to be restricted by Marx. (Lin Piao: Lenin was also excellent. We must now advocate the study of Chairman Mao’s works. We must sow the seeds of Mao Tse-tung thought.) One might also say that, but one must not be superstitious. One must not be restricted. One must have new interpretations, new viewpoints, and creativity.

That is, it is necessary that the professors be overthrown by the students. (Lin Piao: These people only think of dictatorship.) A culture and education secretary in Kirin wrote an essay criticizing conceptional imagery. It was well-written. The Kwang-ming Jih-pao criticized Revelations of Officialdom. This was the clarification of the basic dispute. The Revelations of Officialdom is reformism. In a word, the so-called “reprimanding novels” are reactionary, anti-Sun Yat-sen, monarchist, and bring on landlord dictatorship. They must be revised a bit, improved a bit, they are heading towards perdition.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Criticize P'eng Chen

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Criticize P’eng Chen

April 28, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Even a silver needle cannot penetrate into Peking, even a single drop of water cannot fall into Peking. P’eng Chen wants to transform the party according to his world outlook. Things in general are developing towards his negative side and he has set the conditions for his defeat. This is inevitable. It has emerged from inadvertent disclosures and development deeply step by step. Historical lessons are not accepted by everyone as warnings. This is the law of class struggle. It can not be altered by the will of man. Whenever there are people in the central government carrying on tricks and deception, I call upon the local areas to rise up and attack them, I call upon Sun Wu-k’ung to vigorously create a disturbance at the palace of the King of Heaven. It is also necessary to deal with those people who protect the “The Supreme Diety.” P’eng Chen was a tiny personality who sneaked into the party, this is not so very astonishing for he can be brought down with one finger. “The West Wind Scatters Leaves Over Changan” tells our comrades that it is not necessary to worry endlessly. “Where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish of itself; without struggle, the class enemies will not fall.”

I am in favour of the opinions expressed by Lu Hsun. One cannot do without reading books. But one must not read too much. If you do not read books, others may deceive you.

Appearance can be seen, but not essence. Essence can manifest itself through appearance. P’eng Chen’s essence has been hidden for 30 years.

Is it necessary to tell our Albanian comrades? There is nothing we can’t tell people.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Notes on the Report of Further Improving the Army's Agricultural Work by the Rear Service Department of the Military Commission

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Notes On The Report Of Further
Improving The Army’s Agricultural
Work By The Rear Service Department
Of The Military Commission

May 7, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

I have received the report from the Rear Service Department which you sent me on 6 May. I think it is an excellent plan. Is it possible to send this report to all the military districts and ask them to hold discussions of it among the cadres at the army and division levels? Their views should be reported to the Military Commission and through it to the Centre for approval. After that, suitable directives should be issued to them. Please consider this [suggestion].

In the absence of a world war, our army should be a big school. Even under conditions of the third world war, it can still serve as a big school. In addition to fighting the war, it must do other work. In the eight years of the second world war, did we not do just that in the anti-Japanese base areas? In this big school, the army should learn politics, military affairs, and culture, and engage in agricultural production. It can build up its own middle- and small-size workshops to produce goods for its own use and the exchange of other goods of equal value. It can take part in mass work, factory work, and rural socialist education. After socialist education, there are always other kinds of mass work for it to do, to unite the army and people as one. The army should also participate in the revolutionary struggle against capitalist culture. In this way, it carries out military-educational, military-agricultural, military-industrial, and military-civilian work. Naturally, [these kinds of work] should be properly co-ordinated and a distinction should be made between major and subsidiary work. A unit can select one or two from the agricultural, industrial, and civilian combination, but not all three. In this way, the tremendous power of several million soldiers will be felt.

Likewise, workers should, in addition to their main industrial work, learn military affairs, politics, and culture, and take part in the socialist educational movement and in criticizing the capitalist class. Under adequate conditions, they should also engage in agricultural production, following the example of the Tach’ing Oilfield.

The communes do their main agricultural work (including forestry, fishing, animal husbandry, and subsidiary trades), but they must also learn military affairs, politics, and culture. When circumstances allow, they should collectively set up small-scale factories and take part in criticizing the capitalist class.

The students are in a similar position. Their studies are their chief work; they must also learn other things. In other words, they ought to learn industrial, agricultural, and military work in addition to class work. The school years should be shortened, education should be revolutionized, and the domination of our schools by bourgeois intellectuals should by no means be allowed to continue.

Under favourable conditions, people in commerce, service trades, and party and government offices should do likewise.

What has been said above is neither new nor original. Many people have been doing this for some time, but it has not yet become a widespread [phenomenon]. Our army has been working in this way for decades. Now it is on the threshold of new developments.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech at a Meeting with Regional Secretaries and Members of the Cultural Revolutionary Group of the Central Committee

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech At A Meeting With
Regional Secretaries And Members Of
The Cultural Revolutionary Group Of
The Central Committee

July 22, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Now all the regional secretaries and members of the Cultural Revolution Group are present. The task of this meeting is to attend to our documents, and primarily to change the method of sending out work teams so that revolutionary teachers and students in schools, as well as some middle-of-the-road people, can organize school Cultural Revolution Groups to lead the Great Cultural Revolution. Only they understand the affairs of the schools. The work teams do not understand. There are some work teams who made a mess of things. The purpose of the Great Cultural Revolution in the schools is to carry out struggle, criticism, transformation. The work teams had the effect of obstructing the movement. Can we carry out struggle and transformation? For example, Chien Po-tsan[1] wrote a great many books, yet you still haven’t read them. How can you struggle against him and transform him? Where schools are concerned it is a case of ‘When the temple is small the gods seem big, and when the pool is shallow the turtles seem plentiful.’ Therefore we must rely on internal forces in the schools. The work teams won’t do. I won’t do, you won’t do. The provincial Party committees won’t do either. If it’s struggle and transformation you want, you must rely on the schools themselves and the units themselves. It is no good relying on the work teams. I wonder whether the work teams can be changed into liaison staff. If they are changed into advisers they will have too much power. Perhaps they can be called observers. The work teams obstruct the revolution, but there are some among them who don’t. If they obstruct the revolution they will unavoidably become counter-revolutionary. The Communications University in Sian does not allow people to telephone, and does not allow people to be sent to the Centre. Why should they fear people going to the Centre? Let them come and besiege the State Council. We must draw up documents! to the effect that they may telephone or send delegates. Will it do to get so frightened? When the newspapers in Sian and Nanking were besieged for three days, the people concerned were so afraid that their souls left their bodies. Are you afraid like this? You people! If you don’t make revolution, the revolution will be directed against you. Some districts do not allow people to besiege newspaper offices, go to the provincial Party committee or go to see the State Council. Why are you so afraid? When they get to the State Council all they see are little unimportant generals, and so nothing can be cleared up. Why are things like this? Even if you won’t show your faces I will show mine. This word ‘fear’ is always coming to the fore  —  fear of counterrevolution, fear of people using knives and guns. Can there really be so many counter-revolutionaries? These past few days K’ang Sheng,[2] Ch’en Po-ta and Chiang Ch’ing have been going down to the schools to read the big-character posters. How can you get by without perceptual knowledge? None of you go down because you are busy with routine matters; but you should go down even if it means neglecting routine matters, in order to get perceptual knowledge. In Nanking they did things a bit better. They didn’t stop students from coming to the Centre.

K’ang Sheng interrupted: ‘Nanking had three great debates. The first debate was about whether the New China Daily was revolutionary or not; the second was about whether the Kiangsu Provincial Party Committee was revolutionary or not. The debate concluded that the Kiangsu Provincial Party Committee was after all revolutionary. The third debate was about whether K’uang Ya-ming should be paraded in the street wearing a dunce’s hat.’ [Chairman Mao resumed:]

In the schools the majority is revolutionary, the minority is not revolutionary. As to whether K’uang Ya-ming will parade the streets wearing a dunce’s hat, the conclusion of the debate will naturally clarify this point.

During this meeting the comrades who are attending it should go to Peking University and the Broadcasting Institute to read the big-character posters. You should go to the places where there is the most trouble and take a look there. Today you aren’t going because we have to attend to the documents. When you read the big-character posters you can say that you are there to learn, to support their revolution; you go there to light the fire of revolution and support the revolutionary teachers and students, not to listen to counter-revolutionaries and right-wing talk. After two months you still haven’t got the slightest perceptual knowledge and you are still bureaucratic. If you go there you will be surrounded by the students and should be surrounded by them, and when you start talking to a few of them they will surround you. At the Broadcasting Institute over a hundred people were beaten up. There is one good thing about our era: the left-wingers get beaten up by the right-wingers, and this toughens up the left-wingers. To send the work teams for six months or even a year won’t work, only people from on the spot will do. The first thing is struggle, the second is criticism, the third is transformation. Struggle means destruction, and transformation means establishing something new. It won’t do to change the teaching materials in half a year’s time. The thing to do is to delete, to abandon, to condense and to simplify. Materials which are incorrect or repetitious can be cut by one third to one half.

Wang Jen-chung interrupted: ‘We should cut out two thirds and study Quotations from Chairman Mao.’ [Chairman Mao continued:]

Political teaching materials, central directives and newspaper editorials are guidelines for the masses; they mustn’t be regarded as dogmas. The problem of beatings-up hasn’t been mentioned in our circulars. This won’t do. This is a matter of our basic direction and of laying down guidelines. Our general policy should be quickly established. In carrying out transformation we must rely on the revolutionary teachers and students and leftists in the schools. It doesn’t matter if rightists join the cultural revolutionary committees of the schools; they can be useful as teachers by negative example, but the rightists shouldn’t be concentrated together. The Peking Municipal Party Committee doesn’t need so many people. When there are too many people around there will be telephoning and the issuing of orders. There should be a wholesale cut in secretaries. When I was working on the Front Committee[3] I had a secretary called Hsiang Pei. Later during our retreat we did not have secretaries any more. It’s enough just to have someone to receive and dispatch documents.

K’ang Sheng interrupted: ‘The Chairman has talked about four things. One is the reorganization of the Peking Municipal Party Committee. This has been done. The second is the reorganization of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee, which has also been carried out. The third is the elimination of the five-man Cultural Revolution Group, which has also been done.[4] The fourth is the transformation of certain ministries into departments, which hasn’t been done. [Chairman Mao replied:]

That’s right, regarding ministers, those who can manage their work don’t have to be changed. They can be called ministers, heads of departments, heads of bureaux, heads of offices, but those who don’t do their jobs should be changed into the Department of Metallurgy, the Department of Coal.

Someone interrupted: ‘Peking University carried out four big debates. Was the incident of 18 June a counter-revolutionary affair?[5] Some say yes, because there were riff-raff involved in it, but some say no, and that the work team made mistakes. Over forty people in the Peking University Middle School propose sacking the head of the work team, Chang Ch’eng-hsien.’ [Chairman Mao replied:]

There are many work teams which obstruct the movement and they include Chang Ch’eng-hsien. But we mustn’t arrest people indiscriminately. What constitutes counter-revolutionary activity? It’s simply murder, arson, and spreading poison. Such people you can arrest. You can let those who write reactionary slogans go free for the time being so that you can have a confrontation. You can consider the matter again when you have struggled against them.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

A Letter to the Red Guards of Tsinghua University

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

A Letter To The Red Guards
Of Tsinghua University
Middle School

August 1, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

I have received both the big-character posters which you sent on 28 July as well as the letter which you sent to me, asking for an answer. The two big-character posters which you wrote on 24 June and 4 July express your anger at, and denunciation of, all landlords, bourgeois, imperialists, revisionists, and their running dogs who exploit and oppress the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals and revolutionary parties and groupings. You say it is right to rebel against reactionaries; I enthusiastically support you. I also give enthusiastic support to the big-character poster of the Red Flag Combat Group of Peking University Middle School which said that it is right to rebel against the reactionaries; and to the very good revolutionary speech given by comrade P’eng Hsiao-meng representing their Red Flag Combat Group at the big meeting attended by all the teachers, students, administration and workers of Peking University on 25 July. Here I want to say that I myself as well as my revolutionary comrades-in-arms all take the same attitude. No matter where they are, in Peking or anywhere in China, I will give enthusiastic support to all who take an attitude similar to yours in the Cultural Revolution movement. Another thing, while supporting you, at the same time we ask you to pay attention to uniting with all who can be united with. As for those who have committed serious mistakes, after their mistakes have been pointed out you should offer them a way out of their difficulties by giving them work to do, and enabling them to correct their mistakes and become new men. Marx said: the proletariat must emancipate not only itself but all mankind. If it cannot emancipate all mankind, then the proletariat itself will not be able to achieve final emancipation. Will comrades please pay attention to this truth too.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Anti-Japanese Military and Political University

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Anti-Japanese Military And
Political University

August 2, 1966

[SOURCE: People’s Daily.]

The revolutionary and progressive characteristics of this university are due to the revolutionary and progressive characteristics of its staff and its courses.

The educational principles of the university are: ‘Correct political orientation, plain, hard-working style, flexible strategy and tactics’.[1]

[We must] overcome difficulties, contact the masses, and heighten [our] militancy. Anyone who is corrupt and lazy does not deserve to be a student of this university, for he acts against the rules of this university.

To the second class of graduates: ‘You must be brave, resolute, and tenacious. [You must] learn through struggles and be prepared to sacrifice your lives for the liberation of our nation.’

Written for the Production Drive of the university ‘Study on the one hand, produce on the other; overcome hardships and unnerve the enemies.’ ‘Now [you] study and produce. In future you will fight and produce.’

The style of the university: ‘Unity, alertness, earnestness, and liveliness’.[2]

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interjection at Enlarged Meeting of CCPCC Standing Committee

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Interjection At Enlarged Meeting
Of CCPCC Standing Committee

August 4, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

The Northern Warlords [early Nationalist period, 1916-1927] who came after the period of relative peace and order and the Kuomintang that followed were all repressive of students. The present Communist Party also suppresses student movements, and what difference is there between this and Lu P’ing and Chiang Nan-hsiang? The Central Committee has ordered a suspension of classes for half a year in order to engage exclusively in the Great Cultural Revolution. But once the students arose, it again repressed them. It was not because no one advanced dissenting views, but rather because no one listened to them. There is another view which is rather interesting. To put it lightly, this is a question of orientation. Actually, the question of orientation is a central question. It is a question of line which runs counter to Marxism, and is a problem which must be resolved by Marxism. I sense danger. They themselves ordered the students to make revolution, but when everybody rose up, they wanted to suppress them. The so-called orientation and line, the so-called trust in the masses, and the so-called Marxism are all false and have been for many years already. If you run into such things, they could blow up. They clearly stand on the side of the bourgeoisie and oppose the proletariat. [You] say to oppose the new municipal committee is anti-party. The new municipal committee suppresses the student movement so why not oppose it?

I have not gone down to stay at a selected basic unit. Some people stand more and more on the side of the bourgeoisie and oppose the proletariat the longer they stay at selected basic units. To stipulate that all contacts between one class and another, one department and another and one school and another is to repress the students is madness. Some people who came from the Central Committee are disaffected with the Central Committee’s comments of June 18, saying that it should not be uttered. The big character poster put out by Nieh Yuan-tzu and six others of Peking University is the Paris Commune manifesto of the 1960s  —  the Peking Commune. It is a good thing to put out big-character posters; they should be announced to the people of the entire world! Nonetheless, in Hsueh-feng’s report, it is said that the party has party discipline and the state has state law, and there must be a distinction between internal and external affairs. Big-character posters should not be posted outside the gate, so that foreigners can not see them. In fact, with the exception of secret places, such as the Ministry of National Defence and the Ministry of Public Security which should be areas proscribed to foreigners, what’s so important about other places? Even under a proletarian dictatorship, the masses should be allowed to petition, demonstrate, and litigate. Moreover, freedom of speech, assembly and publication have been inscribed in the Constitution. Judging from this act of suppressing the Great Cultural Revolution of the students, I don’t believe there is genuine democracy and genuine Marxism. It is a case of standing on the side of the bourgeoisie to oppose the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The Central Committee of the League has not only failed to support the young student movement, but has suppressed the student movement. I think this should be dealt with properly.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Bombard the Headquarters - My First Big-Character Poster

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Bombard The Headquarters – My
First Big-Character Poster

August 5, 1966

[SOURCE: Peking Review, No. 33, 11-3-1967.]

‘China’s first Marxist-Leninist big character poster and Commentator’s article on it in Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) are indeed superbly written! Comrades, please read them again. But in the last fifty days or so some leading comrades from the central down to the local levels have acted in a diametrically opposite way. Adopting the reactionary stand of the bourgeoisie, they have enforced a bourgeois dictatorship and struck down the surging movement of the great cultural revolution of the proletariat. They have stood facts on their head and juggled black and white, encircled and suppressed revolutionaries, stifled opinions differing from their own, imposed a white terror, and felt very pleased with themselves. They have puffed up the arrogance of the bourgeoisie and deflated the morale of the proletariat. How poisonous! Viewed in connection with the Right deviation in 1962 and the wrong tendency of 1964 which was ‘Left’ in form but Right in essence, shouldn’t this make one wide awake?

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech at the Closing Ceremony of the Eleventh plenum of the Eighth Central Committee

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech At The Closing Ceremony
Of The Eleventh Plenum Of
The Eighth Central Committee

August 12, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

With regard to the Ninth Congress, I think it’s time we made some preparations. We should prepare to make a decision as to when the Ninth Congress will be held. It has been a good many years; in two years’ time it will be ten years since the Second Session of the Eighth Congress. Now the Ninth Congress must be held, probably at a suitable time next year. We must now prepare for it. May I propose that we entrust the necessary preparations to the Politburo and its Standing Committee?

Whether the decisions taken by this conference are correct or incorrect will be shown by future events.[1] But it seems that our decisions are welcomed by the masses. For example one of the important decisions of the Central Committee concerns the Great Cultural Revolution. The broad masses of students and revolutionary teachers support us and resist the policies of the past. Our decision was based on their resistance to past policies. But whether this decision can be implemented will ultimately depend on the action of leaders at all levels, including those present today and those who are not. Take for example the question of reliance on the masses. One way is to implement the mass line. Another way is not to implement the mass line. It must by no means be taken for granted that everything which is written down in our resolutions will be implemented by all our Party committees and all our comrades. There will always be some who are unwilling to do so. Things are perhaps better than in the past, since in the past we had no such publicly taken decisions. Furthermore, there are organizational guarantees for the implementation of these decisions. This time our organization has undergone some changes. The adjustments in the full and alternate membership of the Politburo, in the Secretariat and in the membership of the Standing Committee have guaranteed the implementation of the Decision and Communiqué of the Central Committee.

Comrades who have made mistakes should always be offered a way out. They should be allowed to correct their mistakes. You should not first take the view that they have made mistakes and then deny them the chance to correct them. Our policy is ‘punish first offences to avoid their recurrence and cure the disease to save the patient’, ‘first watch and then help’, and ‘unity-criticism-unity’. Do we have a party outside our Party? I think that we do, and that we have factions inside the Party. We used to criticize the Kuomintang, who said: ‘No party outside the Party and no factions inside the Party.’ Some people put it, ‘No party outside the Party is autocracy; no factions inside the Party is nonsense.’ The same applies to us. You may say that there are no factions in our Party, but there are. For instance, there are two factions as regards attitude toward the mass movements. It is just a question of which faction is the majority and which is the minority. If we had delayed holding this meeting a few months longer, things would have been in much more of a mess. So it is a good thing that this meeting was held. It has produced results.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at the Work Conference of the Centre

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At The Work Conference
Of The Centre

August 23, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

The main question is what policy to adopt towards the so-called chaos at various places. In my opinion, we should let the chaos go on for a few months and just firmly believe that the majority is good and only the minority bad. It does not matter if there are no provincial [party] committees. There are still district and county [party] committees! The People’s Daily has published an editorial, calling on the workers, peasants, and soldiers to stop interfering with students’ activities, and advocating non-violent, not violent, struggles.

In my view, Peking is not all that chaotic. The students held a meeting of 100,000 and then captured the murderers. This caused some panic. Peking is too gentle. Appeals have been issued, [but after all] there are very few hooligans. Stop interfering for the time being. It is still too early to say anything definite about the reorganization of the centre of the [Youth] League; let us wait four months. Decisions taken hurriedly can do only harm. Work teams were dispatched in a hurry; the left was struggled against in a hurry; meetings of 100,000 were called in a hurry; appeals were issued in a hurry; opposition to the new municipal [party] committee of Peking was said, in a hurry, to be tantamount to an opposition to the [party] Centre. Why is it impermissible to oppose K? I have issued a big character poster myself, ‘Bombard the Headquarters!’ Some problems have to be settled soon. For instance, the workers, peasants, and soldiers should not interfere with the students’ great Cultural Revolution. Let the students go into the street. What is wrong with their writing big-character posters or going into the street? Let foreigners take pictures. They take shots to show aspects of our backward tendencies. But it does not matter. Let the imperialists make a scandal about us.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Letter

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Letter

September 7, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

I have read the attached document. The incidents in Tsing-tao, Ch’angsha, and Sian are similar. They are caused by the opposition of organized workers and peasants against students and are all wrong. They must not be allowed to continue. Try to issue a directive from the Centre to stop them and then publish editorials to tell the workers and peasants to cease interfering with student movements. Nothing like this has happened in Peking, except that the People’s Congress drafted 600 peasants into the city to protect Kuo Ch’iu-ying. Pass the experience of Peking on to other places.

I think the views of T’an Ch’i-lung and the vice-mayor [of Tsingtao?] are correct.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at the General Report Conference of the Centre's Political Work

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At The General Report Conference
Of The Centre’s Political Work

October 24, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Teng Hsiao-ping is deaf. Whenever we are at a meeting together, he sits far away from me. For six years, since 1959, he has not made a general report of work to me. He always gets P’eng Chen to do the work of the Secretariat [of the party] for him. Do you say that he is able? Nieh Jung-chen[1] says: ‘That bloke is lazy.’

My view of the situation is that it is big in the middle and small at both ends. Only Honan puts the word ‘dare’ ahead of all others; most people put the word ‘fear’ in first place; only a very few people firmly place the word ‘revolt’ in front of other words. Anti-party and anti-socialist people include Po I-po, Ho Ch’ang-kung, Wang Feng, and also Li Fan-wu.[2]

Real ‘four-kind’ cadres (the rightists[3]) make up only one, two, or three per cent (The Premier, [Chou En-lai] says: ‘More than that now.’) Never mind how many more. We shall suppress these (p’ing-fan). Some will not be kept where they are; they should be transferred to other places.

In Honan one [party] secretary does productive work while five others receive [the revolutionaries]. In the whole country there is only Liu Chien-hsun[4] who has written a big-character poster to give support to the minority [the reactionaries]. That is a good thing.

What about Nieh Yuan-tzu[5]? (K’ang Sheng says: ‘She must be protected.’ Li Hsien-nien[6] says: ‘All those who wrote the first big-character posters should be protected.’) Good!

(On the question of the great ‘get-together’ (ta ch’uan-lien)[7] the Premier says: ‘It should be done with proper preparation.’) What preparation? Where cannot one find a bowl of rice.[8]

There are different views on the [present] situation. In Tientsin half a million people went to Wan Hsiao-t’ang’s funeral and they thought the situation was excellent. In fact that was a demonstration against the party, an attempt to repress the living by using the dead.

Li Fu-ch’un[9] has been asked to rest for a year. Even I do not know who is in charge of the Planning Commission. [Li] Fu-ch’un respects the [party] discipline. He told some things to the Secretariat which were not reported to me. Teng Hsiao-p’ing respects me but keeps me at arm’s length.

Notes

Ho Ch’ang-kung (1898- ) studied in France and Belgium and joined the CPC in 1921. In 1929 he was under P’eng Teh-huai and in the following year the C.O. of the 8th Red Army. He supported Chang Kuo-t’ao in 1935 and served as the head of the Organisation Department of Chang’s ‘Centre’. In 1952 he was the deputy Minister of the 2nd Ministry of Heavy Industries and two years later, the deputy Minister of the Ministry of Geology.

Wang Feng (1906-) was born in Shensi and studied at Peking University. Since 1949 he had been working in Northwest China and held the post of the first secretary of the CPC Kansu branch.

Li Fan-wu (1909- ), a deputy Minister of the Ministry of Forestry in 1952 and the secretary of the CPC Heilungkiang branch.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at the Report Meeting

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At The Report Meeting

October 24, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

The Chairman said: ‘What is there to be frightened of? Have you read the brief report by Li Hsüeh-feng[1]? His two children ran off and when they came back they gave Li Hsüeh-feng a lecture. “Why are you old leaders so frightened of the Red Guards? They haven’t beat you up and yet you just won’t examine yourselves.” Wu Hsiu-ch’üan has four children and they all belong to different factions and lots of their schoolmates go to his home, sometimes ten or more at a time. When you have had more contact with them then you realize there is nothing to be afraid of; instead you think they are quite lovable. If one wants to educate others the educationist should first be educated. You are not clear-headed and dare not face the Red Guards, nor speak the truth to the students; you act like officials and big shots. First of all you don’t dare to see people and then you don’t dare to speak. You have been making revolution for many decades, but the longer you do it the stupider you get. In the letter Shao-ch’i wrote to Chiang Wei-ch’ing, he criticized Chiang Wei-ch’ing[2] and said that he was stupid, but is he himself any cleverer?’

The Chairman asked Liu Lan-t’ao[3]: ‘When you have gone back, what do you have in mind to do?’

Liu replied: ‘I first want to go back and have a look.’

The Chairman said: ‘When you speak you always mince your words.’

Chairman Mao asked Premier Chou about the progress of the meeting. The Premier said: ‘It’s almost finished. We will meet for another half-day tomorrow. As for the concrete problems, we can solve them according to basic principles when we get back.’

Chairman Mao asked Li Ching-ch’üan: ‘How’s Liao Chih-kao[4] getting on?’

Li replied: ‘In the beginning he wasn’t very clear, but in the latter part of the meeting he was somewhat better.’

The Chairman said: ‘What’s all this about being consistently correct? You yourself did a bunk. You were frightened out of your wits and rushed off to stay in the military district. When you get back you must pull yourself together and work properly. It’s bad to paste up big-character posters about Liu and Teng in the streets. Mustn’t we allow people to make mistakes, allow people to make revolution, allow them to change? Let the Red Guards read The True Story of Ah Q.’[5]

The Chairman said: ‘The meeting this time is somewhat better. At the last meeting it was all indoctrination and no progress. Moreover we had no experience. Now we have had two months’ more experience. Altogether we have had less than five months’ experience. The democratic revolution was carried on for twenty-eight years; we made many mistakes and many people died. The socialist revolution has been carried on for seventeen years, but the cultural revolution has only been carried on for five months. It will take at least five years to get some experience. One big-character poster, the Red Guards, the great exchange of revolutionary experience, and nobody  —  not even I  —  expected that all the provinces and cities would be thrown into confusion. The students also made some mistakes, but the mistakes were mainly made by us big shots.’

The Chairman asked Li Hsien-nien: ‘How did your meeting go today?’

Li replied: ‘The Institute of Finance and Economics held an accusation meeting, and I wanted to make a self-examination, but they wouldn’t let me speak.’

The Chairman said: ‘You should go there again tomorrow and make your examination, otherwise people will say you have done a bunk.’

Li said: ‘Tomorrow I have to go abroad.’

The Chairman said: ‘You should also tell them that in the past it used to be San-niang who taught her son.[6] Nowadays it’s the son who teaches San-niang. I think you are a bit lacking in spirit.

‘If they don’t want to listen to your self-examination, you must still go ahead and make one. If they accuse you, you should admit your mistakes. The trouble was stirred up by the Centre, the responsibility rests with the Centre, but the regions also have some responsibility. What I’m responsible for is the division into first and second lines. Why did we make this division into first and second lines? The first reason is that my health is not very good; the second was the lesson of the Soviet Union. Malenkov was not mature enough, and before Stalin died he had not wielded power. Every time he proposed a toast, he fawned and flattered. I wanted to establish their prestige before I died; I never imagined that things might move in the opposite direction.’

Comrade T’ao Chu[7] said: ‘Supreme power (‘a ch’üan’) has slipped from your hands.’

The Chairman said: ‘This is because I deliberately relinquished it. Now, however, they have set up independent kingdoms; there are many things I have not been consulted about, such as the land problem, the Tientsin speeches, the cooperatives in Shansi, the rejection of investigation and study, the big fuss made of Wang Kuang-mei. All these things should really have been discussed at the Centre before decisions were taken. Teng Hsiao-p’ing never came to consult me: from 1959 to the present he has never consulted me over anything at all. In 1962 suddenly the four vice-premiers, Li Fu-ch’un, T’an Chen-lin, Li Hsien-nien and Po I-po[8] came to look me up in Nanking, and afterwards went to Tientsin. I immediately gave my approval, and the four went back again, but Teng Hsiao-p’ing never came. I was not satisfied with the Wuchang Conference; I could do nothing about the high targets. So I went to Peking to hold a conference, but although you had met for six days, you wouldn’t let me hold mine even for a single day. It’s not so bad that I am not allowed to complete my work, but I don’t like being treated as a dead ancestor.

‘After the Tsunyi conference the Centre was more concentrated, but after the Sixth Plenum in 1938, Hsiang Ying and P’eng Te-huai tried to set up an independent kingdom.[9] They didn’t keep me informed about any of these things. After the Seventh Congress there was nobody at the Centre. When Hu Tsung-nan marched on Yenan[10] the Centre was divided into two armies; I was in North Shensi with En-lai and Jen Pi-shih;[11] Liu Shao-ch’i and Chu Te were in the north-east. Things were still relatively centralized. But once we entered the cities, we were dispersed, each devoting himself to his own sphere. Especially when the division was made into first and second lines, there was even more dispersal. In 1953, after the financial and economic conference, I told everybody to communicate with one another, to communicate with the Centre and communicate with the regions. Liu and Teng acted openly, not in secret, they were not like P’eng Chen. In the past Ch’en Tu-hsiu, Chang Kuo-t’ao, Wang Ming, Lo Lung-chang, Li Li-san all acted openly; that’s not so serious. But Kao Kang, Jao Shu-shih, P’eng Te-huai were two-faced. P’eng Te-huai colluded with them, but I did not know it. P’eng Chen, Lo Jui-ch’ing,[12] Lu Ting-i[13] and Yang Shang-k’un[14] were acting secretly, and those who are secretive will come to no good end. Those who follow the wrong line should reform, but Ch’en, Wang and Li did not reform.’

Chou En-lai remarked: ‘Li Li-san did not change his thinking.’

[Chairman Mao resumed:] ‘Cliques and factions of whatever description should be strictly excluded. The essential thing is that they should reform, that their ideas should conform, and that they should unite with us. Then things will be all right. We should allow Liu and Teng to make revolution and to reform themselves. You say that I am the kind of person that mixes with thin mud. I am the kind of person that mixes with thin mud. During the Seventh Congress Ch’en Ch’i-han[15] said, one shouldn’t elect people who have followed Wang Ming’s line to the Central Committee. Wang Ming and several others were all elected members of the Central Committee. At present only Wang Ming has left, the others are all still here! Lo Fu is no good. I have a favourable impression of Wang Chia-hsiang,[16] for he approved of the battle at Tungku.[17] During the Ningtu conference,[18] Lo Fu wanted to expel me, but Chou and Chu did not agree. During the Tsunyi Conference he played a useful role, and at that time one couldn’t have got by without them.[19] Lo Fu was obstinate. Comrade Shao-ch’i opposed them, and Nieh Jung-chen[20] also opposed them. We shouldn’t condemn Liu Shao-ch’i out of hand. If they have made mistakes they can change, can’t they? When they have changed it will be all right. Let them pull themselves together, and throw themselves courageously into their work. This meeting was held at my suggestion, but the time has been so short that I don’t know whether things are clear or not. Still, it may be better than the last meeting. I had no idea that one big-character poster, the Red Guards and big exchange! of revolutionary experience would have stirred up such a big affair. Some of the students did not have a terribly good family background, but were our own family backgrounds all that good? Don’t enlist deserters and turncoats. I myself have many right-wing friends such as Chou Ku-ch’eng and Chang Chih-chung.[21] Will it do not to have a few right-wing contacts? How can one be so pure? To enter into contact with them is to investigate and study them, and understand their behaviour. The other day on the T’ien An Men I deliberately drew Li Tsung-jen[22] over towards me. It’s better not to give this fellow a post; it’s better for him not to have any position or power. Do we want to have democratic parties? Can’t we have just one party? The Party organizations in the schools shouldn’t be restored too early. After 1957, the Party added many new members; Chien Po-tsan, Wu Han, Li Ta were all Party members. Were they all so good? Are the democratic parties all so very bad? I think the democratic parties are better than P’eng, Lo, Lu and Yang. We still want the democratic parties, the Political Consultative Conference; we should explain this clearly to the Red Guards. The Chinese democratic revolution was started by Sun Yat-sen. At that time there was no Communist Party. Under the leadership of Sun Yat-sen, they fought against K’ang, Liang,[23] and the imperial system. This year makes the hundredth anniversary of Sun Yat-sen’s birth. How shall we celebrate it? We should discuss this with the Red Guards, and we should hold commemorative meetings. The division which I introduced into first and second lines has led to the opposite result.’

Comrade K’ang Sheng interrupted: ‘The political report at the Eighth Congress contains the theory of the disappearance of classes.’

[Chairman Mao replied:] ‘I read the report, and it was passed by the congress; we cannot make those two  —  Liu and Teng  —  solely responsible.

‘Factories and villages should be dealt with by stages and in batches. Go back and clarify the thinking of your fellow-students in the provinces and municipalities, and hold good meetings. Find a quiet place in Shanghai in which to meet. If the students stir things up, let them. We have met for seventeen days, and it has been worthwhile. As Lin Piao says, we should do careful political and ideological work among them. In 1936 Stalin talked about the elimination of class struggle, but in 1939 he carried out another purge of counter-revolutionaries. Wasn’t that class struggle too?

‘When you go back you should pull yourselves together and do your work well. Who then can overthrow you?’

Notes

T’an Chen-lin (1902- ), Politburo member and the Party’s top agricultural spokesman in 1958, had espoused radical policies in the countryside at the time of the Great Leap Forward.  He was made a vice-premier of the State Council in April 1959.

Po I-po (1907- ), Vice-Premier and Chairman of the State Economic Commission; he was not re-elected, even to the Central Committee, in 1969, and was extensively criticized during the Cultural Revolution for espousing the type of economic policies favoured by Liu Shao-ch’i.

Li Hsien-nien (c. 1907- ), Minister of Finance, Vice-Premier, and member of the Politburo.

Hsiang Ying (1898-1941), a former labour leader, and Vice-Chairman of the Chinese Soviet Republic in the early 1930s, was political commissar of the New Fourth Army in central China.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Soviet Leading Clique is a Mere Dust Heap

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Soviet Leading Clique Is
A Mere Dust Heap

October 25, 1966

[SOURCE: Full text of comrade Mao's message of greetings to the Fifth Congress of the Albanian Party of Labour, dated 25 October 1966, (Peking Review, no. 46, 1966, p.5.)]

The Communist Party of China and the Chinese people send their warmest congratulations to the Fifth Congress of the Albanian Party of Labour.

We wish your congress every success!

The glorious Albanian Party of Labour, headed by Comrade Enver Hoxha, is firmly holding aloft the revolutionary red banner of Marxism-Leninism while encircled ring upon ring by the imperialists and the modern revisionists.

Heroic people’s Albania has become a great beacon of socialism in Europe.

The revisionist leading clique of the Soviet Union, the Tito clique of Yugoslavia, and all the other cliques of renegades and scabs of various shades are mere dust heaps in comparison, while you, a lofty mountain, tower to the skies. They are slaves and accomplices of imperialism, before which they prostrate themselves, while you are dauntless proletarian revolutionaries who dare to fight imperialism and its running dogs, fight the world’s tyrannical enemies.

The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and all those counties where the modern revisionist clique is in power have either changed colour or are in the process of doing so. Capitalism has been or is being restored there, and the dictatorship of the proletariat has been or is being transformed into the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Against this adverse current of counter-revolutionary revisionism, heroic socialist Albania has stood firm. Persevering in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary line, you have adopted a series of measures of revolutionization and consolidated the dictatorship of the proletariat. Taking the path of socialism, you are building your country independently and have won brilliant victories. You have contributed precious experience to the history of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

‘A bosom friend afar brings a distant land near.’ China and Albania are separated by thousands of mountains and rivers but our hearts are closely linked. We are your true friends and comrades. And you are ours. We are not like those false friends and double-dealers who have honey dripping from their tongues and daggers concealed in their hearts, and neither are you. Our militant revolutionary friendship has stood the test of violent storms.

The truth of Marxism-Leninism is on our side. The international proletariat is on our side. The oppressed nations and oppressed peoples are on our side. The masses of people who constitute over ninety per cent of the world’s population are on our side. We have friends all over the world. We are not afraid of being isolated, and we most certainly can never be isolated. We are invincible. The handful of pitiful insects who oppose China and Albania are doomed to failure.

We are now in a great new era of world revolution. The revolutionary storms in Asia, Africa and Latin America are sure to deal the whole of the old world a decisive and crushing blow. The great victories of the Vietnamese people’s war against U.S. aggression and for national salvation are convincing proof of this. The proletariat and working people of Europe, North America and Oceania are in the midst of a new awakening. The U.S. imperialists and other such harmful insects have already created their own grave-diggers; the day of their burial cannot be far off. Naturally, the road of our advance is by no means straight and smooth. Comrades, please rest assured that whatever may happen in the world, our two Parties and our two peoples will always be united, will always fight together and be victorious together.

Let the Parties and peoples of China and Albania unite, let the Marxist-Leninists of the whole world unite and overthrow imperialism, modern revisionism, and the reactionaries of every country! A new world without imperialism, without capitalism, and without any system of exploitation is certain to be built.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at the Central Work Conference

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At The Central
Work Conference

October 25, 1966

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

I have just a few words to say about two matters.

For the past seventeen years there is one thing which in my opinion we haven’t done well. Out of concern for state security and in view of the lessons of Stalin in the Soviet Union, we set up a first and second line. I have been in the second line, other comrades in the first line. Now we can see that wasn’t so good; as a result our forces were dispersed. When we entered the cities we could not centralize our efforts, and there were quite a few independent kingdoms. Hence the Eleventh Plenum carried out changes. This is one matter. I am in the second line, I do not take charge of day-to-day work. Many things are left to other people so that other people’s prestige is built up, and when I go to see God there won’t be such a big upheaval in the State. Everybody was in agreement with this idea of mine. It seems that there are some things which the comrades in the first line have not managed too well. There are some things I should have kept a grip on which I did not. So I am responsible, we cannot just blame them. Why do I say that I bear some responsibility?

First, it was I who proposed that the Standing Committee be divided into two lines and that a secretariat be set up. Everyone agreed with this. Moreover I put too much trust in others. It was at the time of the Twenty-three Articles that my vigilance was aroused.[1] I could do nothing in Peking; I could do nothing at the Centre. Last September and October I asked, if revisionism appeared at the Centre, what could the localities do?[2] I felt that my ideas couldn’t be carried out in Peking. Why was the criticism of Wu Han initiated not in Peking but in Shanghai? Because there was nobody to do it in Peking. Now the problem of Peking has been solved.

Second, the Great Cultural Revolution wreaked havoc after I approved Nieh Yüan-tzu’s big-character poster in Peking University, and wrote a letter to Tsinghua University Middle School, as well as writing a big-character poster of my own entitled ‘Bombard the Headquarters’.[3] It all happened within a very short period, less than five months in June, July, August, September and October. No wonder the comrades did not understand too much. The time was so short and the events so violent. I myself had not foreseen that as soon as the Peking University poster was broadcast, the whole country would be thrown into turmoil. Even before the letter to the Red Guards had gone out, Red Guards had mobilized throughout the country, and in one rush they swept you off your feet. Since it was I who caused the havoc, it is understandable if you have some bitter words for me. Last time we met I lacked confidence and I said that our decisions would not necessarily be carried out. Indeed all that time quite a few comrades still did not understand things fully, though now after a couple of months we have had some experience, and things are a bit better. This meeting has had two stages. In the first stage the speeches were not quite normal, but during the second stage, after speeches and the exchange of experience by comrades at the Centre, things went more smoothly and the ideas were understood a bit better. It has only been five months. Perhaps the movement may last another five months, or even longer.

Our democratic revolution went on for twenty-eight years, from 1921 to 1949. At first nobody knew how to conduct the revolution or how to carry on the struggle; only later did we acquire some experience. Our path gradually emerged in the course of practice. Did we not carry on for twenty-eight years, summarizing our experience as we went along? Have we not been carrying on the socialist revolution for seventeen years, whereas the Cultural Revolution has been going on for only five months? Hence we cannot ask comrades to understand so well now. Many comrades did not read the articles criticizing Wu Han last year and did not pay much attention to them. The articles criticizing the film The Life of Wu Hsün and studies of the novel Dream of the Red Chamber could not be grasped if taken separately, but only if taken as a whole. For this I am responsible. If you take them separately it is like treating only the head when you have a headache and treating only the feet when they hurt, the problem cannot be solved. During the first several months of this Great Cultural Revolution  —  in January, February, March, April and May articles were written and the Centre issued directives, but they did not arouse all that much attention. It was the big-character posters and onslaughts of the Red Guards which drew your attention, you could not avoid it because the revolution was right on top of you. You must quickly summarize your experience and properly carry out political and ideological work. Why are we meeting again after two months? It is to summarize our experience and carry out political and ideological work. You also have a great deal of political and ideological work to do after you go back. The Political Bureau, the provincial committees, the regional committees and county committees must meet for ten days or more and thrash out the problems. But they mustn’t think that everything can be cleared up. Some people have said, ‘We understand the principles, but whe! n we run up against concrete problems we cannot deal with them properly.’ At first I could not understand why, if the principles were clear, the concrete problems could not be dealt with. I can see some reason for this: it may be that political and ideological work has not been done properly. When you went back after our last meeting some places did not find time to hold proper meetings. In Honan there were ten secretaries. Out of the ten there were seven or eight who were receiving people. The Red Guards rushed in and caused havoc. The students were angry, but they did not realize it and had not prepared themselves to answer questions. They thought that to make a welcoming speech lasting a quarter of an hour or so would do. But the students were thoroughly enraged. The fact that there were a number of questions which they could not immediately answer put the secretaries on the defensive. Yet this defensive attitude can be changed, can be transformed so that they take the initiative.

Hence my confidence in this meeting has increased. I don’t know what you think. If when you go back you do things according to the old system, maintaining the status quo, putting yourself in Opposition to one group of Red Guards and letting another group hold sway, then I think things cannot change, the situation cannot improve. But I think things can change and things can improve. Of course we shouldn’t expect too much. We can’t be certain that the mass of central, provincial, regional, and county cadres should all be so enlightened. There will always be some who fail to understand, and there will be a minority on the opposite side. But I think it will be possible to make the majority understand.

I have talked about two matters. The first concerns history. For seventeen years the two lines have not been united. Others have some responsibility for this, so have I. The second issue is the five months of the Great Cultural Revolution, the fire of which I kindled. It has been going on only five months, not even half a year, a very brief span compared to the twenty-eight years of democratic revolution and the seventeen years of socialist revolution. So one can see why it has not been thoroughly understood and there were obstacles. Why hasn’t it been understood? In the past you have only been in charge of industry, agriculture and communications and you have never carried out a Great Cultural Revolution. You in the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the Military Affairs Committee are the same. That which you never dreamed of has come to pass. What’s come has come. I think that there are advantages in being assailed. For so many years you had not thought about such things, but as soon as they burst upon you, you began to think. Undoubtedly you have made some mistakes, some mistakes of line, but they can be corrected and that will be that! Whoever wants to overthrow you? I don’t, and I don’t think the Red Guards do either. Two Red Guards said to Li Hsüeh-feng: ‘Can you imagine why our elders are so frightened of the Red Guards?’ Then there were Wu Hsiu-ch’üan’s four children who belonged to four different factions. Some of their school-friends went to his home, several dozen at a time, and this happened quite a few times. I think that there are advantages in making contact in small groups.

Another method is to have big meetings, 1,500,000 meeting for several hours. Both methods serve a purpose.

There have been quite a few brief reports presented at this meeting. I have read nearly all of them. You find it difficult to cross this pass and I don’t find it easy either. You are anxious and so am I. I cannot blame you, comrades, time has been so short. Some comrades say that they did not intentionally make mistakes, but did it because they were confused. This is pardonable. Nor can we put all the blame on Comrade Shao-ch’i and Comrade Hsiao-p’ing. They have some responsibility, but so has the Centre. The Centre has not run things properly. The time was so short. We were not mentally prepared for new problems. Political and ideological work was not carried out properly. I think that after this seventeen-day conference things will be a bit better.

Does anyone else want to speak? I guess that’s all for today. The meeting is adjourned.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at a Meeting of the Central Cultural Revolution Group

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At A Meeting Of The Central
Cultural Revolution Group

January 9, 1967

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

At the Wen-hui-pao the leftists have now seized power.[1] They rebelled on the fourth. The Liberation Daily also rebelled on the sixth. This is the right direction. I have read all three editions of the Wen-hui-pao since the seizure of power. They reprinted some articles by Red Guards. Some of them are good and should be reprinted elsewhere. On the fifth the Wen-hui-pao issued ‘A Letter to the People of the Whole City’. The People’s Daily should reprint it,[2] and the radio stations should broadcast it. Internal rebellions are one. In a few days we can make a general report on them. This is one class overthrowing another. This is a great revolution. Many papers in my opinion would be better closed down. But newspapers must still come out. The question is by whom they are brought out. It is good that the Wen-hui-pao and the Liberation Daily have changed management. As soon as they come out these two papers will certainly influence East China and every province and city in the country.

Before you make a revolution, you must first create public opinion. ‘June First’ was when power was seized in the People’s Daily. The Centre sent a work team and put out the editorial ‘Sweep Away All Monsters and Demons’[3]. I do not agree with the wholesale replacement of the staff of the People’s Daily, but it had to be taken over. T’ang P’ing-shu replaced Wu Leng-hsi.[4] At first the masses were distrustful because the People’s Daily had deceived people in the past, and what’s more it had issued no statement. The seizure of power in two newspapers is a national question and we should support their rebellion.

Our newspapers should reprint Red Guard articles. They are very well written whereas our stuff is utterly lifeless. The Propaganda Department of the Central Committee can be done away with, though those people can continue to eat there. There are many things which the Propaganda Department and the Ministry of Culture were unable to cope with. Even you (pointing to Comrade Ch’en Po-ta) and I could not cope with them. But when the Red Guards came they were immediately brought under control.

The upsurge of revolutionary power in Shanghai has brought hope to the whole country. It cannot fail to influence the whole of East China and all provinces and cities in the country. ‘A Letter to the People of the Whole City’ is a rare example of a good article. It refers to the city of Shanghai but the problem it discussed is of national significance.

In making revolution these days people demand this and that. When we made revolution from 1920 onwards we set up first the Youth League and then the Communist Party. We had no funds, no printing press, no bicycles. When we ran newspapers we were very friendly with the workers and chatted with them as we edited articles.

We should establish links with all sorts of people, left, right and centre. I have never agreed with a unit being all that pure in its approach. (Someone responded: ‘Wu Leng-hsi’s lot are now very comfortable. They have put on weight.’) We have allowed Wu Leng-hsi to become too comfortable. I am not in favour of their dismissal. Let them remain at their posts to be supervised by the masses.

When we started to make revolution it was opportunism which we met with, not Marxism-Leninism. When I was young I hadn’t even read the Communist Manifesto.

We must speak of grasping revolution and promoting production. We must not make revolution in isolation from production. The conservative faction do not grasp production. This is a class struggle. You must not believe that ‘When Chang the Butcher is dead, we’ll have to eat pork bristles and all’, or that we can do nothing without them. Don’t believe that sort of rubbish.

Notes

By October 1966 only a few thousand rebels existed out of a total of one million industrial workers in the city. Shanghai workers had always been highly politicized and were loyal to the Communist Party. It was logical, therefore, that the Shanghai workers would approach with caution any call for an attack on officials of a party which they had supported over the years with so much sacrifice and enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, by December 1966, 60,000 workers responded to Chairman Mao’s call and joined the Workers’ Rebel Headquarters, while an equal number of workers supported the “royalist” or conservative Workers’ Red Militia, an organization built by the functionaries of the Liu Shao-chi followers. Clashes between the two groups were frequent, but by the end of December a wholesale defection by the members of the conservative organizations ensued, and the collapse of the Workers’ Red Militia followed.

It was at this point that the Party officials in the old Shanghai Municipal Committee, plant managers, heads of bureaus under siege by the rebels, and district Party chiefs counterattacked, using methods that caught comrade Mao and his colleagues in Peking completely unawares. First, the old entrenched cadres, who were skilled organizers, initiated a movement among their followers in the now-defunct Workers’ Red Militia to demand wage increases and foment strikes throughout the city. Second, those holding power in the city opened up the municipal and industrial coffers to grant millions of yuan in wage increases, bonuses, and grants in an all-out attempt to buy off the Shanghai working class. Factories were closed, railroads and shipping were paralyzed, and serious power shortages plagued the greatest industrial city in China.

The revolutionary rebels responded to the crisis by in effect seizing power. Rank-and-file workers and students manned ticket booths at the railway stations, factory workers stood triple shifts in the industrial plants, and thousands of volunteers appeared at the docks to help unload cargo. New institutions of power were hastily created in the classic revolutionary pattern. The remarkably high level of revolutionary consciousness achieved by the masses of Shanghai was demonstrated when the hoodwinked workers voluntarily returned the money illegally dispensed by the old Shanghai Party bureaucrats. At mass meetings organized throughout Shanghai, the guilty functionaries were forced to stand with head bowed as the workers showered them with paper money until the enemy stood knee-deep in the shameful currency.

Comrade Mao, watching the situation in Shanghai closely, recognized that the workers in Shanghai had in fact seized power: he was the first to name what had happened “a power seizure from below.”

[Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) Editor’s Note: The “Message to All Shanghai People.” published in the Shanghai Wenhui Pao on January 5, 1967, is an extremely important document. It holds high the great red banner of the proletarian revolutionary line represented by Chairman Mao and sounds a clarion call to continue the vigorous counter-offensive upon the bourgeois reactionary line. It resolutely responds to Chairman Mao’s great call to take firm hold of the revolution and promote production and raises the current key question in the great proletarian cultural revolution. This question does not just concern Shanghai alone but the whole country as well.

With the growth of the revolutionary forces in Shanghai, the Wenhui Pao and Jiefang Ribao (Liberation Daily) have appeared as two completely new and revolutionary newspapers. They are products of the victory of the proletarian revolutionary line over the bourgeois reactionary line. This is a great event in the history of the development of the great proletarian cultural revolution in China. This is a great revolution. This great event will certainly play a tremendous role in pushing ahead the development of the movement of the great proletarian cultural revolution throughout east China and in all the cities and provinces in other parts of the country.]

Message To All Shanghai People

Under the guidance of the proletarian revolutionary line represented by Chairman Mao, the great proletarian cultural revolution has won tremendous victories in the mass movement over the last few months in the criticism of the bourgeois reactionary line. We have entered the year 1967 to the sound of militant songs of triumph. It was pointed out in the New Year’s Day editorial of Renmin Ribao and the journal Hongqui: “1967 will be a year of all-round development of class struggle throughout China. It will be a year in which the proletariat, united with other sections of the revolutionary masses, will launch a general attack on the handful of Party persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road and on the ghosts and monsters in society. It will be a year of even more penetrating criticism and repudiation of the bourgeois reactionary line and elimination of its influence. It will be a year of decisive victory in carrying out the struggle [to overthrow those in authority who are taking the capitalist road], the criticism and repudiation [of the reactionary bourgeois academic ‘authorities’ and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes] and the transformation [of education, literature and art and all other parts of the superstructure not in correspondence with the socialist economic base].” In other words, it will be a year in which the bourgeois reactionary line will totally collapse and disintegrate completely, a year in which the great proletarian cultural revolution will win a great, decisive victory.

The broad revolutionary masses of Shanghai have also won an initial victory in the struggle to criticize and repudiate the bourgeois reactionary line implemented by a handful of people within the Party in the Shanghai area and have carried the struggle to a deeper and broader new stage.

The mass movement of the great proletarian cultural revolution in our Shanghai factories is surging forward vigorously, smashing through all resistance with the might of an avalanche and the force of a thunderbolt. We, workers of the revolutionary rebel groups, follow Chairman Mao’s teachings most closely and resolutely carry out the policy of “taking firm hold of the revolution and promoting production” advanced by Chairman Mao himself. Chairman Mao teaches us: “Political work is the life-blood of all economic work.” We of the revolutionary rebel groups clearly understand that if the great proletarian cultural revolution is not carried out well, we will lose our orientation in production and slide back in the direction of capitalism. What we ourselves have experienced in the course of the great proletarian cultural revolution has increasingly proved to us that only if the great proletarian cultural revolution is carried out well, will production develop on a still greater scale. Any idea of counterposing the great cultural revolution to the development of production is erroneous.

However, a handful of Party persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road and those who obstinately adhere to the bourgeois reactionary line have a bitter hatred for the great proletarian cultural revolution. They have been trying by every means to resist the policy of “taking firm hold of the revolution end promoting production” put forward by Chairman Mao. Their schemes and devices may be summarized in the following ways:

At the beginning of the movement, they used the pretext of “taking firm hold of production” to repress the revolution and oppose taking firm hold of the revolution. When we workers of the revolutionary rebel groups wanted to rise up in revolution and criticize and repudiate the bourgeois reactionary line, they used the tasks of production to bring pressure to bear on the workers and tagged us with the label of “sabotaging production.” Did they really want to “take firm hold of production”? No, they wanted to defend their own positions and attempted to obstruct our revolution. We exposed their schemes and rose up bravely in rebellion.

Then they resorted to another trick, that is, they played with high-sounding revolutionary words, giving the appearance of being exceedingly “Left” in order to incite large numbers of members of the Workers’ Red Militia Detachments whom they have hoodwinked to undermine production and sabotage transport and communications under the pretext of going north to “lodge complaints.” They did this to attain their aim of undermining the great proletarian cultural revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. More recently, a handful of reactionary elements were even plotting to cut off water and electricity supplies and bring public transport to a standstill. We must drag out these reactionary elements and exercise proletarian dictatorship over them, punish them severely and never allow them to succeed in their criminal schemes.

Comrade revolutionary workers! Go into action at once! Resolutely carry out the policy of “taking firm hold of the revolution and promoting production” advanced by Chairman Mao! We, workers of the revolutionary rebel groups, must become models in “taking firm hold of the revolution and promoting production.” We must serve as the vanguards and the backbone not only in taking firm hold of the revolution, but also in promoting production. Our city of Shanghai, China’s biggest industrial producer, plays an extremely important role in the overall economic life of the country. But lately, in many factories and plants, it has occurred that some or even the majority of the members of the Workers’ Red Militia Detachments have suspended production and deserted their posts in production. This runs directly counter to the stipulation by the Party Central Committee on taking firm hold of the revolution and promoting production and directly affects the people’s livelihood and the development of national economic construction. Our revolutionary rebel workers, bearing in mind the teachings of Chairman Mao, have stood our ground in the face of this adverse current, have given proof of our high sense of revolutionary responsibility, and, under extremely difficult conditions, have shouldered all the production tasks of our factories and plants, thus dealing a telling blow against the handful of Party persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, and smashing their big plot by which they attempted to thwart the revolution through sabotaging production. The actions of these workers are correct and splendid! All of us comrades of the revolutionary rebel groups should learn from them. Chairman Mao teaches us: “We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.” We, workers of the revolutionary rebel groups, have the lofty aspiration, the determination and the strength to do still bett! er in both revolution and production and to carry out Chairman Mao’s great call for “taking firm hold of the revolution and promoting production.”

The broad sections of our class brothers of the Workers’ Red Militia Detachments who want to make revolution! “Taking firm hold of the revolution and promoting production” is a policy put forward by Chairman Mao, a policy stressed time and again by the Party Central Committee, an important policy which guarantees the carrying through to the end of the great proletarian cultural revolution. To support or not to support, to carry out or not to carry out this policy is itself a matter of principle, a cardinal issue of right and wrong. In allowing yourselves to be incited by those people [Party persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road — Tr.] and by deserting your posts in production, whose interests are you serving? By acting in this way, whose hearts, after all, are you gladdening and whose are you saddening? We hope that you will follow Chairman Mao’s teachings, that, on this important question of principle, you will see things more clearly, make a clear distinction between right and wrong, stop being deceived, wake up quickly, return to your posts in production, and return to the proletarian revolutionary line. We, comrades of the revolutionary rebel groups, will certainly warmly welcome you back to make revolution along with us and improve production with us. We will certainly not blame you, because we are all close class brothers, and because the overwhelming majority of you are victims of the bourgeois reactionary line, are revolutionary masses who have been hoodwinked by those within the Party who are in authority and taking the capitalist road and by those who are stubbornly following the bourgeois reactionary line.

All revolutionary students and revolutionary government cadres of the city! Let us closely unite with the masses of revolutionary workers, and in order to carry out resolutely the policy of “taking firm hold of the revolution and promoting production” put forward by Chairman Mao, let us undertake widespread propaganda work and struggle, open fire fiercely and with still greater resolve at the bourgeois reactionary line, crush all new counter-attacks by the bourgeois reactionary line and launch a new upsurge in the great proletarian cultural revolution in the factories and plants!

In the boundless brilliance of the great thought of Mao Tse-tung, we look towards the future and see the magnificent prospect of the revolution. We are the working class, poor and lower-middle peasants, and all working people must unite with the revolutionary students, intellectuals and cadres, must make a common effort, fight shoulder to shoulder and continue our victorious advance so as to carry the great proletarian cultural revolution through to the end!

Long live the great proletarian cultural revolution!

Long live the red sun in our hearts, the greatest leader Chairman Mao and long life, long, long life to him!

The Shanghai Workers’ Revolutionary Rebel General Headquarters
and ten other revolutionary mass organizations,
January 4, 1967.

(Text of the Peoples Daily Editorial)

An upsurge is occurring in the great proletarian cultural revolution in socialist China whose population accounts for one quarter of the world’s total.

For the last few months, in response to the militant call of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman Mao, hundreds of millions of workers, peasants and soldiers and vast numbers of revolutionary cadres and intellectuals, all armed with Mao Tse-tung’s thought, have been sweeping away a horde of monsters that have entrenched themselves in ideological and cultural positions. With the tremendous and impetuous force of a raging storm, they have smashed the shackles imposed on their minds by the exploiting classes for so long in the past, routing the bourgeois “specialists,” “scholars,” “authorities” and “venerable masters” and sweeping every bit of their prestige into the dust.

Chairman Mao has taught us that class struggle does not cease in China after the socialist transformation of the system of ownership has in the main been completed. He said:

The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very acute. The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its own world outlook, and so does the bourgeoisie. In this respect, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is still not really settled.

The class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has been very acute right through the sixteen years since China’s liberation. The current great socialist cultural revolution is precisely a continuation and development of this struggle. The struggle is inevitable. The ideology of the proletariat and the ideology of all the exploiting classes are diametrically opposed to each other and cannot coexist in peace. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploiting classes and all systems of exploitation; it is a most thoroughgoing revolution to bring about the gradual elimination of the differences between workers and peasants, between town and country, and between mental and manual laborers. This cannot but meet with the most stubborn from the exploiting classes.

In every revolution the basic question is that of state power. In all branches of the superstructure ideology, religion, art, law, state power  —  the central issue is state power. State power means everything, Without it, all will be lost. Therefore, no matter how many problems have to be tackled after the conquest of state power, the proletariat must never forget state power, never forget its orientation and never lose sight of the central issue. Forgetting about state power means forgetting about politics, forgetting about the basic theses of Marxism and switching to economism, anarchism and utopianism and becoming muddle-headed. In the last analysis, the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle for leadership. The exploiting classes have been disarmed and deprived of their authority by the people, but their reactionary ideas remain rooted in their minds. We have overthrown their rule and confiscated their property, but this does not mean that we have rid their minds of reactionary ideas as well. During the thousands of years of their rule over the working people, the exploiting classes monopolized the culture created by the working people and in turn used it to deceive, fool and benumb the working people in order to consolidate their reactionary state power. For thousands of years, theirs was the dominant ideology which inevitably exerted widespread influence in society. Not reconciled to the overthrow of their reactionary rule, they invariably try to make use of this influence of theirs surviving from the past to shape public opinion in preparation for the political and economic restoration of capitalism. The uninterrupted struggle on the ideological and cultural front in the sixteen years from liberation up to the current exposure of the black anti-Party and anti-socialist line of the “Three-Family Villages,” big and small, has been a struggle between the forces attempting restoration and the for! ces opposing restoration.

In order to seize state power, the bourgeoisie during the period of the bourgeois revolution likewise started with ideological preparations by launching the bourgeois cultural revolution. Even the bourgeois revolution, which replaced one exploiting class by another, had to undergo repeated reversals and witness many struggles  —  revolution, then restoration and then the overthrow of restoration. It took many European countries hundreds of years to complete their bourgeois revolutions from the start of the ideological preparations to the final conquest of state power. Since the proletarian revolution is a revolution aimed at completely ending all systems of exploitation, it is still less permissible to imagine that the exploiting classes will meekly allow the proletariat to deprive them of all their privileges without seeking to restore their rule. The surviving members of these classes who are unreconciled will inevitably, as Lenin put it, throw themselves with a tenfold furious passion into the battle for the recovery of their lost paradise. The fact that the Khrushchev revisionist clique has usurped the leadership of the Party, army and state in the Soviet Union is an extremely serious lesson for the proletariat throughout the world. At present the representatives of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois “scholars” and “authorities” in China are dreaming precisely of restoring capitalism. Though their political rule has been toppled, they are still desperately trying to maintain their academic “authority,” mould public opinion for a comeback and win over the masses, the youth and the generations yet unborn from us.

The anti-feudal cultural revolution waged by the bourgeoisie ended as soon as it had seized power. The proletarian cultural revolution, however, is a cultural revolution against the ideology of all exploiting classes. This cultural revolution is entirely different from the bourgeois cultural revolution. It is only after the creation of the political, economic and cultural prerequisites following the capture of state power by the proletariat that the broadest road is opened up for the proletarian cultural revolution.

The proletarian cultural revolution is aimed not only at demolishing all the old ideology and culture and all the old customs and habits, which, fostered by the exploiting classes, have poisoned the minds of the people for thousands of years, but also at creating and fostering among the masses an entirely new ideology and culture and entirely new customs and habits  —  those of the proletariat. This great task of transforming customs and habits is without any precedent in human history. As for all the heritage, customs and habits of the feudal and bourgeois classes, the proletarian world outlook must be used to subject them to thoroughgoing criticism. It takes time to clear away the evil habits of the old society from among the people. Nevertheless, our experience since liberation proves that the transformation of customs and habits can be accelerated if the masses are fully mobilized, the mass line is implemented and the transformation is made into a genuine mass movement.

As the bourgeois cultural revolution served only a small number of people, i.e., the new exploiting class, only a small number of people could participate in it. The proletarian cultural revolution, the broad masses of the working people and is in the interests of the working people who constitute the overwhelming majority of the population. It is therefore able to attract and unite the broad masses of the working people to take part in it. The bourgeois individuals who carried out the enlightenment invariably looked down upon the masses, treated them as a mob and considered themselves as the predestined masters of the people. In sharp contrast, proletarian ideological revolutionaries serve the people heart and soul with the object of awakening them, and work for the interests of the broadest masses.

The bourgeoisie, with its base selfishness, is unable to suppress its hatred for the masses. Marx said:

The peculiar nature of the material it [political economy] deals with, summons as foes into the field of battle the most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the furies of private interest.

This also holds for the bourgeoisie when it has been overthrown.

The scale and momentum of the great proletarian cultural revolution now being carried on in China have no parallel in history, and the tremendous drive and momentum and boundless wisdom of the working people manifested in the movement far exceed the imagination of the lords of the bourgeoisie. Facts have eloquently proved that Mao Tse-tung’s thought becomes a moral atom bomb of colossal power once it takes hold of the masses. The current great cultural revolution is immensely advancing the socialist cause of the Chinese people and undoubtedly exerting an incalculable, far-reaching influence upon the present and future of the world.

The stormy cultural revolution now under way in our country has thrown the imperialists, the modern revisionists and the reactionaries of all countries into confusion and panic. At one moment, they indulge in wishful thinking saying that our great cultural revolution has shown that there are hopes of “a peaceful evolution” on the part of China’s younger generation A moment later, they become pessimistic, saying that all this has shown that Communist rule remains very stable. Then again, they seem to be fearfully puzzled, saying that it will never be possible to find genuine “China hands” who can promptly pass accurate judgment on what is taking place in China. Dear sirs, your wishful thinking invariably runs counter to the march of the history. The triumphant progress of this great and unparalleled cultural revolution of the proletariat is already sounding the death knell not only of the remnant capitalist forces on Chinese soil, but of imperialism, modern revisionism and all reaction. Your days are numbered.

Illuminated by the great Mao Tse-tung’s thought, let us carry the proletarian cultural revolution through to the end. Its victory will certainly further strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country, guarantee the completion of the socialist revolution on all fronts and ensure our successful transition from socialism to triumphant communism!

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at the Enlarged Meeting of the Military Commission

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At The Enlarged Meeting
Of The Military Commission

January 27, 1967

[SOURCE: an anthology without a title.]

(Transmitted by Premier Chou.)

1. The armed forces’ attitude towards the great Cultural Revolution. At first they chose non-involvement, but they were in fact involved in such ways as documents being sent to them for safe keeping and some cadres going [to work] among the units. In the present situation, when the struggle between the two lines has become extremely acute, they cannot stay aloof and their participation must mean their support of the left.

2. Most of the old comrades have so far failed to come to grips with the great Cultural Revolution. They have lived on their ‘capital’, depended on their past records. They should discipline and reform themselves in this movement and set up new records and make new contributions. (At this juncture Chairman quotes from Ch’u Che’s audience with the Queen of Chao in the Chan Kuo Ts’e.) They must resolutely stand on the side of the left; they must not try to muddle through; they must firmly support the left. Then they must do their work well under the control and supervision of the left.

3. With regard to the power struggle in the newspapers, it is a struggle for power against the capitalist ‘roaders’ and the faction in authority and against the die-hards of the bourgeois reactionary line. How else can [we] struggle for power? Now it seems that [we] should carefully divide . . . [and] take over power before other things can be done. [We] must not be metaphysical [superficial?] about it. Otherwise [we] shall be constrained. After the struggle for power [we] should examine the true nature of the faction in authority and then pass judgment on it and we should report it to the State Council for approval.

4. The old cadres before the power struggle and the [new] cadres after it should co-operate in working together and preserve the secret of the state.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at Three Meetings with Comrades Chang Chun-chiao and Yao Wen-Yuan

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talks At Three Meetings With
Comrades Chang Ch’un-ch’iao
And Yao Wen-yuan[1]

February 1967

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Chairman Mao invited Comrades Chang Ch’un-ch’iao and Yao Wen-yüan[2] to come to Peking from 12 to 18 February, and met them three times within a week. Even before they had arrived at the airport the Chairman inquired whether they had arrived or not, and when the airport comrades said they would soon be there, the Chairman waited for them in the doorway. They had no sooner arrived than the Chairman asked, ‘What is this with the First, Second and Third Regiments? They have come here making accusations against you.’

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.

The Chairman said that for the purpose of seizing power the ‘Three-way Alliances’ were essential.[3] Fukien, Kweichow and Inner Mongolia did not present big problems, though there might be a little disorder there. In Shansi at present 53 per cent were revolutionary masses, 27 per cent army, and 20 per cent cadres from various organs. Shanghai ought to learn from them. The January Revolution had succeeded, but February, March and April were more crucial, more important. The Chairman said: ‘The slogan of “Doubt everything and overthrow everything” is reactionary. The Shanghai People’s Committee demanded that the Premier of the State Council should do away with all heads. This is extreme anarchism, it is most reactionary. If instead of calling someone the “head” of something we call him “orderly” or “assistant”, this would really be only a formal change. In reality there will still always be “heads”. It is the content which matters.

‘There is a slogan in Honan, “The present-day proletarian dictatorship must be completely changed.” This is a reactionary slogan.’

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[4] is no longer any good? That Chou Ku-ch’eng will no longer be able to teach?

The Paris Commune,  —  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 been 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. That 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 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 Shanouk’s Royal Kingdom of Cambodia. Which is better? I am afraid Sihanouk is somewhat better. India has a presidential system; its neighbour, 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-ping 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 countries 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 non-recognition 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? The controlling organs in schools can become cultural revolutionary committees or cultural revolutionary leading teams. The Sixteen Articles[5] 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 [People’s Daily] 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 throughout 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?

There is another series of problems which you may not have considered. Many places have now applied to the Centre to establish people’s communes. A document has been issued by the Centre saying that no place apart from Shanghai may set up people’s communes. The Chairman is of the opinion that Shanghai ought to make a change and transform itself into a revolutionary committee or a city committee or a city people’s committee.

[Chairman Mao said:] ‘I’ve read Liu Shao-ch’i’s How to be a Good Communist[6] several times. It is anti-Marxist-Leninist. Our method of struggle should now be on a higher level. We shouldn’t keep on saying, “Smash their dogs’ heads, down with X X X.” I think that university students should make a deeper study of things and choose a few passages to write some critical articles about.’

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.[7] It was very well written, being imbued with the spirit of the rebels. Its last point says “necessary measures shall be taken. If that meeting is held to bombard Chang Ch’un-ch’iao we will certainly take the necessary steps and arrest people.”

(The Shanghai People’s) Commune has been too soft on the question of suppressing counter-revolutionaries. 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.

There are a number of accounts still outstanding which must be settled later. First, the demand made to the Premier by the Municipal People’s Committee; second, the question of the Red Revolutionaries; third, the broadening of the revolution to oppose the military seizure of the radio stations; fourth, the opposition to military control at Lunghua Airfield.[8]

There is a quotation which is currently used a great deal: ‘The world is ours.’ This was said by the Chairman in 1920.[9] He can’t altogether remember it himself and it should not be used in future.

The Chairman asked: ‘Is T’ungchi University still at the stations and docks?’[10] Comrade Chang Ch’un-ch’iao replied: ‘They still are.’ The Chairman then asked: ‘Were they still there when you came?’ Chang Ch’un-ch’iao replied: ‘I’m not sure.’ The Chairman said: ‘That’s excellent. In the past the students had not really united with the workers. Only now have they really united with them.’

The people in literature and the arts should return to their own units to carry out the Cultural Revolution.

[The Chairman remarked:] ‘The Wen-hui-pao has done very well. I completely agree with their point of view on the struggle with neighbourhood cadres and I support them.’ Comrade Chang Ch’un-ch’iao said: ‘The Wen-hui-pao exerts a lot of pressure.’ The Chairman said: ‘We must support them.’

Notes

While the general thrust of Mao’s remarks on this occasion is plain enough, the rather terse record of the main points of his conversations with Chang and Yao contained in the text translated here includes allusions to a great many details of the complex and rapidly changing situation in Shanghai in January and February 1967. The First, Second and Third Regiments (of Workers in the Northern Expedition) were organizations loyal to Keng Chin-chang, a leader later denounced as an ultra-leftist, who was contending with Chang Ch’un-ch’iao in early 1967 for control of the situation in Shanghai. Keng was said to have visited Peking in late December 1966; in early February 1967, he sent to Peking emissaries who were received by Chou En-lai and handed to him detailed accusations against Chang and his Workers’ Headquarters.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech to the Albanian Military Delegation

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Speech To The Albanian
Military Delegation

May 1, 1967

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

I once said at a rally of 7,000 people in 1962[1]: “In the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism, it is yet uncertain as to which will win and which will be defeated, it being highly possible that revisionism will triumph and we will be defeated. We used the possibility of defeat to alert the public, and we found this to be highly conducive to heightening our vigilance against revisionism, as well as to preventing and opposing revisionism. . .” Actually, the struggle between the two classes and the two lines within the Communist party has always existed. Nobody can deny it, and being materialists ourselves, we of course should not deny it. Since that rally, the struggle between the two classes within our party has manifested itself in the forms of “left” in appearance but right in essence and the opposition to same, a denial of the existence of class struggle and emphasis on the existence of class struggle, and in compromises and accentuation of proletarian polities, etc. This has been discussed in pertinent documents that appeared prior to that occasion.

Today the military delegation of Albania has come here to understand our nation’s Great Cultural Revolution. Let me first of all talk about my approaches to this problem.

China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution began with Comrade Yao Wen-yuan’s criticism of “Hai Jui Dismissed From Office” in the winter of 1965. At that time, certain departments and certain localities in this country of ours were dominated by revisionism. It was so tight that even water could not seep in and pins could not penetrate. I then suggested to Comrade Chiang Ch’ing that she organize some articles to criticize “Hai Jui Dismissed From Office”. But this was impossible to accomplish here in this Red metropolis, and there was no alternative but to go to Shanghai to organize it. Finally the article was written. I read it three times, and considered it basically all right, so I let Comrade Chiang Ch’ing bring it back for publication. I suggested that some of the leading comrades of the Central Committee be allowed to read it, but Comrade Chiang Ch’ing suggested: “The article can be published as it is, and I do not think there is any need to ask Comrade [Chou] En-lai and K’ang Sheng to read it.” (Comrade Lin Piao interrupted, saying Some people say that Comrade Mao Tse-tung used one faction to fight another faction. But now all of the central leadership comrades have prestige among the revolutionary masses, and they were all briefed beforehand by Chairman Mao on the Great Cultural Revolution, and so they did not commit any errors. I think the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is an examination without examination, and whoever follows closely Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is a proletarian revolutionary. So I have always said that Mao Tsetung Thought must be implemented both when we understand it and when we may temporarily not understand it.) After Yao Wen-yuan’s article was published, most of the newspapers in the country published it, but it was not published in Peking and Hunan. Later I suggested that a pamphlet be issued but it was also opposed and did not go through.

Yao Wen-yuan’s article was merely the signal for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Consequently, in the Central Committee, I was especially keen on drawing up the May 16 Circular.[2] Because the enemy was especially sensitive, once the signal was sounded here, we knew that he would take action. Of course, we also had to take action on our own. This circular had already been very precise in bringing out the question of line, and the question of the two lines. At that time, the majority did not agree with my view, and I was left alone for a time. They said that my views were outmoded, and so I had to present my views to the Eleventh Plenum of the Eighth CPC Central Committee for discussion. After some debate I gained the endorsement of a little over one-half of the Comrades. There were still many people who would not agree with me, including Li Ching-ch’uan and Liu Lan-t’ao.[3] Comrade [Ch’en] Po-ta went to talk with them, and they said: I couldn’t endorse it in Peking, and after I returned [home] I still could not endorse it. Finally I had no choice but to let practice make further examination!

After the Eleventh Plenum of the Eighth CPC Central Committee, the emphasis was on the criticism of the bourgeois reactionary line that had been taking place during the three months of October, November and December 1966, and this resulted in public disclosure of contradictions within the party. Here, I would like to mention another problem and that was that the broad masses of workers and peasants, and the hardcore cadres of the party and league were deceived during the process of criticizing the reactionary line. Having studied the problem what could we do with regard to those comrades who were deceived? I have always felt that the broad masses of workers, peasants and soldiers are good, the overwhelming majority of party members and [youth] league members are good, and that they have all been the principal forces during every stage of the proletarian revolution. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is certainly no exception. Since the broad masses of workers and peasants are involved in actual labor, they naturally know very little about conditions in the upper echelons. Moreover, the vast number of hardcore cadres of the party and league have heart-felt devotion to the party and have boundless love for the party’s cadres, while the “power holders taking the capitalist road” have raised the red flag to oppose the red flag. For this reason, they were so deceived that for a relatively long period of time they could not get out from under their delusions, but there were historical factors behind all of this. As long as those who were deceived reformed themselves, it was all right! As the movement developed, they again became the main force. The “January Storm” was launched by the workers, and it is just as true for the democratic revolution and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The “May 4th” Movement[4] was launched by intellectuals, thereby fully demonstrating their foresight and awareness.! However, we must depend on the masters of the time, the workers, peasants and soldiers, to serve as the main force in carrying through thoroughgoing revolutions on the order of a real Northern Expedition or Long March. In point of fact, workers, peasants and soldiers are really only workers and peasants, since soldiers are only workers and peasants dressed in army uniforms. Although it was the intellectuals and the broad masses of young students who launched the criticism of the bourgeois reactionary line, it was, nonetheless, incumbent upon the masters of the time, the broad masses of workers, peasants and soldiers, to serve as the main force in carrying the revolution through to completion, once the “January Storm” had seized power. Intellectuals have always been quick in altering their perception of things, but, because of the limitations of their instincts, and because they lack a thorough revolutionary character, they are sometimes opportunistic.

From the standpoint of policy and strategy, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution may be generally divided into four stages. From the publication of Comrade Yao Wen-yuan’s article to the Eleventh Plenum of the Eighth CPC Central Committee may be considered the first stage, and it was primarily a stage of mobilization. From the Eleventh Plenum of the Eighth CPC Central Committee to the “January Storm” may be considered the second stage. The third stage consisted of X X X’s [Ch’i Pen-yu][5] “Patriotism or National Betrayal?” and “The Key Point of ‘Cultivation’ Is That It Betrays the Proletarian Dictatorship.” The period thereafter may be considered the fourth stage. During the third and fourth stages the question of seizing power was paramount. The fourth stage was concerned with seizing the powers of revisionism and of the bourgeoisie ideologically. Consequently, this was a crucial stage in the decisive battle between the two classes, the two roads and the two lines, and this was the main and proper theme of the whole movement. After the “January Storm,” the Central Committee repeatedly concerned itself with the problem of a great alliance, but it did not work out. Later, it was discovered that this subjective wish was not in keeping with the objective laws of the development of class struggle. This is because each class and political power wanted to exert itself stubbornly. Bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideologies burst forth like unbridled flood waters, thus undermining the great alliance. It was impossible to work out a great alliance, and even if it were, it would eventually be broken up. Thus, the present attitude of the Central Committee is merely to promote it, not to work it out. The method of pulling the sprout to accelerate its growth is unfeasible. This law of class struggle can not be changed by anyone’s subjective will. On this question there are m! any examples which can be cited. In the workers’ congress, the Red Guard congress, and the peasants’ congress in X X municipality, it seems that with the exception of the peasants’ congress, the workers’ and Red Guard congress have had many squabbles. I think the revolutionary committee of X X municipality may yet have to be reorganized.

I had originally intended to train some successors from among the intellectuals, but this would now appear to be impractical. It seems to me that the world outlook of intellectuals, including those young intellectuals who are still receiving education in schools, and those both within and outside the party, is still basically bourgeois. This is because in the more than ten years since liberation, the cultural and educational circles have been dominated by revisionism, and so bourgeois ideology has seeped into their blood. Thus, revolutionary intellectuals must carefully remould their world outlook during this crucial stage of the struggle between the two classes, the two roads and the two lines. Otherwise, they will go contrary to the revolution. Now I would like to ask you a question: What would you say is the goal of the Great Cultural Revolution? (Someone answered on the spot: It is to struggle against power holders within the party who take the capitalist road.) To struggle against power holders who take the capitalist road is the main task, but it is by no means the goal. The goal is to solve the problem of world outlook: it is the question of eradicating the roots of revisionism.

The Central Committee has emphasized time and again that the masses must educate themselves and liberate themselves. This is because world outlook cannot be imposed on them. In order to transform ideology, it is necessary for the external causes to function through inner causes, though the latter are principal. If the world outlook is not transformed, how can the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution be called a victory? If the world outlook is not transformed, then although there are 2,000 power holders taking the capitalist road in this Great Cultural Revolution, there may be 4,000 next time. The cost of this Great Cultural Revolution has been very great, and even though the question of the struggle between the two classes and the two roads cannot be resolved by one, two, three or four Great Cultural Revolutions, still, this Great Cultural Revolution, should consolidate things for a decade at least. In the course of one century, it may be possible to launch such a revolution two or three times at most. Thus we must focus our attention on eradicating the roots of revisionism in order to strengthen our ability to guard against and oppose revisionism at any time. Here I would like to ask you another question: Who would you say are the power holders taking the capitalist road? (No response from the audience.) The so-called power holders taking the capitalist road are those power holders who take the road of capitalism! What I mean by this is that during the time of the democratic revolution, these people actively participated in opposing the three big mountains but once the entire country was liberated, they were not so keen on opposing the bourgeoisie. Though they had actively participated in and endorsed the overthrow of local despots and the distribution of land, after the country’s liberation when agricultural collectivization was to be implemented, they were not very keen on this either. He who would not take the socialist road and is now in power  —  is it not he who is a pow! er holder taking the road of capitalism! Let’s just say that it is “veteran cadres encountering new problems!” When a veteran comes face to face with a new problem, he will resolutely take the socialist road if he has the proletarian world outlook, but if he has the bourgeois world outlook, he will take the road of capitalism. This means that the bourgeoisie wants to transform the world in accordance with the bourgeois world outlook, while the proletariat wants to transform the world in accordance with the proletarian world outlook. There are those who have committed errors of orientation and line in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and this has been said to be a case of “veteran cadres encountering new problems.” But the fact that you have erred tells us that you veteran cadres have not yet thoroughly remoulded your bourgeois world outlook. From now on, veteran cadres are bound to encounter even more new problems. To ensure that you will resolutely take the road of socialism, you will have to undergo a thorough proletarian revolutionization ideologically. Let me ask you, how can you actually proceed from socialism toward communism? This is a great event for the nation, and a great event for the world.

I say the revolutionary spirit of the revolutionary little generals is very strong, and this is excellent. But you cannot step onto the stage now, because if you step onto the stage now, you will be kicked off the stage tomorrow. But this word has been leaked out by a Vice Premier’s own mouth, and this is highly inappropriate. As far as the revolutionary little generals are concerned, it is a question of nurturing and training them. At a time when they have committed certain errors, to use such words will only dampen their spirits. Some say that elections are very good and very democratic. As far as I am concerned, election is merely a fancy word, and do not feel that there is any genuine election. I have been elected by the Peking district to serve as a representative to the National People’s Congress, but how many in Peking really understood me? I feel that Chou En-lai’s premiership was an appointment by the Central Committee. Others say that China is profoundly peace-loving, but I cannot see how profound that love is. I think Chinese are militant.

In regard to cadres, we must establish the belief that 95 percent or more of them are good or relatively good, and we must never depart from this class viewpoint! In regard to leading cadres who are revolutionary or want to be revolutionary, one should protect them, protect them forthrightly and bravely, and liberate them from their errors. Even though they have taken the capitalist road, we must allow them to make revolution after they have undergone long-term education and their errors have been rectified. There are not many really bad persons. Among the masses, they constitute at most 5 percent; within the party and league, 1 to 2 percent; and there are only a handful of power holders who stubbornly take the capitalist road. But we must regard this handful of power holder within the party who take the capitalist road as the principal target of attack because their influence and insidious poison are deep and far-reaching. Thus, this is the principal task of this Great Cultural Revolution. As for bad elements among the masses, they number at most 5 percent, and they are scattered, without much strength. If the 35 million of them, calculated at 5 percent, should band together to form an army and oppose us in an organized manner, that would be a problem deserving serious consideration. But since they are diffused in various localities and powerless, they cannot be the principal target of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. However, it is necessary for us to heighten our vigilance and, especially at this crucial stage of the struggle, prevent these bad elements from wreaking havoc. Thus, there should be two premises for the great alliance: one is to destroy self-interest and foster devotion to the public interest; the other is that there must be a struggle. Without struggle the great alliance will not be effective.

The fourth stage of this Great Cultural Revolution is the crucial stage of the struggle between the two classes, the two roads and the two lines. Thus, a relatively longer period of time will be needed to arrange mass criticism. It is still being discussed by the Cultural Revolution Group of the Central Committee. Some feel that the end of this year would be an appropriate time for this, and others feel that next May would be more appropriate. However, the time must conform to the laws of class struggle.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directive on External Propaganda Work

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directive On External
Propaganda Work

June 1967

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Some foreigners have offered suggestions on the external propaganda conducted by Peking Review and Hsin-hua News Agency. In the past, they did not proselytise the fact that Mao Tse-tung’s thought has developed Marxism, but now after the Great Cultural Revolution, they are doing it with fanfare and there is such boasting that it is hard to swallow. Why must one say some of the words by one’s self? We must be modest, especially toward outsiders. In being a little modest toward outsiders, naturally we must not lose our principles. In yesterday’s communiqué on the hydrogen bomb, I deleted Great Leader, Great Teacher, Great Commander-in-Chief, and Great Helmsman. I also deleted “boundless flame.” How could there be boundless flame in the world? There is always a “bound” and so I deleted it. I also deleted “10,000 per cent” from the phrase “mood of 10,000 percent joy and excitement.” It was not 10 percent, 100 percent, or 1,000 percent, but 10,000 percent! I didn’t even want to have one percent, and so I deleted it entirely.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Dialogues Buring Inspection of North, Central-South and East China

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Dialogues During Inspection Of North,
Central – South And East China

July - September 1967

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Dialogues in Shanghai

Within the working class, there is no basic conflict of interest. Within the working class under proletarian dictatorship, there is all the more no reason why there must be two major hostile factional organizations.

(Comments on the Report of Trade Union Headquarters)

Chang Ch’un-ch’iao: There are some organizations in Shanghai that cannot get united.

Chairman Mao: Why can’t they get united?

Chang: The question as to who is going to be the nucleus has yet to be resolved.

Chairman Mao: Don’t stress that point. Unity should be unconditional. Who is going to be the nucleus is a matter settled during the process of struggle. Wang Ming and Ch’en Tu-hsiu stressed that they were the nucleii. Have they not ended in failure?

Dialogues in Chekiang

Nan P’ing: We still use kneeling and dunce hat wearing as ways of punishment.[1]

Chairman: I have always objected to this kind of practice. You cannot deal with cadres in the same way as you deal with landlords. We have a good tradition; that is, unity-criticism-unity. “One divides into two” should be applied to cadres.

Dialogues in Kiangsi

(Ch’eng Shih-ch’ing Reported on the collection of weapons)

Chairman: Who issued these rifles? As I see it, both sides issued them. Who issued more?

Ch’eng: These rifles were issued to the conservatives by the military subdistrict and People’s Militia Command.

Chairman: Oh!

(Referring to the Foochow problem)

Chairman: The Foochow problem deserves a little study. Why do they become so bold? They always call a meeting to size up the situation, convincing the people that both domestic and world situations are favourable to them, and then proceed. Their estimate of the situation is incorrect, I think.

(Referring to a Foochow faction which was in control of nine counties)

Chairman: Judging by this point, I think that they are trying to expand their influence by attacking Nan-ch’ang. What is the nature of this problem?

Ch’eng: According to the spirit of the directive of the Central Committee, this is military rebellion.

Chairman: Have you decided?

Ch’eng: Yes, we have decided.

Chairman: Has your decision been approved?

Ch’eng: Approved by the Premier.

Chairman: Oh! It is by nature a rebellion, an all-out surprise attack. It is said that there is no civil war in China, but I think this is a civil war, not a foreign war. This is an armed struggle, not a cultural struggle. In Kan-chou, Chi-an, I-ch’un and other places, rural control has been put into effect. From each production team one person is drafted. From each production brigade, ten or more than ten persons are drafted. Compulsory methods are used. The draftees are given labour points, and each draftee is paid 60 cents a day. Now the rural areas are encircling the cities; I think this situation should not be allowed to continue.

(Referring to the Central Committee’s decision on the Kiangsi problem)

Chairman: I think we ought to use education to approach this problem. Bad people are always in the minority. In the people’s militia commands good people are always in the majority. Many people in the military subdistrict are being kept in the dark. Some of them committed mistakes. They should be given an opportunity to correct their mistakes.

We should by all means persuade the masses of the rebellious faction without attack or retaliation. Killing is always bad. Being killed is bad; killing others is not good, either. Attack, retaliation, kneeling, dunce hat wearing, sign carrying, oh, yes, there is another way of punishment, the “jet plane type.” All these are not good.

(Referring to some good articles in Wen Hui Pao that had some great influence)

Chang Ch’un-ch’iao: People also oppose us because we are inclining to the right, saying that we are rightists.

Chairman: This is a problem of educating the leftists, not one of our inclining to the right. For example, in the past, there were so many mountain strongholds. There were the central Soviet in Kiangsi the Hunan-Kiangsi Soviet, the Fukien-Kiangsi Soviet, and the Hunan-Hupeh-Kiangsi Soviet. In addition, there were the Hupeh-Honan-Anhuei-Kiangsu Soviet, Tung-nan-pa, and Northern Shensi. During the War of Resistance Against Japan, there were even more bases of operation. We used a single principle to unite them all, regardless of what faction they belonged to. We cannot have just one mountain stronghold and no others. It does not work if there is only one faction.

I am still inclined to protect more people. Those who can be saved should be saved. As long as we can win over the majority, it is all right for a minority to persist in their stubbornness. Let us give them rice to eat without any grudge.

I learned from Huo-hsien Chan-pao (Fire Line Combat News) what is described as emergency of Nan-ch’ang, fall of Nan-kang and Lu- white terror, rural control in I-ch’un, and what is known as rural areas encircling cities. Tension was at its highest point in June, July and August. In times of tension, I think, problems are unveiled, and things become easy to resolve. How can problems be resolved without tension?

Now there are people instigating the soldiers to oppose their superiors, and saying that while you are making only 6 yuan a month, the officers are making much more and enjoying the luxury of riding in automobiles. The peasants are willing to join the Liberation Army, because to be a member of the Liberation Army is glorious. They receive 6 yuan a month, and their families receive preferential treatment. The peasants are willing to be soldiers. I don’t think the instigators will succeed.

(Referring to the province-wide political work conference of the rebel faction to be convened in October)

This is good. The rebel faction also needs to be lectured. They can not sit tight, and their minds are running wild.

My assessment of the present rightist faction is not that rigid. Once they are lectured, they will turn around. There are bad people, but they are very few in number. Most of them recognize the problem. Some interpret the problem of recognition as a problem of where one stands. Once we touch upon the problem of standpoint, we get into the matter of committing ourselves to a policy from which we cannot turn around for the rest of our lives. Should one’s standpoint never be changed? As far as most of the people are concerned, standpoint can be changed. There are very few bad people whose standpoint cannot be changed. In short, the scope of attack should be narrowed, and the scope of education should be broadened to include the leftists, centrists and rightists. If left uneducated, the leftists will become ultra left.

Dialogues in Hunan

(Referring to the great alliance)

Everyone should do self-criticism, and talk less about other people’s shortcomings. Don’t direct the spearhead toward the opposition. In the past, we had some experience concerning the relationship between the soldiers and local people. The soldiers offered to support the government and cherish the people, and the local people offered to support the soldiers and treat the soldiers’ families preferentially. The soldiers took the lead in conducting self-criticism. The two sides got along very well

Both factions are workers. One faction is rebellious, and the other is conservative. Those conservatives are hoodwinked by their superiors. You cannot suppress the masses who are being hoodwinked. The more you suppress, the more they will resist. We ourselves are the product of Chiang Kai-shek’s suppression. After the great revolution, we had only several tens of thousands of men. Chiang Kai-shek’s suppression gave us hope. His suppression produced at once 300,000 Red Army soldiers and 300,000 party members.

Dialogues in Hupeh

(Referring to the problem of liberating cadres)

I am a fellow who has been expelled by others five times, and then invited back. Thus, the leader of the masses is not self-appointed. He attains his stature in mass struggle. What is the long march? The long march was an outcome of fighting. It was forced on us. After the long march, the quality of the cadres improved. Among these cadres today, who was not wounded on the battlefield? Who has not committed mistakes in the revolution? Nevertheless, they still established meritorious service records during the democratic revolution. Although they committed mistakes in the great cultural revolution, it is all right if they correct their mistakes. When the war comes, and as soon as I give the order, these old cadres will be as brave as ever on the battlefield. You cannot be skeptical about everything, or overthrow everything. To doubt everything or to overthrow everything is not good, unfavorable to the revolution.

In China’s revolutions, according to my own personal experience, those who were most likely to succeed were those who thought, not those who cut prominent figures. Those who now make a lot of noise are not likely to be mentioned in history as men of consequence.

Dialogues in Honan

Chairman Mao: Are you Chi Teng-k’uei? Old friend.

Liu Chien-hsun[2]: Jailed for four months; suffered four months of struggle.

Chairman Mao: (To Chi Teng-k’eui) Would you say that all this was useless?

Chi Teng-k’uei: A great deal was gained.

Chairman Mao: That was done by Wen Min-sheng, Chao Wen-fu, and Ho Yun-hung. As I stopped over at Chengchow last time, I saw a big slogan: “The situation is stabilized; 7 February will definitely win!” The situation in Honan was pretty good.

Liu Chien-hsun: (Reported on the situation of cadres)

Chairman Mao: Is Ho Yun-hung that tough! This is Ho Yun-hung’s work!

(Referring to the situation in the army)

Chairman Mao: They used a few slogans in the army for a short time, but now these slogans are no longer effective. They don’t support the army. As soon as they do, they will have no target.

Dialogue on Train Returning to Peking

(Referring to the good news brought to the Chairman about the conclusion of a great alliance agreement by the three factions within the railway system)

Congratulations, may I present you four characters: “Tou-ssu Pi-hsiu” [Struggle against private interest; criticize revisionism].

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Letter to Lin, Chow, and Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Letter To Lin, Chou And
Central Committee Cultural
Revolution Group

December 7, 1967

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

(1)  The way in which absolute authority is presented is improper. There has never been any single absolute authority. All authorities are relative. All absolute things exist in relative things just as absolute truth is the total of innumerable relative truths, and that absolute truth exists only in relative truths.

(2)  The talk about “establishing in a big way” and “establishing in a special way” is also improper. Authority and prestige can only be established naturally through struggle and practice. They cannot be established artificially. Prestige established artificially will inevitably collapse.

(3)  The Central Committee of the Party banned birthday celebration a long time ago. The entire nation should be notified of the reaffirmation of this ban.

(4)  Some other date should be chosen for the Hunan meeting.

(5)  We don’t need any scrolls with calligraphed messages.

(6)  As to the name of the meeting, we may concur with Hunan’s suggestion, wing the first plan.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Days of the U.S. Aggressors in Vietnam are Numbered

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

The Days Of The U.S. Aggressors
In Vietnam Are Numbered

December 19, 1907

[SOURCE: Peking Review, no. 52, 1967, p. 5.]

(Full text of comrade Mao’s message 19 December 1967 to President Nguyen Huu Tho of the National Liberation Front)

On behalf of the Chinese people, I extend the warmest congratulations to the fighting people of southern Vietnam on the occasion of the seventh anniversary of the founding of the South Vietnam National Liberation Front.

You are putting up a good fight! Under exceptionally difficult conditions, you have, by relying on your own strength, battered U.S. imperialism, the most ferocious imperialism in the world, so that its forces are in disorder and it has no way out. This is a great victory. The Chinese people salute you.

Your victory manifests once again that a nation, big or small, can defeat any enemy, however powerful provided only that it fully mobilizes its people, relies firmly on the people, and wages a people’s war. By their war against U.S. aggression and for national salvation under the wise and able leadership of the great leader President Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese people have set a brilliant example for the oppressed peoples and oppressed nations the world over in their struggle for liberation.

The days of the U.S. aggressors in Vietnam are numbered. However, all reactionary forces on the verge of extinction invariably conduct desperate struggles. They are bound to resort to military adventure and political deception in all their forms in order to save themselves from extinction. And the revolutionary peoples are bound to meet with all kinds of difficulties before final victory. Nevertheless, all these difficulties can be surmounted, and no difficulty can ever obstruct the advance of the revolutionary people. Perseverance means victory. I am deeply convinced that, by persevering in protracted war, the Vietnamese people will certainly be able to drive the U.S. aggressors out of Vietnam.

We firmly support you. We are neighbouring countries as close as the lips and the teeth. Our two peoples are brothers sharing weal and woe. The fraternal people of southern Vietnam and the entire fraternal Vietnamese people can rest assured that your struggle is our struggle. The 700 million Chinese people are the powerful rearguard of the Vietnamese people; the vast expanse of China’s territory is their reliable rear area. In the face of the solid fighting unity of our two peoples, all military adventures and political deceptions by U.S. imperialism will certainly fail.

Victory will definitely belong to the heroic Vietnamese people!

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Conversation with Premier Chou on Power Struggle

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Conversation With Premier Chou
On Power Struggle

1967

[SOURCE: An anthology without a title.]

Chairman: ‘How’s the power struggle? The Public Security Bureau is an instrument of the dictatorship.’

Premier: ‘It was taken over only about a day ago.’

Chairman: ‘ [We] ought to choose the typical cases.’

Premier: ‘The municipal [party] committee of the Bureau held a meeting and decided on several kinds of power struggle. Cadres belong to the faction in authority [who are]: 1. the “black gang” soaked through [with erroneous ideology] and therefore “black”; 2. the capitalist “roaders” in power; 3. those adamantly upholding the capitalist reactionary line; 4. those admitting some mistakes but leaving the rest intact; and 5. [among them] individual cases of the general mistake (the majority of the cases).’

Chairman: ‘Make the first two categories smaller and isolate and attack the smallest minority. Take-over is in itself a revolution, a creation of something new. According to different circumstances, there are five different ways. 1. Complete re-organization (as Chang Ch’un-ch’iao and Yao Wen-yuan [have done in Shanghai]). 2. After takeover, adopt different methods in dealing with the faction in authority. Criticize them while keeping them at work under supervision (according to the work assigned to them). 3. Suspend their posts but keep them at their work. 4. Dismiss them but keep them at their work. Or 5. cashier and punish them.’

Premier: ‘That is a good way  —  dismiss them, keep them at their work, but struggle against them. There will then be an opposition to help [us] to enlarge and strengthen our own ranks. To take on too much work [themselves] (referring to the revolutionary rebels) can only make them “passive” [slaves of work]. Keep them [the faction in authority] at their work and struggle against them. In the Academy of Sciences, the left have grown strong. Their work of “Get Down to Revolution and Encourage Production” is done very well. [But] they let the faction in authority sweep the street and after that [the reactionaries] just go to sleep. It is really cushy. [We] must not let ourselves be bogged down by routine business. ([We] must pay attention to this problem.) To take-over is a big thing which will touch off a chain of changes. It is a revolution. [We] must be clear about the aim of the take-over, about the problems involved in it, and about how to do it. [We] must know how to tackle [those] questions and must have concrete policies (e.g. how to deal with the staff of the bureaux, Ministries, departments, and sections.) [We] have seized power, but it may be snatched away [from us] again. In some organizations this tug-of-war may be a discipline in itself. [But we] must keep the power. This depends chiefly on the strength of the left. When the strength of the left is small, power may be snatched away from it again. [Therefore] the left must be strong. I support the power struggle. After it, [we] must get down to revolution and encourage production.’

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

A New Storm Against Imperialism

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

A New Storm Against Imperialism

April 16, 1968

[SOURCE: Peking Review, April 19, 1968, pp. 5-6.]

[“Statement by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, in Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression” (April 16, 1968)]

Some days ago, Martin Luther King, the Afro-American clergyman, was suddenly assassinated by the U.S. imperialists. Martin Luther King was an exponent of nonviolence. Nevertheless, the U.S. imperialists did not on that account show any tolerance toward him, but used counter-revolutionary violence and killed him in cold blood. This has taught the broad masses of the Black people in the United States a profound lesson. It has touched off a new storm in their struggle against violent repression sweeping well over a hundred cities in the United States, a storm such as has never taken place before in the history of that country. It shows that an extremely powerful revolutionary force is latent in the more than twenty million Black Americans.

The storm of Afro-American struggle taking place within the United States is a striking manifestation of the comprehensive political and economic crisis now gripping U.S. imperialism. It is dealing a telling blow to U.S. imperialism, which is beset with difficulties at home and abroad.

The Afro-American struggle is not only a struggle waged by the exploited and oppressed Black people for freedom and emancipation, it is also a new clarion call to all the exploited and oppressed people of the United States to fight against the barbarous rule of the monopoly capitalist class. It is a tremendous aid and inspiration to the struggle of the people throughout the world against U.S. imperialism and to the struggle of the Vietnamese people against U.S. imperialism. On behalf of the Chinese people, I hereby express resolute support for the just struggle of the Black people in the United States.

Racial discrimination in the United States is a product of the colonialist and imperialist system. The contradiction between the Black masses in the United States and the U.S. ruling circles is a class contradiction. Only by overthrowing the reactionary rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class and destroying the colonialist and imperialist system can the Black people in the United States win complete emancipation. The Black masses and the masses of white working people in the United States have common interests and common objectives to struggle for. Therefore, the Afro-American struggle is winning sympathy and support from increasing numbers of white working people and progessives in the United States. The struggle of the Black people in the United States is bound to merge with the American workers’ movement, and this will eventually end the criminal rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class.

In 1963, in the “Statement Supporting the Afro-Americans in Their Just Struggle Against Racial Discrimination by U.S. Imperialism,” I said that the “the evil system of colonialism and imperialism arose and throve with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the Black people.” I still maintain this view.

At present, the world revolution has entered a great new era. The struggle of the Black people in the United States for emancipation is a component part of the general struggle of al the people of the world against U.S. imperialism, a component part of the contemporary world revolution. I call on the workers, peasants, and revolutionary intellectuals of all countries and all who are willing to fight against U.S. imperialism to take action and extend strong support to the struggle of the Black people in the United States! People of the whole world, unite still more closely and launch a sustained and vigorous offensive against our common enemy, U.S. imperialism, and its accomplices! It can be said with certainty that the complete collapse of colonialism, imperialism, and all systems of exploitation, and the complete emancipation of all the oppressed peoples and nations of the world are not far off.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Dialogues with Responsible Persosn of Capital Red guards Congress

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Dialogues With Responsible Persons
Of Capital Red Guards Congress

July 28, 1968

[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]

Chairman: (Nieh Yuan tzu, T’an Hou-lan, Han A’i-ching and Wang Ta-ping walked into the room. The Chairman, standing, shook hands with each one of them) All are young!

(Shaking hands with Huang Tso-chen[1]) Are you Huang Tso-chen? I haven’t met you before. You were not killed?

Chiang Ch’ing: Haven’t seen you for a long time. You didn’t post big character posters.

Chairman: We met last time at Tien-an-men, but there was no chance to talk with you at that time. That was bad! You people don’t come to see me unless you have important business. But I have read all of your reports. I understand your situation very well.

K’uai Ta-fu did not come. Is it because he is unable to come or unwilling to come?

Fu-chih: I am afraid that he is unwilling to come.

Han A’i-ching: No. At this moment, if he knew that there was a meeting with the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group, he would cry because he missed the chance to meet the Chairman. I am sure that he is unable to come.

Chairman: K’uai Ta-fu should capture the black hand. So many workers were sent to schools to “suppress” and “oppress” the red guards. Who is the black hand? The black hand is still not captured.

The black hand is nobody else but me. K’uai did not come. He should have come to grab me. It was I who sent the Central Police Guards and the workers of the Hsin-hua Printing Plant and the General Knitwear Mill. I asked them how they would deal with the fighting in universities, and told them to go there to take a look. As a result, 30,000 of them went. Actually, they hated Peking University, but not Tsinghua. (Turned to Nieh) This was what the workers and the students did. Tens of thousands of them staged a demonstration. I heard that the reception you gave them was pretty good. Was it you, or Ching-kang-shan?[2]

(Wen Yu-ch’eng, Huang Tso-chen: Not them). With what unit did Peking University clash?

Nieh Yuan-tzu: With the Institute of Agricultural Science.

Chairman: Did you fight them?

Nieh Yuan-tzu: We even served tea in front of our gate.

Chairman: I did not know that. Peking University wants to arrest the black hand. This black hand is not me, but Hsieh Fu-chih.[3] I didn’t have such a big ambition. I suggested only that a few people be sent over to have a discussion with them. K’uai Ta-fu said that 100,000 of them went.

Fu-chih: Less than 30,000.

Chairman: How did you deal with armed fighting in universities? One way is complete withdrawal. Leave the students alone. Let everybody fight if he wants to. In the past, the revolutionary committees and the garrison commands were not afraid of the chaos caused by the fighting in universities. They refrained from control anxiety, and suppression. In retrospect, this is right. The other way is to give them a little help. This has won the support of the workers, the peasants, and the majority of students. There are more than 50 institutions of higher learning in Peking There are about five or six of them where the fighting was severe, and where your ability was put to the test. As to how to solve the problem, some of you live in the south, and some of you live in the north. And all of you are called new Peking University, “Ching-kang-shan,” and “commune,” just like the Soviet Communist party calling itself “Bolshevik.” If you cannot handle the problem, we may resort to military control, and ask Lin Piao to take command. We also have Huang Yung-shen[4]. The problem has to be solved one way or the other. You people have engaged in the Great Cultural Revolution or struggle-criticism-transformation for two years. Now, in the first place, you are not struggling; in the second place, you are not criticizing, in the third place, you are not transforming. Yes, you are struggling, but it is armed struggle. The people are not happy. The workers are not happy. The peasants are not happy. Peking residents are not happy. The students in most of the schools are not happy. Most students in your school are also not happy. Even within the faction that supports you there are people who are unhappy. Can you unite the whole country this way? You belong to the new Peking University. You “Old Buddha” are in the majority. You are a philosopher. Don’t tell me that there is nobody against you in the new Peking ! University commune and among the cultural revolutionaries in the schools. I don’t believe that! They may not say anything in front of you, but they will say devilish words behind your back. Wang Ta-ping, is your work easier?

Wang Ta-ping: Those who opposed Hsieh Fu-chih fled.

Fu-chih: His second man in command wanted to seize power, and accused him of leaning toward the right.

Chairman: Is he that left?

Wang Ta-ping: They are trying to sow discord in our relationship. He is a good comrade, with a good background. He suffered greatly and has deep hatred. This man is very straight forward, and full of energy for revolution, with a strong revolutionary character. His only drawback is his impatience. He is not very tactful in uniting people. His working method is a little stiff.

Chairman: Can you unite with him? He is left; you are right. It should be easy for you two to be united! Come over here, sit by my side!

Lin Piao: Come over!

Fu-chih: Go! Go! (Wang Ta-ping sat down by the side of the Chairman.)

Chairman: Sit down, sit down. We should be flexible in these matters. After all, they are all students. They did not engage in black gang activities. Recently, struggles were conducted against black gangsters in some schools, and sketches of these black gangsters were drawn. Several tens of them were dealt with in the new Peking University. Is that all the black gangsters? I think there are more. The crucial point is that the two factions are engaged in armed struggle. They were bent on armed struggle. This kind of struggle-criticism-transformation does not work. Maybe, struggle-criticism-quit will. The students are talking about struggle-criticism-quit; or struggle-criticism-disperse. Now there are so many people who are aloof and indifferent. More and more derogatory words are heard in society about Nieh Yan-tzu and K’uai Ta-fu. Nieh Yuan tzu’s cannon fodder is limited in number; so is K’uai Ta-fu’s. Sometimes 300; other times 150 men. How can that be compared with the number of troops under Lin Piao and Huang Yung-sheng. This time, in one shot, I dispatched 30,000.

Lin Piao: During the development of all significant events in the world, there is unity after long disunity, and disunity after long unity. Tear down all the defence works for armed struggle. All the hot weapons, cold weapons, knives, and rifles should be put in storage. Nieh Yuan-tzu, they call you “Old Buddha,” or the “Old Nest of Buddha.” Moreover, we have you Comrade T’an Hou-lan, wearing two pigtails. You asked for a transfer down to lower levels. You have spent more than 10 years studying in schools. Everybody agrees that you should be transferred down. I am afraid that you cannot leave. Once you are gone, who is going to take your place?

T’an Hou-lan: Everything has been arranged.

Chairman: Your five great generals, we support you, including K’uai Ta-fu who wants to grab the black hand. We have our prejudices. The “Peking University” ‘Ching-kang-shan’ and the ‘April 14’ Army Corps at Normal University may have adverse opinions about us. I’m not afraid of being overthrown by others. When the ‘April 14’ Army Corps at Tsinghua said that the ‘April 14’ thinking must win, I was unhappy. They also said that those who won the country cannot rule it, and that the proletariat which won the country cannot rule it. “April 14” has a theoretician by the name of Chou Ch’uan-ying. Why should we arrest a theoretician? He is a theoretician for a school of thought. He writes articles. Why should you arrest him? Release him. He has his opinion. Let him write again! Otherwise, there will be no freedom. I say, you, Old Buddha, had better be a little more generous. There are several thousand men at Peking University’s ‘Ching-kang-shan’. If they were released like a torrential flood, they will wash the Dragon King’s Temple away. Can you take it? Otherwise, you Old Buddha we have to impose military control. The third method is to handle this matter according to the principles of dialectics. Don’t live in one city. Separate. Either you or ‘Ching-kang-shan’ move to the south. If one is in the south and the other in the north, you won’t see each other. You cannot fight. Each one puts his own house in order, and then the entire world will be united. Otherwise, you will be afraid. If they launch an attack on the nest of Old Buddha, you won’t be able to sleep. You’ll be afraid. They will be afraid, too. It is necessary to hold back a little. Why should you be so tense? You are afraid of others attacking you. If you don’t reserve some strength for the future, what are you going to do when they attack? I heard that there is a man who wants to assa! ssinate you. Even though you know who the would-be assassin is, you don’t have to arrest him. Let him go. Don’t say anything even if you know exactly who he is. But from now on you should pay attention to one thing. Don’t go anywhere alone.

Chiang Ch’ing: She has bodyguards.

Nieh Yuan-tzu: No.

Chairman: Your elder brother is no good. Neither is your elder sister. In short, the Nieh family is no good. After all, a bad elder brother is still an elder brother, a bad elder sister is still an elder sister. Why should they get the younger sister involved? (Somebody reported that he could not find K’uai Ta-fu).

Chiang Ch’ing: Is K’uai Ta-Fu unwilling to come, or unable to come?

Fu chih: We broadcast an announcement saying that K’uai Ta-fu is wanted by the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group to attend a meeting. He is just unwilling to come.

Chiang Ch’ing: Is he unwilling to come, or unable to come?

Fu-chih: I guess that he is under someone’s control. It doesn’t matter if he is.

Wen-yuan: Quite possible.

Chairman: I think K’uai Ta-fu is a good man. He is quite exposed. Those who control him are bad people. K’uai Ta-fu and those who are exposed are good men. I have a lot of experience in this respect. Wang Ta-ping, is there any fighting in your place?

Wang Ta-ping: No. On 23 September 1966, we had a fight with the conservative faction. It was Comrade [Ch’en] Po-ta who sent men to our rescue. Then we won.

Chairman: That’s good. From then on, neither you nor Han A’i-ching have engaged in fighting. Han A’i-ching, you are very good at giving advice and are a strategist. Are you a descendant of Han Hsin?

K’ang Sheng: I heard that K’uai Ta-fu is the commander, and Han A’i-ching is the political commissar.

Han A’i-ching: K’uai Ta-fu is surrounded by a group of people with complicated backgrounds. Now, people who gained their stature by writing big character posters at the beginning of the movement are very few. The number of people who engage in armed fighting has increased. They want the headquarters reorganized. K’uai Ta-fu is unable to control any more.

K’ang Sheng: The situation may not be what you have just said!

Chairman: T’an Hou-lan, the cultural revolution has been going on for two years now. The members of your 100-200 man army corps are unable to sleep peacefully at night. For the time being, you cannot leave because you are the queen. Here among the four of you attending this meeting, two are women. It is great! I think you cannot leave for the time being. You have to provide them with food and freedom of movement. They are in a sad plight, and yet they want to seize power. Other schools have also participated. You (pointing to Han) and K’uai Ta-fu have played a role.

Han A’i-ching: I also participated.

Chiang Ch’ing: Han A’i-ching wanted to topple others.

Chairman: You played a role. Our Commander, K’uai Ta-fu, also played a part. Young people should do good things, but they are also capable of doing bad things. You said that the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group did not notify you. Comrade Lin Piao and Premier Chou spoke on 23 and 27 March, respectively, and a rally of 100,000 people was held. This time both Comrades Huang Tso-chen and Wen Yu-ch’eng spoke, but fighting still went on at the lower level, as though this was done deliberately in opposition to us. First of all, we want cultural struggle, not armed struggle. If you want to fight, it is all right. The more you fight, the bigger the fighting becomes. Both sides have native guns. What kind of fighting is yours! Your fighting is nothing. Take out the carbines, rifles, native guns, and even anti-aircraft guns like in Szechwan.

Chiang Ch’ing: Disgrace to the family.

Chairman: With so much magic power, you, Old Buddha, can only activate something like 200-300 men. Where are your troops? You still have to rely on workers and demobilized soldiers as the main force. Without them you cannot succeed. Comrade Lin Piao has lots of troops. If he gives you a few thousand, or a few tens of thousand, it should be enough for you to eliminate “Ching-kang-shan” entirely. But this is not the answer. Let us have some discussion, or call a meeting to discuss this matter. But, first of all, you should get united.

Lin Piao: Unity comes first. The Chairman mentioned four plans. The first is military control. The second is one divides into two. The third is to follow the steps of “struggle-criticism-quit.” The fourth is to fight on a big scale.

Chairman: One divides into two. Both sides are very tense and restless because of hatred. Moving and relocation is a problem. Quarrels will occur if both sides are in Peking. This auditorium is empty; Chung-nan-hai is a big place capable of accommodating 40,000-50,000 people. Is it not big enough for a school? Either Nieh Yuan-tzu or Hou Han-ch’ing (one of the leaders of Peking University’s Ching-kang-shan) should move here.

You people were talking about “killing the cow, slaughtering the monkey and stewing the mutton.” [Chinese character for cow is pronounced niu; Chinese character for monkey is pronounced hou; and Chinese characters for mutton are pronounced yang-jou.] The cow is Niu Hui-lin, the monkey is Hou Han-ch’ing, and mutton is Yang K’o-ming. Of these three, I know only Yang K’o-ming. He is also a young man. He attended the 11th plenum of the 8th Central Committee. That big character poster was done with Yang K’o-ming’s help. Your big-character poster represents two factions. This kind of social phenomenon does not change according to man’s will. Nobody foresaw this kind of fighting. Suspension of classes for half a year was originally planned. It was so announced in the newspaper. Later, the suspension was extended to one year. As one year was not enough, it was extended to two years, and then, to three years. I say, if three years are still not enough, give them as many years as necessary. After all, people are growing older every year. Suppose you were a freshman three years ago, you are now a junior. The schools may be suspended for another two, four, or eight years, you get promoted all the same, so what. . .

Struggle-criticism-quit is also a way out. Is it true that T’an Hou-lan wanted to quit? Let everybody quit; sweep everyone out. Should we continue to run universities? Should universities continue to enrol new students? To stop enrolling new students does not work, either. I put some reservations in my remarks. I said that we should continue to run universities. I mentioned science and engineering colleges, but I did not say that all liberal arts colleges should be closed. But if liberal arts colleges are unable to show any accomplishments, they should be closed. As far as I can see, the basic courses in junior and senior middle schools and the last two years in primary school are about the same as those offered by colleges. One should only go to school for six years, at most ten years. The courses given in senior middle school repeat those in junior middle school, and those courses given in college repeat those given in senior middle school. All basic courses are repetitious. As to courses of specialization, even the teachers don’t understand. Philosophers are unable to talk philosophy. What is there to learn in school? Nieh Yuan-tzu, you are a philosopher, are you?

Nieh Yuan-tzu: No, I am not a philosopher.

Chiang Ch’ing: She is an Old Buddha.

Chairman: What is the use of studying philosophy? Can one learn philosophy in college? If one has never been a worker or a peasant and goes to study philosophy, what kind of philosophy is that?

Lin Piao: The more one studies, the narrower one’s mind gets. It is called “tse-hsueh” (“narrow study”). [Philosophy is “che-hsueh,” “Tse” and “Che” are almost homonyms.]

Chairman: How about studying literature? One should not study the history of literature. Instead, he should learn to write novels. Write a novel for me each week. If he is unable to produce, send him to a factory to work as an apprentice. During his apprenticeship, he should write about his experience as an apprentice. Those who study literature nowadays are unable to write. Hu Wan-ch’un of Shanghai used to write a lot, but after a while I saw little of his work.

Premier: There is also Kao Yu-pao. He also went to college. Then his brain petrified.

Chairman: Let me talk with you about Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Marx and Lenin finished their college education, but not Engels and Stalin. Lenin studied law for one year. Engels went to college for one and a half years. Before finishing high school, he was asked by his father to work as an accountant in a factory. Then the factory moved to England. It was in the factory that he came into contact with the workers. How did Engels learn natural science? He did it in a London library, where he stayed eight years. He had never gone to college. Stalin had never gone to college, either. He was a graduate of a missionary high school. Gorky had only two years of formal education in primary school, even less than Chiang Ch’ing. Chiang Ch’ing is a primary school graduate. She had six years of schooling, Gorky had only two.

Yeh Ch’un: Comrade Chiang Ch’ing studied very hard by herself. . .

Chairman: Don’t brag for her. Knowledge is not gained in schools. When I was in school, I did not obey the rules. My principle was just to avoid getting myself dismissed. As to examinations, my marks hovered between 50 or 60 percent and 80 percent, 70 percent being my average. There were several courses that I gave up. I was unable to cope with several subjects, sometimes on purpose. During examinations in such courses, I turned in a piece of blank paper. For geometry, I drew an egg. Is it not a geometrical shape? I turned in the paper the fastest because it took only one stroke.

Lin Piao: I studied for four years in a middle school but I left before graduation. It was a voluntary withdrawal. Without a middle school diploma, I worked as a primary school teacher. However, I liked to study by myself.

Chairman: The military schools nowadays are very harmful. Do you know how long it took one to finish at Whampoa Military Academy? Three months, six months!

Lin Piao: For the first three classes, it was three months. Starting with the fourth class, it took longer.

Chairman: All that is needed is a little training. As to knowledge, it is not much except for some military drill.

Lin Piao: The point is: as soon as you learn something, you forget. Things learned in school in several weeks can be seen clearly in the army in a few days. Hearing about something a hundred times is not as good as seeing it once.

Chairman: I have never attended any military school. Nor have I read a book on military strategy. People say I relied on “Romance of Three Kingdoms” and “Military Strategy of Sun Tzu” for my military campaigns. I said that I had never read “Military Strategy of Sun Tzu.” Yes, I have read “Romance of Three Kingdoms.”

Lin Piao: At one time, you asked me to get a copy [of “Military Strategy of Sun Tzu”]. I was unable to get it for you.

Chairman: During the meeting of Tsun-i, I debated with X X X. He asked me whether I had read “Military Strategy of Sun Tzu.” I asked him: how many chapters are there in the “Military Strategy of Sun Tzu”? He did not know. I asked him what is the title of Chapter One? He did not know, either. Later, when I wrote about what I called problems of strategy, I went over the “Military Strategy of Sun Tzu” roughly.

Chiang Ch’ing. . . .

Chairman: What is military strategy? Who studied English? “Ah te-mierh” is military strategy. It is good to know English. I studied foreign languages late in my life. I suffered. One has to learn foreign languages when one is young. T’an Hou-lan, what foreign language do you study? (The Chairman asked each one present the same question. Wang Ta-ping said he is studying Russian.) One cannot study geology without a foreign language. It is good to learn English. Foreign language study should be started in primary school.

Han A’i-ching: After the cultural revolution is over, Mr. Chairman, please send me to the army to be a soldier.

Chairman: It is enough to be a soldier for half a year. What is the use of being a soldier too long? Half a year is adequate. Serve as a farmer for a year, and then a worker for two years. That’s real college education. The real universities are the factories and rural areas. Comrade Lin Piao may be regarded as an intellectual because he has attended middle school. What kind of intellectuals are Huang Yung-sheng and Wen Yu-ch’eng? They are country folks. Comrade Huang Yung-sheng, how many years did you attend school?

Huang Yung-sheng: One year and a half. .

Chairman: What is the background of your family?

Huang Yung-sheng: Lower-middle peasant.

Chairman: Wen Yu-ch’eng, how many years did you go to school?

Wen Yu-ch’eng: Three years.

Chairman: What is the background of your family?

Wen Yu ch’eng Poor peasant.

Chairman: All are native folks with so little knowledge. With that little knowledge, Huang Yung-sheng can be the Chief of Staff. Can you believe it?

Lin Piao: There was an X X X from Whampoa Military Academy. Chiang Kai-shek gave him a watch as an award. Later, in Nanking, he could not give a good account of himself in fighting.

Yeh Ch’un: He was against the Chairman.

Chairman: What’s good about it if you are not opposed by anybody in this world? Let them oppose me.

Lin Piao: X X X scored 5 in many subjects at the Nanking Military Academy, but he could not fight.

Chairman: Struggle-criticize-disband is also a way out. This is the way T’an Hou-lan is going to take. Isn’t T’an Hou-lan thinking of quitting? I did not say that we should not run liberal arts colleges, but we have to change our methods. Those who study literature should be able to write novels, poems, and songs. Those who study philosophy should be able to write essays, and discuss the course of China’s revolutionary struggle. As to law, I think it is better not to study it at all. I heard that the T’ien (sky) faction is against Hsieh Fu-chih. This matter came to an end without any conclusion. The T’ien faction is no longer against anybody. “Smash the public prosecution law, smash Hsieh Fu-chih.” Actually, Hsieh Fu-chih was the first one who proposed the smashing of the public prosecution law. Out of 30,000 people, the Peking Public Security Bureau picked only several hundred or several tens of landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, and rightists. Thus, the smashing of the public prosecution law was proposed. As a consequence, out of 30,000 people, only several tens were retained, and the rest were sent to study classes. You also used the slogan that Hsieh Fu-chih belongs to the Central Committee, and therefore must be overthrown. Then you arrested people in hurried ways. The People’s Congress and the Three-Red General Headquarters kept quiet, but put up big character posters agitating for the overthrow of Hsieh Fu-chih in the name of a small combat unit. When we proceeded to investigate this matter, they said: “We of the General Headquarters did not say overthrow Hsieh Fu-chih; only a small combat unit did.” They want to overthrow Chao Kuei-lin. I don’t know Chao Kuei-lin, but I have read that little information you have about him. How counter-revolutionary is he? Nieh Yuan-tzu, you haven’t said that Hou Han-ching is a counter-revolutionary, have you?

Nieh Yuan-tzu: They organized a reactionary bloc, viciously attacking Chairman Mao and Vice Chairman Lin.

Chairman: It does not matter if people like us are being accused or despised by others. The Niu Hui-lin (one of the leaders of Peking University’s ‘Ching-kang-shan’) affair was not handled right. It was not a grave political problem.

Law does not have to be negated. The Academy of Political Science and Law, the Political and Judicial Commune, and the Political and Judicial Army Corps may not be happy when they hear this. Reduce the time for legal investigation; let the workers and peasants do the job.

At An-shan Steel Mill, there was a case which needed inquiry and investigation. The case was left with the masses. They were fast in gathering information. Cases which had been pending for years were quickly brought to a solution. Before the trials, the public security bureau had no other way but to beat people. The information they obtained was inaccurate.

Members of the Military Control Commission are nothing but soldiers. Wen Yu-ch’eng does not know many people. Would it work. . . if we depend on their detection and investigation? We should say that we must learn from the masses. First, don’t kill. Second, don’t sentence people to long terms. Two to three years are enough. In the past, there was solitary confinement in the army. Do you still have this kind of punishment? Do you still arrest deserters?

Wen Yu-ch’eng: Solitary confinement is abolished. Deserters are no longer arrested.

Chairman: People want to desert. What is the use of bringing them back? Struggle-criticize-quit. If they want to quit, let them go. Why do they want to quit? Simply because they don’t feel comfortable after they are targets of struggle and criticism, or they are beaten. Or they have to attend to family matters. Or they cannot endure army life. Compared with the past, the number of deserters has become smaller after we stopped arresting deserters and abolished solitary confinement. We are the People’s Liberation Army. Now in schools, the arrested are treated like prisoners of war, subjected to coercion and forced to make confessions. If one refuses to confess, he is beaten until he is injured or dead. I think the intellectuals are most un-civilized. I think the unsophisticated soldiers are most civilized. Huang Yung-sheng and Wen Yu-ch’eng don’t arrest deserters, nor do they punish people by solitary conferment. Now a new kind of punishment called “jet plane ride” is invented. I am the guilty one. In the “Report on An Investigation of The Peasant Movement in Honan,” I talked about “parading people on the street in dunce hats,” but I did not mention “jet plane ride.” I am the arch-criminal with inescapable responsibilities!

How about today? Do you think that you are being arrested here to be placed in solitary confinement? The method used by ‘Ching-Kang-shan’ is not good. I mean Commander K’uai’s ‘Ching-kang-shan’. Four people were killed and 50 at the General Knitwear Mill were wounded. Had it not been for the social effect, the loss was a minimum, very minimum.

Lin Piao: It was worth it; the loss was at a minimum.

Premier: Vice-Chairman Lin has put it very well. The loss was very minimum, and the achievement was maximum.

Chairman: In the future, if the workers go to your place, you should welcome them. Don’t use K’uai Ta-fu’s method.

Premier: In the second half of 1966, you went to the factories for liaison work, they welcomed you, and did not beat you up.

Chairman: Let them do their propaganda. Don’t open fire. They are workers sent by the Party Central Committee. Didn’t we say that the working class is the leading class? Didn’t we say ours is a dictatorship by the working class? They are to dictate over a few bad people in the schools. You are well known people. You can dictate bad people in schools, but you cannot dictate the workers. This includes Commander K’uai.

Now there are many inter-group meetings going on at Tsinghua University, Peking Aeronautical Institute, and Ho-ping-li. Numerous people are from other provinces, including such units as “April 22” of Kwangsi, “Oppose to the End” of Szechuan, “August 31” of Liaoning, the “Messy” faction of Chin-chou, the “Flag” faction of Kwangtung. . . Stop all these.

Lin Piao: They started all these meetings before we can convene the Ninth Party Congress.

Premier: We haven’t even convened the 12th plenum of the [8th] Central Committee.

Chairman: Don’t mention the 12th plenum. Everything is topsy-turvy. People are saying the “social struggle is a reflection of the struggle within the Party Central Committee.” It is not that social struggle is a reflection of the Party Central Committee. Rather, the struggle within the party Central Committee is a reflection of social struggle.

Premier: A national defence system meeting was held at Peking Aeronautical Institute. Is it true?

Han A’i ching: They did not dare call that meeting.

Premier: Don’t call that meeting. You know that; it is a national defence secret.

Chairman: Why didn’t I invite your opponents to come here? I invited you to come over today to talk about this matter so that you will be prepared. I have never made any tape recordings before, but I am doing it today. Otherwise, you will interpret what I said today in the way you wish after you go home. If you do so, I will play this tape back. You had better discuss this. Once I play this recording, many people will be put in a defensive position.

Despite the fact that so many days were spent and so many meetings held, despite a talk with Huang Tso-chen, and despite our effort to look for K’uai Ta-fu, you insist on asking the Central Committee to express its attitude. At the beginning, the Central Committee interfered a little. Later on, it was too busy to bother about this. In Peking, we have Hsieh Fu chih in charge. In the past when you were called in for meetings, I never attended, nor did Comrade Lin Piao. We are behaving like bureaucrats now! This time I am afraid that you will expel me from the party because of my bureaucratic behavior. Besides, I am also the black hand that suppressed the Red Guards.

Lin Piao: Yesterday, I drove around to take a look at some of the big character posters. I asked why there were no big character posters put out by Peking or Tsinghua Universities. People said that they were engaged in armed struggle. I would say that you are isolated from the masses who are clamouring for an end to your armed fighting.

Chairman: The masses just don’t like civil wars.

Lin Piao: You have isolated yourselves from the workers, peasants, and soldiers.

Chairman: Some people say that public notices issued in Kwangsi are applicable only in Kwangsi, and public notices issued in Shensi are applicable only in Shensi. Now, I am issuing a nation-wide notice. If anyone continues to oppose, fight the Liberation Army, destroy means of transportation, kill people, or set fires, he is committing crimes. Those few who turn a deaf ear to persuasion and persist in their behaviour are bandits, or Kuomintang elements, subject to capture. If they continue to resist, they will be annihilated.

Lin Piao: There are real rebel groups. Some of them are bandits and Kuomintang elements who are using our flag for rebellion. In Kwangsi, 1,000 houses have been burned down.

Chairman: Make it clear in the notice and explain clearly to the students that if they persist and do not change, they are subject to arrest. This is for light cases. In serious cases, they are subject to capture and elimination.

Lin Piao: In Kwangsi 1,000 houses were burned down, and nobody was allowed to put out the fire.

Chairman: Wasn’t the Kuomintang just like this? This is the kind of desperate struggle on the part of the class enemy before his death. Burning houses is a grave error.

Lin Piao: On my expedition in Kwangsi, I fought with Pai Ch’ung-hsi. He used this tactic. He set fire to houses and tried to make believe that it was the Communists who set fire to them. The same old tactic is being used again.

Han A’i-ching: K’uai Ta-fu is riding on the back of a tiger from which he cannot get down.

Kang Sheng: It is not the kind of situation as you say.

Chairman: If he cannot get off the back of the tiger, then let me kill the tiger.

Premier: The fellows from Kwangsi are in your Peking Aeronautical Institute. How did you call members of the national defense and scientific committee to attend the meeting?

Chairman: You hide the “April 22” of Kwangsi. The students from Kwangsi are living at the Peking Aeronautical Institute.

Kang Sheng: They wish to control the movement all over the country.

Han A’i-ching: We did not call that meeting. You may investigate. It was called by Wu Chuan-pin of Kwangtung. I was sick at that time, and lived in the School of Physical Education before I was admitted to a hospital. A telephone call came from the school, asking me to greet two standing members of the provincial revolutionary committee. Others are saying “Up there is heaven; down there is the Peking Aeronautical institute.” I did not enthusiastically receive the leaders of the ‘May 4 Students’ Congress’, and those of the rebel factions from other provinces. We were criticized for conceit and self-complacency. They also said that we are rich peasants, not revolutionaries any more. Then I started giving them better reception. When we saw them off, they wanted to call a meeting to discuss the national situation. I told them that if they call such a meeting in Peking, it would be an illegal meeting. In Peking, there is a sky faction and an earth faction. The situation is very complicated. I agreed to have a chat with a few leaders of rebel factions and the responsible persons of revolutionary committees without going into any specific measures. K’uai and I went to those talks. Then, I was admitted to the hospital. Everybody felt that things went wrong as soon as the meeting was started. The representatives from the geology college stopped attending the meeting after they attended the preparatory meeting. K’uai Ta-fu ran away from the meeting after listening for a few minutes. The representatives of ‘Ching-kang-shan’ were also scared, and ran away. Information from my schoolmates came to me one after another. Before we could rush in our reports, heaven knows, we were criticized.

Kang Sheng, Wen-yuan: . . . .

Chairman: You talk too much about Han A’i ching. She is only 23 years old.

Chiang Ch’ing: At the beginning of the movement, both Peking University and Peking Aeronautical Institute entertained visitors from other places, and did a lot of work together. In fact, we did ask you to do so. Now the situation has changed. It must be recognized that we should not do this any more because what they are opposing are their respective provincial revolutionary committees and the People’s Liberation Army. T’an Hou-lan, who saved the day for you in the “September 7” affair?

T’an Hou-lan: Chairman Mao, the Central Committee, and the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group.

Fu-chih: It was Comrade Chiang Ch’ing.

Chiang Ch’ing: I don’t particularly like the army corps of Normal University. But, the weather is so hot, you cut off their water, electricity, and food supply. They were not allowed to see daylight for three months during the summer. How could you have done this? As I heard this, I could not help crying. There were hundreds or tens of them. After all, they are the masses. . . Han A’i-ching was wrong at the very beginning. She wanted to topple others.

Han A’i-ching: I was wrong.

Chairman: It sounds a little bit like anarchism. In this world, anarchism is relative to government. As long as there is government, anarchism cannot be eliminated. This is what we used to say: the punishment of right opportunism is punishment of right opportunism of the Central Committee.

Chiang Ch’ing: I have no friendly feelings toward your opposition. It is said that the army corps is against us. I am not talking on their behalf, but you might as well release them! Proletarians should observe proletarian humanitarianism. These several tens of counter-revolutionaries are, after all, youths. They want to strangle me to death. I am not afraid of being fried in oil. I heard that ‘Ching-kang-shan’ of Peking University wants to fry Chiang Ch’ing.

Wen-yuan: Frying is but a way of speech.

Chairman: There is hope. Strangle K’uai Ta-fu to death, so they say.

Fu chih: Niu Hui-lin is bad.

Chiang Ch’ing: Niu Hui-lin may have some problems, but he can be educated. Nieh Yuan-tzu, do I still have some right to speak? I privately feel sorry for you. You are engaged in a struggle in which the masses are pitched against the masses, and the bad people are hiding. Did I say that “April 14” believed that they are definitely going to win? “April 14” is specially against the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group. They are also against the Premier and Kang Sheng. Nevertheless, it is a mass organization!

You know where I live. If you want to strangle me, go ahead. If you want to fry me, go ahead. We went through trials and tribulations together. If you cannot tolerate others, how can you rule the country, and make peace in the world. I think you are not studying the Chairman’s writings, and not learning the Chairman’s working style.

The Chairman always wants to unite with those who oppose him.

Chairman: Don’t mention that any more. “Kill the cow, slaughter the monkey, and stew the mutton.” Why do we kill the cow? Can we keep it to help cultivate the field? All you cited are nothing but their attacks on Chiang Ch’ing and Lin Piao. All these can be stricken out in one stroke. They only talked about these things among themselves privately. They did not put up big character posters.

Chiang Ch’ing: I am not afraid even if they do put up big character posters.

Chairman: Who opposed Comrade Lin Piao the year before?

Premier, Yeh Chun: Maybe I-lin and Ti-hsi

Chairman: In addition, the leader of “June 16” Liu Kung-k’ai was against the Premier, but the Premier always protected him. People said the Premier was magnanimous. I agree with the Premier. These people should not have been arrested in the first place. Too many were arrested, because I nodded my head.

Fu-chih: This has nothing to do with the Chairman. It was I who did the arresting.

Chairman: Don’t try to free me from my mistakes, or to cover up for me. I ordered the arrest; I also agreed to their release.

Fu-chih: You did not ask me to arrest so many.

Chairman: Some of those released kill their time by riding a bicycle around Pa-pao-shan and T’ien-an-men. After a couple of months, life becomes dull. Others behaved like rascals. Their purpose is nothing but to make a little money and to play with a woman. Is P’eng Hsiao-meng that reactionary?

Premier, Wen-yuan: Bad. His parents are very bad. They are associated with Wu Hsiu-ch’uan.

Chiang Ch’ing: “April 14” is especially against the Party Central Committee and the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group, but it is a mass organization.

Chairman: You cannot get rid of several thousands of them. You cannot get rid of a thousand members of Peking University’s ‘Ching-kang-shan’. Bad people will get rid of themselves. Don’t mention “killing the cow, slaughtering the monkey, and stewing the mutton” any more. The cow can be used to cultivate the field. Why should we kill the monkey?

Chiang Ch’ing: We have political responsibilities toward you. To help you politically is not enough. You have to do it yourself  —  arrest the black hand and foster unity.

Nieh Yuan-tzu: More than 1,000 just left ‘Ching-kang-shan’. They are holding study classes.

Chairman: Those who leave ‘Ching-kang-shan’ are not reliable. Most of them are on one side physically, and on the other side in their minds. Physically they are with the Old Buddha, but their mind is with ‘Ching-kang-shan’. Don’t interfere with Niu Hui-lin. Let him go to ‘Ching-kang-shan’. Give him freedom. Don’t compel or insult others. Especially don’t beat people up.

Don t coerce or press for confessions. In the past we made many mistakes. You commit this mistake for the first time. We cannot blame you.

Chiang Ch’ing: How is Fan Li-ch’in?

Nieh Yuan-tzu: We did not do anything to him. He is with the counter-revolutionary group of P’eng Yen.

Chairman: Has Niu Hui-lin put him under arrest?

Nieh Yuan-tzu: He is under surveillance by his own people. Some agree to his arrest; others don’t.

Chairman: Is Hou Han-ching a student or a teacher?

Nieh Yuan-tzu: A graduate student. His father was a speculator in 1963.

Chiang Ch’ing: They are not the worst. They are made up of several organizations. There are bad people protected by secret agents. They are also engaged in what is known as single-line liaison.

Chairman: This working style is bad.

Today we have two from the Heaven faction and two from the Earth faction. The Earth faction supports “April 14” of Tsinghua and ‘Ching-kang-shan’ of Peking University. The Heaven faction supports Commander K’uai. I am not quite clear about this Heaven and Earth faction business. There are so many schools. . . In short, we have experience with the five generals. They are Nieh Yuan tzu, T’an Hou-lan (woman), K’uai Ta-fu, Han A’i-ching, and Wang Ta-pin. There are leaders from other schools, but there are only five who are famous. You have done a lot of work. No matter how many defects and mistakes are there in your work, we are going to protect you. You are also confronted with a lot of difficulties in your work. I have not experienced cultural revolution before, nor have you. The majority of schools did not engage in fighting. Only a small number of them did. They affected the workers, soldiers, and internal unity. Why are there so many non-committed people, and so few [for] cannon fodder? Have you ever thought about this?

Fu-chih: The Chairman loves you because you are small generals of the Red Guards. Vice Chairman Lin, the Premier, the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group, and especially Comrade Chiang Ch’ing are concerned about you. I have to take the major responsibility in this matter, because I did not give you enough help. I can go over this with you.

Chairman: All the institutions of higher learning in the capital are holding study classes, and no report has been made to the Central Committee. This has caused dissatisfaction to Nieh Yuan-tzu and others. You also run study classes, but you don’t permit inter-group activities. So they held a big meeting for inter-group activities. To forbid inter-group activities is wrong. You are also wrong in threatening to overthrow Hsieh Fu-chih.

Fu chih: That helped me greatly.

Chairman: There is a habit in Peking. Today we overthrow this; tomorrow we overthrow that.

Lin Piao: A big storm blows all “overthrows” away.

Chairman: Children are collecting big character posters as waste paper for sale. How many cents a catty?

Fu chih: Seven cents. The children are making a fortune.

Chairman: In don’t believe that. Chinese are good in one thing. When they have an opinion, they talk. It is all right to say that inter-group activities are not allowed, but absolute banning is not good. The opposition is conducting inter-factional activities. “Smash-the-Three Olds” faction is conducting inter-factional activities. The “Anti-Smash-the-Three Olds” faction is also conducting inter-factional activities. What’s wrong with a little inter-factional activity? Why can’t the Heaven faction and the Earth Faction have a little inter-factional activities. I say that inter-factional activities are permissible, because they are being done. If you don’t permit good people to have inter-factional activities, bad people will do it. Most of the people are good people. More than 90 percent of the people are good. Bad people are extremely few.

Chiang Ch’ing: It would be a good thing to unify our viewpoints through inter-factional activities, and pluck the bad people out.

(Huang Tso-chen reported that K’uai Ta-fu was coming. K’uai cried out as soon as he entered. The Chairman stood up and went forward to shake hands with K’uai. Comrade Chiang Ch’ing laughed. K’uai presented his case as he cried. He said that Tsinghua was in danger. The workers under the control of black hand were entering Tsinghua to suppress the students. He said it was a great conspiracy.)

Chairman: Is your name Huang Tso-chen? Where are you from?

Tso-chen: X X, Kiangsi.

Chairman: Oh, cousin! I heard of you a long time ago. Comrade Huang Tso-chen’s words were not taken seriously. Comrade Hsieh Fu-chih’s words were not taken seriously. The Municipal Revolutionary Committee meeting was not taken seriously. I don’t know whether the meeting of the Central Committee Cultural Revolution Group will be taken seriously. I have become the black hand. Take me to the garrison headquarters.

Wen-yuan: Extend the red hand. Propagandise Mao Tse-tung’s thought. We follow you closely.

Chairman: Four methods. What are the four methods?

Wen-yuan: Military control; one divides into two; struggle-criticize-quit; fighting on a big scale, if necessary.

Chairman: The first is military control; the second is one divides into two; and the third is struggle-criticize-quit. In the first place, you don’t struggle. In the second place, you don’t criticize. In the third place, you don’t transform. How many months have you fought?

Premier: Since last year.

Chairman: The fourth method is to fight on a big scale. Get 10,000 people involved in the fighting. Withdraw the workers. Give the rifles back to you for a big fight, just like what was done in Szechwan.

Chiang Ch’ing: Disgrace to the family.

Chairman: I’m not afraid of fighting. I’m glad as soon as I hear about fighting. What kind of fighting is it in Peking? A few cold weapons, and a few rifle shots. In Szechwan, the fighting is real war. Each side has tens of thousands of men. They have rifles and cannons. I heard that they had radios, too.

Chiang Ch’ing . . . .

Chairman: In the future, wide publicity should be given to public notices as soon as they are issued. If anyone disobeys them, he should be arrested or eliminated, because it is counter-revolutionary!

Chiang Ch’ing: Kwangsi has been under seige for almost two months.

Premier: You people did not think as to why the Kwangsi notice is Chairman Mao’s great strategic plan. In regard to concern about affairs of the state, you five did not even issue a joint announcement to express your attitude, or do a little follow-up work.

Chairman: They are busy!

Premier: These are affairs of the State!

Chairman: Don’t divide yourselves into factions any more.

Chiang Ch’ing: I hope you will be united. Don’t divide yourselves into Heaven faction, Earth faction, Chang faction, and Li faction. You belong to the Mao Tse-tung thought faction!

Chairman: Don’t create two factions. One faction is enough, why two? There are difficulties in achieving this.

X X: No headway has been made in education reform.

Chairman: Education revolution cannot make any headway. Even we cannot make any headway, not to mention you. You are hurt by the old system. Why can’t we make any headway?. . . Our Comrade Ch’en Po-ta was anxious at the Central Committee meeting. I said don’t be so anxious. A few years later, they will be gone, and that will be the end. As I see it, the education revolution consists of only a few things. Why should we engage in education reform? If we fail, that’s the end of it. This is what the students say. Where else can I get information except from the non-committed students! Marx was engaged in the study of philosophy. . . Why can’t the first volume of his book, Das Kapital be published? To build a party is not an easy thing. The first international was divided into at least three factions Marxism, Proudhon-ism, Blanqui-ism, Lasaille-ism. . . Blanqui’s so-called report is nothing but anarchism. The first international was divided in four or five ways. We are not being fair in what we are doing now. To fight a little civil war is not a serious matter. Therefore, one of the four methods is to fight in a big way.

Wen-yuan: I am inclined to accept the struggle-criticize-disband, or the struggle-criticize-quit formula practiced in some schools.

Chairman: When the earth makes one revolution, it is one year. When it turns 10 times, it is 10 years. With the two factions going on like this, I think they have to quit. If they want to fight let them fight on a big scale. They should give their place in the school to novel writers for self-study. Those who study literature should write poems and drama. Those who study philosophy should write history, family history, and the process of revolution. Those who study political science and economics should not emulate the professors of Peking University. Are there any famous professors at Peking University? These subjects do not need teachers. Teaching is harmful. Organize a small group for self-study, a self-study university. The students may stay half a year, one year, two years, or three years. No examination is required. Examination is not a good method. Suppose ten questions are asked about a book, which contains 100 viewpoints. The ten questions cover only one-tenth of the book. Even if you answer all the ten questions correctly in the examination, what about the other 90 percent?

Who examined Marx? Who examined Engels? Who examined Lenin? Who examined Comrade Lin Piao? Who examined Comrade Huang Tso-chen? The needs of the masses and Chiang Kai-shek are our teachers. This was the case for all of us. Teachers are needed in middle schools, but everything should be made simple.

Wen-yuan: Establish a few good libraries.

Chairman: Give workers, peasants and soldiers time to use them. To study in a library is a good method. I studied at a library in Hunan for half a year, and in the library of Peking University for half a year. I chose my own books. Who taught me? I took only one course  —  journalism. I can be regarded as a member of the journalism class. As to that Philosophy Research Association, the sponsors were insincere. Hu Shih signed. There were also T’an P’ing-shan and Ch’en Kung-po.

The Peking University was run in such as inflexible fashion. It should have operated with more freedom.

Chiang Ch’ing: Now the universities are engaged in armed struggle.

Chairman: There are two advantages of armed struggle. First, one obtains combat experience from fighting. Second, bad people are exposed. We must make an overall analysis of armed struggle. Social phenomena do not change according to man’s will. Now that the workers are there to intervene, if they do not succeed, withdraw the workers. Let the students fight for another 10 years. The earth will be revolving as usual, and the heaven is not going to fall.

Chiang Ch’ing: We really love you. It is nonsense to say that we don’t need college students. We do want you. Some of you sometimes listen to us. Some of you act in one way in our presence, and in another way behind our back. We don’t know what you are holding back.

Chairman: If you don’t listen to us, I have a way out. Let the workers extend the “black hand”; use the workers to intervene; use the proletariat to intervene.

(Nieh Yuan-tzu requested that the Liberation Army be sent to Peking University.)

Chairman: You want your appetite satisfied. You insist on the 63rd Army, not any other unit. How about the 38th Army? If the 38th Army really supports ‘Ching-kang-shan’, I will send the 63rd Army. You should work with the 38th Army.

Chiang Ch’ing: Nieh Yuan-tzu, you should work on the 38th Army. You should give it a welcome.

Chairman: Send half of the troops from the 38th Army, and the other half from the 63rd Army. The 38th Army is not as bad as you think. Their base lies with Yang Ch’eng-wu and the Peking Military Region. The Peking Military Region held two meetings. The first one was not very good, the second was better. Cheng Wei-shan was put under investigation.

T’an Hou-lan, actually your gun was always pointed at Nieh Yuan-tzu. When you, T’an Hou-lan, a woman general, fired a shot, Cheng Wei-shan became very nervous. At the time, Cheng Wei-shan was not in Peking. He went to Pao-ting and Shansi to solve his problems. We didn’t see him, did we? Nobody knows whether this divisional commander is good or bad. He scared all the generals. Did he give you (pointing to T’an) any trouble?

T’an Hou-lan: No, the students don’t agree with him.

Chairman: There must be historical reasons. These things don’t happen accidentally. They don’t come suddenly.

Po-ta: Follow the Chairman’s teaching closely; resolutely carry it out.

Chairman: Don’t talk about teachings.

Wen-yuan: The Chairman’s words today have profound meaning.

Po-ta: The first half of 1966 was relatively good. All the colleges and universities agitated and ignited the flame of revolution. It was right to touch off the storm of revolution. Now, they have gone beyond their heads, thinking that they are great. They want to put the entire country under their control. The hands of K’uai Ta-fu and Han A’i-ching reach everywhere, but they are ignorant.

Chairman: They are only 20-odd years old. Don’t take the young people lightly. Chou Yu started as a cavalryman. He was only 16 when he became the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Wu. Please don’t think that you are old timers.

Chiang Ch’ing: We took part in the revolution when we were teenagers.

Chairman: Don’t feel elated; elation all over the body is just like a disease.

Po-ta: Han A’i-ching, you have not given much thought to Chairman Mao’s thinking and the opinion of the Central Committee. You call secret meetings on the basis of information obtained surreptitiously. You put your personal interests first. You are following a dangerous path.

Chairman: First of all, I have been bureaucratic. I have never met you. Had they not wanted to grab the black hand, I would not have asked you to come here. Let K’uai Ta-fu wake up.

Po-ta: K’uai Ta-fu, you should wake up. Stop the horse at the edge of the precipitous cliff. You are on a dangerous course.

Lin Piao: The horse at the edge of the precipitous cliff. Admit your mistakes!

Chairman: Don’t use the words “admit mistakes.”

Po-ta: K’uai Ta-fu does not respect the worker masses. If he still refuses to listen to us, it will mean his disrespect to the Central Committee, his disrespect to Chairman Mao. That road is dangerous.

Chairman: It is pretty dangerous. Now it is time for the younger leaders to make their mistakes.

Premier: The Chairman said long time ago: now it is the younger leader’s turn to make their mistakes.

Lin Piao: K’uai Ta-fu, our attitude toward you was taken after consultation with the Garrison Headquarters and the Municipal Revolutionary Committee. You said that you don’t understand the attitude of the Central Committee. To-day, Chairman Mao shows his personal concern about you, and has made the most important, the most correct, the clearest, and the most timely teaching. If you turn a deaf ear to this again, you will be committing a grave mistake. You Red Guards have played an important role during the Great Cultural Revolution. Now, a great revolutionary unity has been achieved in many schools throughout the nation. As far as great unity is concerned, some of the schools are still lagging behind. You should catch up. You have failed to see what is needed at different stages of the movement.

Chairman: T’an Hou-lan’s opposition has only 200 people. A year later, they are still not suppressed. The opposition force in other schools is much larger in size, how can they be conquered?

Ts’ao Ts’ao tried to use force to conquer Sun Ch’uan, and was defeated. Liu Pei used force to conquer Sun Ch’uan; he lost Chieh-t’ing and was defeated. Ssu-ma I failed to conquer Chuko Liang by force. The first battle lasted a long while, but Chang Ho had only one horse left at the end. . .

Yeh Chun: That’s the loss of Chieh-t’ing

Lin Piao: To fight the capitalist roaders is a good thing. It is also necessary to struggle with the freaks and monsters in literary circles. Now there are people who are not doing this. Instead, they are engaged in pitting one group of students against another group of students, and one group of masses against another group of masses. Most of them are children of workers and peasants, being utilized by bad people. Some of them are counter-revolutionaries. Others have just begun to be revolutionary. Gradually, their revolutionary spirit diminished and went in the other direction. Still others subjectively want revolution, but their objective action is just the opposite. There is a small group of people who are both subjectively and objectively counter-revolutionary. You are isolated from the masses.

Chairman. The workers and peasants constitute more than 90 percent of the population of the country. More than 90 percent of the schools are good; very few of them are engaged in civil strife. There are only six of them in Peking.

Fu-chih: Tsinghua has 20,000 students. Less than 5,000 are engaged in armed struggle.

Lin Piao: Those who do not take part in the fighting disapprove of the fighting.

Chairman: They are riding on the back of a tiger, there is no way of coming down although they wish to; K’uai Ta-fu can come down and become a government official or a plain citizen. K’uai Ta-fu should welcome the workers.

Fu-chih: The workers are not armed with an ounce of iron. They carry only three weapons: (1) quotations from Chairman Mao’s works; (2) Chairman Mao’s latest instructions; and (3) the “July 3” notice.

K’ang Sheng: The rifles in Tsinghua were provided by the Peking Aeronautical Institute. Two car-loads of rifles were given to Tsinghua. K’uai Ta-fu is the commander and Han A’i-ching is the political commissar.

Han A’i-ching: There isn’t such a thing! There isn’t such a thing at all! People from the Garrison Command came over to our place to check the rifles several times. Not a single rifle was missing.

Fu-chih: You are correct; you are all right again. I criticized you several times, and you objected. You don’t have the self-criticism spirit at all.

Po-ta: Should we take back the rifles?

Han A’i-ching: Chairman, I have a request to make. Please assign a unit of the Liberation Army to supervise me. Many reports are at variance with facts. I love K’uai Ta-fu very much. I am also aware of the fact that as long as I am with him, I will be involved in many things. But I feel that I must do my best to protect him lest he collapses. His fate is linked with that of the Red Guards throughout the country. Assign a Liberation Army unit to me, and everything will be clarified.

Po-ta: No self-criticism spirit.

Chiang Ch’ing: I made a mistake. I spoiled you. Hsieh Fu-chih, you spoiled her more than I did. She is spoiled. Now that there is a little trouble; Chairman Mao’s method is the best.

Chairman: Don’t criticize all the time. Yang Ch’eng-wu is creating many centres. The National Defence Scientific Committee is engaged in the theory of many centres. Throughout the country, there are thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands of centres. If everybody considers himself No. 1 in the country, will there still be any centre?

Chiang Ch’ing: Han A’i ching, I criticized you several times. You have never expressed yourself

Chairman: Don’t criticize her. You always blame others; never blame yourself.

Chiang Ch’ing: I was saying that she lacks so much in self-criticism spirit.

Chairman: Young people cannot stand criticism. Her character is somewhat like mine when I was young. Kids are strong in subjectivism, very strong. They only criticize others.

Chiang Ch’ing: K’uai Ta-fu is smiling now. Relax a little, don’t be so tense.

(K’uai reported that Ch’en Yu-yen, a girl student at ‘Ching-kangshan’ Headquarters, was arrested by the workers.)

Has Ch’en Yu-yen been released? She is a girl, and should be protected.

K’uai Ta-fu: Ch’en Yu-yen is sleeping at Peking Aeronautical Institute.

Chairman: If you want to arrest the “black hand,” the “black hand” is me. What can you do to me? We are sympathetic with your side. I cannot accept “April 14’s” idea of certain victory, but we must woo their masses and some of their leaders. Chou Chia-yin’s main viewpoint is that those who conquered the country cannot rule it. He said that K’uai Ta-fu must turn over his authority to “April 14.”

We asked the workers to do some propaganda work, you refused, knowing clearly what kind of propaganda they were to do. Huang Tso-chen and Hsieh Fu-chih explained this matter, but they failed to persuade you. The workers were unarmed. You killed or wounded five of them. Just like Peking University, we are sympathetic with Nieh Yuan-tzu, sympathetic with you five leaders. Didn’t you know why tens of thousands of workers went to Tsinghua University? How dare they go without the order of the Central Committee? You are very passive. Contrary to our expectations, “April 14” welcomed the workers, while ‘Ching-kang-shan’ did not. You are mixed up. Nobody was invited here today from “April 14” or ‘Ching-kang-shan’ of Peking University because the thinking of “April 14” is not right. Although flying the red flag, ‘Ching-kang-shan’ has more bad people. The Nieh Yuan-tzu faction has more good people.

Nieh Yuan-tzu: Wang, Kuan, and Ch’i had a hand in it.

Chairman: You are opposed to Wang, Kuan, and Ch’i. You had inter-faction contacts, which I cannot forbid. Han A’i-ching, K’uai Ta-fu, are you good friends? You two should continue to be good friends. Han A’i-ching, you should continue to help him by making better policies.

Now, “April 14” is very happy, thinking that ‘Ching-kang-shan’ is going to collapse. I don’t believe that. I think ‘Ching-kang-shan’ will continue to be ‘Ching-kang-shan’. I don’t mean you Old Buddha’s ‘Ching-kang-shan’.

Wen-yuan, Fu-chih: The real Ching-kang-shan, the base of revolution!

Chiang Ch’ing: Don’t put me in a position where I cannot do anything to help you although it is my wish.

Chairman: Many of those who beat up the workers are not your men. I heard that they came from other places.

Premier: Do you still have out-of-town students in your place?

K’uai Ta-fu: Yes.

Chairman: All of you haven’t slept yet. K’uai Ta-fu, if you don’t have a place to sleep tonight, go to Han A’i-ching’s place to sleep. Han A’i-ching should take good care of him. Han A’i-ching, you should take good care of him. When you people get together, go to Han A’i-ching’s place to take a little rest, and then hold a meeting.

Premier: Han A’i-ching, you can come up with some good idea to help him.

Chairman: K’uai Ta-fu, is your action against the Central Committee? You ignored Huang Tso-chen’s words, and ignored Hsieh Fu-chih’s words. Even a meeting at the Municipal Revolutionary Committee did not stop you. I cannot but extend my “black hand.” I mobilized the workers to stop your fighting. The fighting went on for so many days. As the workers marched in with drums and gongs, you still did not pay any attention. You are isolated from the masses, the workers, the peasants, the soldiers, the majority of the students, and your own people. Many people are saying uncomplimentary words about you. We did not tell Tsinghua University to keep quiet directly, but we did tell them indirectly.

Wu Te: I had a talk with K’uai Ta-fu yesterday. He did not listen to me.

Chairman: “April 14” welcomed the workers. You (Ching-kang-shan) people are very stupid, very passive. I am very unhappy with that “April 14.”

Chiang Ch’ing: “April 14” cursed me.

Chairman: The workers carried an effigy in their demonstration, and cut the power supply cables. At this moment, “April 14” was not told anything about this demonstration, why did they welcome them? You are very foolish this time, giving “April 14” a chance to welcome the workers.

Chiang Ch’ing: Even the masses of “April 14” are saying that K’uai Ta-fu is left oriented, and Shen Ju-huai [an “April 14” leader] is right oriented. Tsinghua is engaged in a grand unity movement, but it won’t work without K’uai Ta-fu.

Chairman: K’uai Ta-fu, can you be the chancellor of Tsinghua University? Let the university be run by two from ‘Ching-kang-shan’ and one from “April 14.” Let Shen Ju-huai be the vice chancellor.

K’uai Ta-fu: No, I can’t, I am unable to

Chairman: Unity is needed. We need K’uai Ta-fu. Without K’uai Ta-fu, unity cannot be achieved. K’uai Ta-fu is left inclined. Two from ‘Ching-kang-shan’. “April 14” is right oriented.

Chiang Ch’ing: Now, starting with you five, stop the fighting first.

Chairman: First, military control. Second, divide into two, with “April 14” taking a half and you, K’uai Ta-fu, taking the other half. Third, struggle-criticize-quit. These are the proposals, but they are unwilling to follow.

In the first place, you don’t struggle. In the second place, you don’t criticise. In the third place, you don’t transform. You concentrate your effort on civil war. Of course, civil war will take months. The fourth way is to withdraw the workers, return all the rifles to you for a big fight. Should we run liberal arts college? We still have to run liberal arts colleges. As to how, we have to make a study and find a method. The old method encouraged revisionism.

T’an Hou-lan: Is the Normal University going to be continued?

Chairman: If we suspend it, who is going to teach senior middle school? Who is going to teach special secondary schools? How can we go without a foreign language school? It doesn’t work if only one wind prevails. But heaven is not going to fall if only one wind prevails for a few years. During World War I which lasted a number of years, not only universities were suspended, but high schools and primary schools were also suspended. Everything was chaotic.

Chiang Ch’ing: Reform is a hard task; you people cannot sit still on your rear ends.

Chairman: Knowledge is not gained in schools. Hasn’t Comrade Lin Piao just said that! Where did his knowledge come from? From Whampoa Military Academy? Comrade Huang Yung-sheng went to school for one year and a half. Wen Yu-ch’eng is lucky; he went to school for three years. Wen Yu-ch’eng, you are from Ch’ang-kang; you know a few characters. Society is the biggest university. How can it work if you sit in a narrow grove? Society is the biggest university. Lenin studied in a university for a year and a half. Engels did not finish high school. Both of them were better off than Gorky, who went to primary school for only two years. I, too, haven’t attended a university. . . [text illegible] . . . The inventor of the steam engine was a worker, not a college teacher. . . [text illegible] . . . Look at some of our children who spend more than ten years studying. They are physically ruined, and become unable to sleep. A child may study history, but he doesn’t understand class struggle.

Chiang Ch’ing: They study dozens of thick books. The works of Marx, Engels, and Chairman Mao become reference material, or supplementary material. Only the books chosen by their teachers are formal teaching materials.

Chairman: Six years is too long for primary school education; six years is too long for middle school education. Too much time is wasted. Do away with examinations! What are examinations for? It would be good if no examinations were necessary for any course. All examinations should be abolished, absolutely abolished. Who examined Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin? Who examined Comrade Lin Piao? Who examined me? Comrade Hsieh Fu-chih, call all the students back to school. If some of them don’t want to go back because they are angry, don’t force them. It is not right that members of “April 14” are staying in school, while members of ‘Ching-kang-shan’ are not. Tell all members of ‘Ching-kang-shan’ to come to the People’s Assembly Hall. Differentiation should be made in treating the leaders of “April 14.”

Han A’i ching: Chairman, I have a question. If 10 or 100 years from now, civil war should break out in China, and if one faction claims that they represent Mao Tse-tung’s thought and another faction also claims that they represent Mao Tse-tung’s thought, resulting in a situation where each faction occupies a piece of territory and the entire country is engulfed in war, what would we do?

Chairman: There is nothing starling about it. The war against the Ch’ing Dynasty lasted more than 20 years. We fought Chiang Kai-shek for over 10 years. Within the Chinese Communist Party, we had Ch’en Tu-hsiu, Li Li-san, Wang Ming, Po Ku, Chang Kuo-t’ao, Kao Kang, Liu Shao-ch’i, and many more. These experiences are more valuable than our knowledge about Marxism.

Lin Piao: We have Mao Tse-tung’s thought.

Chairman: We are better off to have this Great Cultural Revolution than to have none. Of course, we cannot guarantee. [illegible]. . . . I don’t understand your sister Nieh Yuan-su. Why must your elder brother and elder sister align with their younger sister?

Premier: My younger brother Chou Yung likes to be associated with Wang, Kuan, Ch’i. I have grabbed him and sent him to the garrison headquarters.

Chairman: My father was bad. If he were alive today, he should be given a “jet plane ride” [a form of punishment].

Lin Piao: Lu Hsun’s younger brother was a big traitor.

Chairman: I, myself, am not smart, either. I believed in everything I studied. Thereafter, I studied for another seven years, including half a year spent in studying capitalism. I was totally ignorant about Marxism. Knowing only Napoleon and Washington, I was not even aware of the existence of Marx in this world. It is much better to study in the library than attending classes. A piece of cake is enough to take care of a day’s meal. The old library attendant became very well acquainted with me.

Po-ta: Han A’i-ching mentioned this problem before. With Comrade Lin Piao as Chairman Mao’s successor and with Mao Tse-tung’s thought, I am not afraid of the emergence of revisionism.

Chairman: Nobody can guarantee that there will be no more cultural revolutions after this one. There will still be complications. Don’t talk about new stages. There are so many new stages. I mentioned the Shanghai Machine Tool Plant affair. What new stage is that? One cultural revolution may not be enough

Wen-yuan: The Chairman has already talked about this problem.

Premier: Comrade Lin Piao has studied the Chairman’s writings well. Vice Chairman Lin has also mastered Soviet affairs and the works of Marx and Lenin.

Chairman: Did the party go out of existence because of the emergence of Ch’en Tu-hsiu? Despite Li Li-san, the Wang Ming line, and Li Li-san’s repeated errors, the party still survived, the revolution still went on, and the armed units still marched on. . . [text illegible]

Chiang Ch’ing: Han A’i-ching wrote to me several times, discussing this problem. Why did Han A’i-ching keep bringing this problem up? In the first place, she is isolated from the workers and the peasants. In the second place, she is isolated from reality. As soon as I see her, she thinks about the future. She always talks about things that might happen decades from now. She even asked me when World War III will break out.

Chairman: It is good to think far ahead. She is good! She is good! We may die in many ways. First, we may be killed by bombs. Second, we may die of diseases or germs. Third, we may be killed in a train or plane accident. Fourth, I love to swim; I may be drowned. Lastly, we may die a natural death, death caused by germs.

I heard that Liu Shao-ch’i has recovered from a serious disease. Po I-po almost died. He had kidney infection, heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes. Four or five doctors and two nurses saved him. Have you heard that?

Wen-yuan: Historical development is always progressive and has ups and downs, but the future is bright. We believe in Mao Tse-tung’s thought; we believe in the masses. I think Han A’i-ching is a pessimist.

Han A’i-ching: Victory is not won in one shot. There will always be ups and downs according to dialectics. . . [Remaining text illegible].

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Address at the Opening Session of the Ninth National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Address At The Opening Session
Of The Ninth National Congress Of
The Chinese Communist Party

April 1, 1969

[SOURCE: Mao Chu-hsi wen-hsun.]

I hope that this will be a good congress, a congress of unity, a congress of victory (enthusiastic applause and cheers).

Since the foundation of our Party in 1921, forty-eight years have already passed by. At the First Congress there were only twelve delegates. Two of them are here. One is Old Tung [Pi-wu] and one is me (enthusiastic applause). Quite a few have sacrificed their lives: the Shantung delegates Wang Chin-mei and Teng En-ming, the Hupei delegate Ch’en T’an-ch’iu, the Hunan delegate Ho Shu-heng, the Shanghai delegate Li Han-chun  —  all these laid down their lives, while four others rebelled and became traitors: Ch’en Kung-po, Chou Fo-hai[1], Chang Kuo-t’ao[2] and Liu Jen-ch’ing.[3] The latter two are still alive. There was another delegate called Li Ta[4] who died two years ago. At that time there were only a few dozen party members in the whole country and the majority of these were intellectuals. Later the Party developed. The number of delegates attending the First, Second, Third and Fourth Congresses was very small, from ten to twenty or from twenty to thirty. The Fifth Congress was held in Wuhan. The number of delegates was somewhat larger, several hundred. The Sixth Congress was held in Moscow. There were several dozen delegates, Comrade En-lai and Comrade [Liu] Po-ch’eng participated. The Seventh Congress was held in Yenan. It was a congress of unity, for there were divisions in the Party then too, caused by the mistakes of Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai, Li Li-san and Wang Ming  —  especially the Wang Ming Line. There were those who were against the election to the Central Committee of comrades who followed the Wang Ming Line. We did not agree and persuaded people to elect their delegates. The result? The result was that there were only a few who were no good. Wang Ming fled abroad to oppose us. Li! Li-san was also no good. Chang Wen-t’ien and Wang Chia-hsiang committed mistakes. There were only these few. As for the rest of them, such as Liu Shao-ch’i, P’eng Chen and Po I-po, we did not know that they were bad. We were not clear about their political history.

From the Eighth Congress up to now we have become more clear about them. We are clearer about their political line, their organizational line, and their ideology. Therefore we hope that this Congress will become a congress of unity (enthusiastic applause and cheers). Can we win victory on the basis of this unity? Can this Congress become a congress of victory? After the Congress, can we win still greater victories throughout the country? I think we can. I think this will be a congress of unity and a congress of victory (enthusiastic applause). After the Congress we can win still greater victories throughout the country. (Prolonged enthusiastic applause and shouts of ‘Long live Chairman Mao! A long, long life to Chairman Mao! May Chairman Mao live for ever!’).

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk at the First Plenum of the Ninth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talk At The First Plenum Of
The Ninth Central Committee Of
The Chinese Communist Party

April 28, 1969

[SOURCE: Mao Chu-hsi wen-hsun. The source states that this talk was edited from a tape recording not examined by the Chairman.]

What I am going to say is old stuff with which you are all familiar. There is nothing new. I am simply going to talk about unity. The purpose of uniting is to win still greater victories.

The Soviet revisionists now attack us. Some Tass broadcast or other, the Wang Ming material,[1] and the long screed in Kommunist all say we are no longer a party of the proletariat, and call us a ‘petit-bourgeois party’. They say we have imposed a monolithic order and have returned to the time of the bases, which means we have retrogressed. What is this thing they call becoming monolithic? They say it is a military-bureaucratic system. According to Japanese terminology it is a ‘system’. In Soviet vocabulary it is a ‘military-bureaucratic dictatorship’. When they see there are many military men in our lists of personnel they call us ‘military’. As for the ‘bureaucratic’ part, I suppose they mean the batch of ‘bureaucrats’ comprising me, En-lai, K’ang Sheng and Ch’en Po-ta. In a word those of you who are not military are all supposed to belong to a bureaucratic network, and we are collectively called a ‘military-bureaucratic dictatorship’. I say let them talk. They can say what they want. But their words have one characteristic: they avoid branding us as a bourgeois party, instead they label us a ‘party of the petit bourgeoisie’. We, on the other hand, say that they are a bourgeois dictatorship, and are restoring the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

If we are to speak of victory we must guarantee that under the leadership of the proletariat we unite the broad masses of the people to win victory. The socialist revolution must still be continued. There are still things in this revolution which have not been completed and must still be continued: for example struggle-criticism-transformation. After a few years maybe we shall have to carry out another revolution.

Several of our old comrades have been to the factories for a while to see for themselves. I hope that in future you people will also go down to have a look when the opportunity arises. You should study the problems of various factories. It seems essential that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution should still be carried out. Our foundation has not been consolidated. According to my own observation I would say that, not in all factories, nor in an overwhelming majority of factories, but in quite a large majority of cases the leadership is not in the hands of true Marxists, nor yet in the hands of the masses of the workers. In the past the leadership in the factories was not devoid of good men; there were good men. Among the Party committee secretaries, assistant secretaries and committee members there were good men. There were good men among the branch secretaries. But they followed the old line of Liu Shao-ch’i. They were all for material incentives, they put profits in command and did not promote proletarian politics. Instead they operated a system of bonuses, etc. There are now some factories which have liberated them and have included them in the leadership based on the Triple Alliance. Some factories still have not done so. But in the factories there are indeed bad people, for example in the Seventh of February works, which is the railway locomotive and carriage repair works at Ch’ang-hsin-tien. This is a big factory with 8,000 workers and several tens of thousands if you include their families. In the past the Kuomintang had nine district branches there, the San-min chu-i Youth League[2] had three organizations and eight so-called special duty organs. Of course, careful analysis is called for because in those days it wouldn’t do to refuse to join the Kuomintang! Some of them are old workers. Are you going to get rid of all the old workers? That won’t do! You should distinguish the serious cases from the ! trivial. Some were nominal Kuomintang party members. They had to join the party. It is only necessary to have a talk with them. There were others who had more responsibility, while there was a small minority who were up to their necks in it, and who have done bad things. You must distinguish between their differing circumstances. Among those who have done bad things there should also be distinctions. If they are frank then we should be more lenient. If they resist we should be severe. If they make a proper self-criticism we should let them go on working  —  of course we shall not give them work in the leadership. If you don’t let them work, what will they do at home? What will their sons and daughters do? Besides, most of the old workers are skilled, even if their skill is not of a high order.

I have brought up this instance to illustrate that the revolution has not been completed. Therefore will all the comrades of the Central Committee including alternate members please pay attention: you should undertake very detailed work. It must be done in a detailed manner, it won’t suffice to do it sketchily, that will often lead to mistakes. There are some places where too many people have been arrested. This is bad. Why arrest so many? They haven’t committed homicide, arson, or poisoning. I say that provided they haven’t committed any of these crimes, you shouldn’t arrest them. As for those who have committed the mistake of following the capitalist road, still less should they be arrested. Those in factories should be allowed to work, to participate in mass movements. The people who made mistakes have after all made them in the past. Either they joined the Kuomintang or did some bad things  —  or perhaps they made mistakes in the recent period such as the capitalist roaders. But they should be allowed to join with the masses. It would be bad not to let them join with the masses. Some have been shut up for two years, shut up in ‘cattle pens’. They no longer know what is going on in the world. When they come out and people talk to them, they are unable to make sensible replies. They are still speaking the language of two years ago. These people have been divorced from life for two years and they must be helped. Study classes must be organized and you must talk about history with them and tell them about the course of the Great Cultural Revolution during the past two years, and enable them gradually to awaken.

Let us unite for one purpose: to consolidate the proletarian dictatorship. You should see that this is carried out in every factory, village, office and school. At first you shouldn’t try to do this too comprehensively. You can do it, but you shouldn’t start doing it and then not bother about it. Don’t just do it for half a year or even longer, and then have nobody bother with it after that. You should summarize experiences factory by factory, school by school, organ by organ. Thus Comrade Lin Piao’s report says that we must do it factory by factory, school by school, commune by commune, Party branch by Party branch, unit by unit. The question of dealing with one Youth League branch after another and with the League as a whole has also been raised.

Another thing which we have talked about before is that we should be prepared for war. We should maintain our preparedness year after year. People may ask, ‘Suppose they don’t come?’ No matter whether they come or not, we should be prepared. Don’t expect the Centre to distribute materials even for the manufacture of hand-grenades. Hand-grenades can be made everywhere, in every province. Each province can even make rifles and light weapons. This concerns material preparation, but the most important thing is to be psychologically prepared. To be psychologically prepared means that we must be spiritually prepared to fight. Not only should we on the Central Committee have this psychological preparedness, but we should see to it that the great majority of the people have it too. Those I am talking about do not include the enemies of the dictatorship, such as those landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries and bad elements, because that lot would be happy to see the imperialists and revisionists attack us. If they attacked us these people suppose that this would turn the world upside down and they would come out on top. We should also be prepared on this score; in the process of the socialist revolution we should also carry through this revolution.

Others may come and attack us but we shall not fight outside our borders. We do not fight outside our borders. I say we will not be provoked. Even if you invite us to come out we will not come out, but if you should come and attack us we will deal with you. It depends on whether you attack on a small scale or a large scale. If it is on a small scale we will fight on the border. If it is on a large scale then I am in favour of yielding some ground. China is no small country. If there is nothing in it for them I don’t think they will come. We must make it clear to the whole world that we have both right and advantage on our side. If they invade our territory then I think it would be more to our advantage, and we would then have both right and advantage. They would be easy to fight since they would fall into the people’s encirclement. As for things like aeroplanes, tanks and armoured cars, everywhere experience proves that they can be dealt with.

Is it not true that in order to win victory we must have more people? People from all walks of life, no matter on which mountain-top or in which province they are, whether they are in the north or the south. Which is better, to unite more people or less people? It is always better to unite more people. Some people’s opinion differs from ours, but this is not a case of relationship between us and the enemy. I do not believe, to put it in concrete terms, that the relationship between Yang Te-chih and Wang Hsiao-yü[3] is of the latter kind. Is the relationship between you two one between us and the enemy, or is it a relationship among the people? In my opinion it is merely a quarrel among the people. The Centre is also rather bureaucratic; it did not pay much attention to you. Neither did you bring it to the Centre for discussion. Such a big province as Shantung has contradictions among the people. Don’t you think you should take this opportunity to talk it over? I think that in East China too there is this problem of contradictions among the people. This is also the case in Shansi. You support one faction, I support another, but what is the necessity for this incessant quarrelling? There are also problems in Yünnan, Kweichow and Szechuan. Every place has a certain number of problems, but things are much better than last year and the year before. You, comrade, aren’t you called Hsü Shih-yu[4]? The year before last when we were in Shanghai things were really terrible, in July, August and September. Now life is after all a bit better. I am talking about the overall situation. In that Nanking of yours there emerged a so-called ‘Red Headquarters’. Work was done and as a result they decided to cooperate, didn’t they? Didn’t the ‘August 27th’ and the ‘Red Headquarters’ in the end cooperate?

I believe that the main problem still concerns our work. Haven’t I said these two sentences before: the answer to the problem of the localities lies in the army; the answer to the problem of the army lies in political work? You are not implacable enemies in life and death, so why bother about it? And when it comes to personal gratitude or hatred, that is not of such great consequence. In a word there is nothing from either your previous or present lives to make you mortal enemies. You simply clashed, had some difference of opinion, somebody did something like criticizing you or opposing you. You counter-attacked and as a result a contradiction arose. Those opposed to you are not necessarily bad. One of the personalities whom Peking often wanted to overthrow was Hsieh Fu-chih. He later adopted the following method: to all the bodies which wanted to overthrow him he said that there was nothing wrong with them, and those who supported him were not necessarily good.

So what I say is still the same old words, which is nothing other than unite to win greater victories. In this there is concrete content. What are we going to do? And what sort of concrete victories? And how do we go about uniting people?

I have faith in some of the old comrades who have made mistakes in the past. Originally there was a long list of thirty-odd names. We thought that they should all be elected as members of the Politburo. Later someone prepared a shorter list of less than twenty. This time we thought it was too short. The majority are middle-of-the-roaders (laughter.) Those who oppose both the long list and the short list advocate a medium list of between twenty and thirty. So the only thing to do was to elect representatives. This is not to say that the candidate members of the Central Committee are not as good as full members or Politburo members in respect of their political level, working ability, moral and intellectual qualities; this isn’t the question at all. There is something unfair here. You may say that it is quite fair; I think it is not so fair, not so just. Everyone should be both prudent and cautious, no matter whether you are alternate members of the Central Committee, Central Committee members, Politburo members, you should all be prudent and cautious. Don’t be impulsive and forget what’s what. Since the time of Marx we have never talked about credit. You are communists, you are that part of the masses which is more conscious, you are that part of the proletariat which is more conscious. So I agree with this slogan, ‘First do not fear hardship, second do not fear death’; but not the slogan, ‘Even if we get no credit, we are rewarded by hard work; if we get no credit for hard work, we have the reward of being exhausted’ (laughter). This slogan is the direct opposite of ‘First do not fear hardship, second do not fear death.’ You can see how many of us have died. All the old comrades who remain are fortunate to be alive and have survived by chance. Comrade P’i Ting-chün,[5] at that period in Hupei-Hunan-Anhwei, how many people were with you? Afterwards how many were lef! t? At that time there were many people, now not so many remain. At that time after the Kiangsi Soviet, the Chingkangshan Soviet, North-East Kiangsi, West Hunan and Hupei, North Shensi had gone through the fighting there were very great losses, and not many of the old comrades remained. This is what is meant by ‘First not fearing hardship, second not fearing death.’ For years we did not have any such thing as salaries. We had no eight-tier wage system. We had only a fixed amount of food, three mace of oil and five of salt. If we got 1½ catties of millet, that was great. As for vegetables, how could we get vegetables everywhere the army went? Now we have entered the cities. This is a good thing. If we hadn’t entered the cities Chiang Kai-shek would be occupying them. But it is also a bad thing because it caused our Party to deteriorate. So there are some foreigners and journalists who say our Party is being rebuilt. We raise this slogan too, but we call it rectification and Party-building. In fact the Party needs to be rebuilt. Every branch needs to be rectified among the masses. They must go through the masses; not just a few Party members but the masses outside the Party must participate in meetings and in criticism. Individuals who are no good should be persuaded to get out of the Party, to withdraw. A very small minority may have to be disciplined. Isn’t this laid down in the Party Constitution? It also has to be passed by the Party branch congress and approved by the superior level. In a word we must use prudence. This must be done, it certainly had to be done, but it must be done prudently.

This National Congress seems to have been a very good one. In my opinion it has been a congress of unity and of victory. We use the method of issuing communiques. The foreigners can no longer fish for our news (laughter.) They say we hold secret meetings. In fact we are both open and secret. I think that the reporters in Peking are not much good. Perhaps we have cleared out most of the traitors and spies who had wormed their way among us. In the past whenever we held a meeting it was immediately leaked out and the Red Guard posters immediately published it. Since Wang [Li], Kuan [Feng], Ch’i [Pen-yü] Yang [Ch’eng-wu], Yü [Li-chin] and Chuan [Ts’ung-pi] fell they no longer have any more news about the meetings of the Central Committee.

That’s more or less that. The meeting is adjourned (long enthusiastic applause.)

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directives Regarding Cultural Revolution

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Directives Regarding Cultural Revolution

1966-69

It is to the advantage of despots to keep people ignorant; it is to our advantage to make them intelligent. We must lead all of them gradually away from ignorance.

(11-2-1966)

This big-character poster at Peking University is a Marxist-Leninist one which should be at once broadcast and published in the newspapers.

(1-6-1966)

Wind will not cease even if trees want to rest.

(2-6-1966)

Without destruction there can be no construction; without blockage there can be no flow; without stoppage there can be no movement.

(8-6-1966)

The exploiters and reactionaries are, under any circumstance, the minority while the exploited and revolutionaries are the majority. Therefore the dictatorship of the former is unjustifiable, whereas that of the latter is fully justifiable.

(17-6-1966)

(Comments on the Seven Good Examples of the Manual Work of Chekiang Cadres)

Class struggle, productive struggle, and scientific experiment are three great revolutionary movements for the construction of a great socialist country, the safeguard for a communist against bureaucratism, revisionism, and dogmatism so that he can be ever victorious, and the dependable guarantee for the proletariat to unite with other broad working masses to carry out democratic dictatorship.

(26-6-1966)

In the great proletarian Cultural Revolution, it is imperative to organize and enlarge proletarian left-wing forces, depending on them to arouse, unite, and educate the masses.

(3-7-1966)

No need to be afraid of tidal waves; human society has been evolved out of ‘tidal waves’.

(26-7-1966)

Swimming has its rules. It is easy to learn once you know the rules.

(26-7-1966)

My wish is to join all the comrades of our party to learn from the masses, to continue to be a school-boy.

Even the transformation from a quantitative to a qualitative change and the negation of negation are both unifications of contradictions. However you argue, they are still struggles of opposites. Dialectics can be made monistic, never pluralistic. Nature and society are full of contradictions. As soon as a contradiction is resolved, a new one emerges. There is no world or society without contradictions. Sometimes we may not be able to name a specific contradiction, but it exists all the same. Contradictions are the motivating force of the development of everything. This has been so in the past, is so at present, and will be so in future.

(30-7-1966)

For our youth, the major subject of study is class struggle.

(2-8-1996)

You should pay attention to state affairs and carry the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution through to the end!

(Statement to the crowd on ‘meeting the masses’ in Peking on 10 August 1966)

We must never detach ourselves from the masses, so that we may know them, understand them, be with them, and serve them well.

(17-8-1966).

This is a movement on a vast scale. It has indeed mobilized the masses. It is of very great significance to the revolutionization of the thinking of the people throughout the country.

(Statement at first Red Guard rally; 18 August 1966)

A communist must never stay aloof from or above the masses like a bureaucrat. He ought to be like an ordinary worker in the presence of the masses, join them, and become one of them.

(20-8-1966).

Let the rest of the country come to Peking or Peking go to the rest of the country. . . Let [those who live] at other places come and see. After all, the trains are free now, are they not?

(21-8-1966).

Almost ninety per cent of the work teams throughout the whole country have committed general mistakes in their orientation.

(22-8-1966)

It will not do to depend on the work teams coming from the Navy, Air Force, and governmental agencies. They neither teach nor learn. How can they understand the conditions in the schools? There is Chien Po-tsan at Peking University who has written many books and essays. Have you read them? You see, how do you [begin to] criticize them? The Cultural Revolution at schools must not depend on work teams; nor must it depend on you [those attending the eleventh plenum – Ed.] or me. It must depend, on the revolutionary teachers and students at schools.

(26-8-1966)

(I [Ch’en Yi] did things like this in the past. I beat people up and put dunce caps on landlords and local ruffians.) But Chairman said: ‘We must not do it this way. This is the peasants’ way, not our way’.

(Reported by Ch’en Yi in a speech to the students of the Foreign Language School, 30-8-1966).

(Chairman Mao wrote these eight characters in the Sixteen Articles): ‘yao yung wen-tou; pu yung wu-tou’ (wage peaceful, not violent, struggles). (These eight characters were added by Chairman Mao personally; the original draft [of the 16 Articles] did not have them. . . Words to the effect ‘Do not beat people up’ were copied from the 23 Articles and they were crossed out by the Chairman who personally wrote these eight characters.)

(Reported by the first secretary of the Hunan provincial committee of the CCP at a
meeting of the staff and students of the colleges in Ch’angsha, 31-8-1966).

None of those who repressed student movements has ended well. The Manchu government repressed them; how did it end? The Northern warlords did the same. How did they end? Chiang Kai-shek repressed them; how, did he end? Lu P’ing of Peking University and Chiang Nan-hsiang of Tsinghua University did exactly the same; how did they end? The work teams sent out later also repressed them. Now they have met their doom. Of course, we must add that the blame goes to those who sent them.

(2-9-1966).

The great proletarian Cultural Revolution is a revolution that touches the souls of the people.

To realize [the goals of] this revolution, [we must] resort to peaceful, not violent, struggles.

(5-9-1966).

In any revolution, its internal causes are fundamental and its external ones are supplementary.

(7-9-1966).

A revolution depends on an inner core. This, the bourgeois faction in authority and the faction in authority which has committed mistakes know best; [their] peripheral organizations merely add fuel to the fire.

(7-9-1966)

The more you study, the more stupid you become. You are now at a crucial time of transition; you must learn the right way.

Young people should be permitted to make mistakes. As long as their general orientation is correct, let them make minor mistakes. I believe that they can correct themselves in practical work.

(13-9-1966).

The basic contradiction the great proletarian Cultural Revolution is trying to resolve is the one between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the proletarian and bourgeois roads. The main point of the movement is to struggle against the capitalist roaders in authority in the party.

(24-9-1966).

Young people can look at problems this way and that way. The like-minded of them often club together, this is nothing unusual.

(26-9-1966).

As soon as [you] grasp the class struggle, it works [for you].

(1-10-1966).

The peoples of the world must have courage, dare to fight, and fear no hardships. When the ones in front fall, the others behind must follow up. In this way, the world will belong to the people and all the demons will be eliminated.

(1-10-1966).

I have read the revised draft [of your ‘Summing up the Past Two Months’]. It is very good. Please consider the insertion at some place of the two phrases: ‘Grasp the Revolution; Promote Production.’ [The Summing Up] should be printed in pamphlets in large quantities and each party cell and each red guard group must have at least one copy.

(Sent direct to Comrade [Ch’en] Po-ta, (24-10-1966).

[One can never be sure that what is written in a resolution will be carried out by all our comrades; some of them will not.

(October 1966).

You should put politics in command, go to the masses and be one with them, and carry on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution even better.

(Statement to ‘some leading comrades’ at seventh Red Guard Rally, 10 November 1966.)

Long live comrades!

You must let politics take command, go to the masses, and be with the masses. You must conduct the great proletarian Cultural Revolution even better.

(Spoken in front of a microphone on the rostrum of the Tienanmen, on the occasion of the seventh review of the great armies of the Cultural Revolution, ibid.

The overthrown bourgeoisie tries by hook or by crook to use literature and arts to corrupt the masses, thus paving the way for a capitalist restoration. This makes our tasks in literature and art heavier rather than lighter. Our leadership on the literary and art front should be strengthened instead of weakened. To carry out their glorious tasks, our literary and art organizations must carry the great proletarian Cultural Revolution through to the end.

(28-11-1966)

The idea of training revolutionary teachers and pupils by army cadres is a good one. The training will make a great difference. By it, [the teachers and pupils] can learn from the PLA, politics, military affairs, the four firsts, and three-eight style, the three great disciplines and eight points of attention, and strengthen the discipline of their organizations.

(31-12-1966)

Mistaken leadership which is harmful to the cause of the revolution should not be unconditionally accepted; instead, it should be resolutely rejected.

Democracy sometimes looks like an end in itself, but in fact it is merely a means to an end.

(1-1-1967)

The comrades of the Broadcasting Station have won the power of control. It is a good thing that power is now in the hands of proletarian revolutionaries. I have heard that the comrades there are split. This can be dealt with according to the [way] the contradictions among the people are handled: differences in opinion can be discussed and resolved.

(11-1-67)

(The Chairman having read the document from X X of Anhwei and Comrade Lin Piao’s comment on it.)

You must dispatch troops to support the broad left-wing revolutionary masses. Later on, whenever true revolutionaries need support from the PLA, you should do likewise. The so called ‘non-interference’ is untrue. [The PLA] has been involved for some time. I think on this matter you should issue new orders; the old ones should be cancelled.

(23-1-67)

Economize on consumption and carry on revolution. Protect the property of the country.

(26-1-67)

1. I think [we] must have an order of priorities; [we] must not carry on in all the military districts simultaneously.

2. The great revolution is being ferociously developed in the regions and the struggles for power are continuing. Our armed forces should support the left-wing revolutionaries there in their power struggle, and therefore they must not be involved in local cultural revolutions.

3. Internationally, both imperialism and revisionism are making use of our great Cultural Revolution to carry on their anti-Chinese activities. For instance, the Soviet Union is suppressing [our] students; [Soviet] aeroplanes near the Sinkiang border are more active; and [Soviet] ground forces are mobilized. All the armed units stationed in the big military districts along the frontiers such as Tsinan, Nanking, Foochow, and Kunming should be alerted and made ready. Therefore the time schedule of the great Cultural Revolution must be slightly postponed on account of the general situation, but it will be carried out in future.

(27-1-67)

The eight articles are excellent, to be issued as they are.

(Comment on the Decree of the Military Commission Issued on This Day, 28-1-1967)

The PLA should actively give support to the truly proletarian revolutionary groups and resolutely oppose the rightwing.

(February 1967)

The armed forces advance [an inch];
Production grows an inch
Tighten the discipline [so that]
Revolution is always successful.

(6-2-67)

In order to overthrow a regime, [we] must first of all take control of the superstructure, the ideology, by preparing public opinion.

(8-2-67)

Permit them to reform themselves and redeem their mistakes by making contributions, as long as they are not anti-party and anti-socialist elements who stubbornly refuse to correct their mistakes in spite of repeated exhortations.

(Reform the Wrong- 23-2-67)

This document (dated 8-3-1967) may be issued to the whole country. The PLA should separately and in sessions give military training to university students and children of middle schools and the upper formers of primary schools. They should also take part in the work of re-openings schools, re-adjusting school organization, setting up leadership bodies of the three-way alliance, and carrying out struggle, criticism, and reform. They should set up experimental points first and then apply the experience so acquired to a wider scope. They ought to convince students and children [to accept] what Marx taught us  —  ‘The proletariat must emancipate mankind as a whole before it can emancipate itself.’ In military training, they must not reject teachers and cadres who have made mistakes. These people must be allowed to take part so as to facilitate their reform; the only exceptions to this are the aged and sick. All this is quite easy, if it is conscientiously carried on.

(7-3-67)

At the places and in the organizational units where power struggle is necessary, there the principle of the revolutionary three-way alliance should be applied to setting up a revolutionary, representative, and proletarian provisional power structure which may be called a revolutionary committee.

(10-3-67)

Resume classes and carry on revolution.

(27-3-67)

There subsist various non-proletarian ideas in the Party. This is an extremely great obstacle to the application of the Party’s correct line.

(March 1967)

Was it the Chinese people who organized the Boxer groups and sent them to Europe, America, and Japan to rebel [against the governments there] and to kill and burn. Was it the imperialist powers which came to invade China and exploit the Chinese people, thus provoking the Chinese people to fight imperialism and its lackeys, to corrupt officials of China? This is a grave matter of right and wrong and should be made absolutely clear.

(On The Film ‘The Secret History Of The Ching Court,’ 1-4-67)

COMRADE LIN PIAO,

This is excellent.

(Comment on the Decree of the Military Commission on This Day 6-4-1967)

The recording of Comrade Lin Piao’s talk on 20 March 1967 should be broadcast to all the members of the PLA and the red guards of the whole country. Comrade Lin Piao’s talk is a report of the utmost importance to Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse-tung’s thought; it is highly significant in guiding the current great proletarian Cultural Revolutionary movement and in promoting further victories for the proletarian revolutionaries in their struggles at two fronts. The party committees of all the military districts, party committees at various levels, revolutionary committees of all the provinces and cities, all the military control committees, and all the revolutionary mass organizations must organize themselves and study conscientiously Comrade Lin Piao’s talk and must put it into practice meticulously.

(7-4-67)

Grasp the revolution, hasten the preparation for war [defence?], speed up work, promote production, and support the army and cherish the people.

(30-4-67)

The masses, the army, and the cadres are the three pillars on which we rely.

(End of April or Beginning of May 1967)

It is difficult to avoid mistakes, the point is to correct them honestly. Too many people have been arrested in Szechwan and many mass organizations are branded as reactionary. All these are wrong, but they have been quickly rectified.

(The Resolution on Szechwan adopted by the Centre of the CCP (the Ten Red Articles), 7-5-67)

With the growth of such vigour in socialist China, a country with a quarter of the world’s population, we shall be able to make a great internationalist contribution.

Our goals will and certainly can be fulfilled.

(7-5-67)

Trust and rely on the masses; trust and rely on the PLA; trust and rely on the majority of the cadres.

(12-5-67)

When the army and the people unite as one, Who in the world is their equal?

(12-5 67)

The victory or defeat of the revolution can be determined only over a long period of time. If it is badly handled, there is always the danger of a capitalist restoration. All members of the party and all the people of our country must not think that after one, two, three, or four great cultural revolutions there will be peace and quiet. They must always be on the alert and must never relax their vigilance.

(18-5-67)

Guard against revisionism, particularly the emergence of revisionism at the party Centre.

(11-5-67)

Who are our enemies and who are our friends? This is the first and foremost question of a revolution and it is also the first and foremost question of the great Cultural Revolution.

(1-6-67)

Veteran cadres have made their contributions in the past, but they must not live on that ‘capital’. They should reform themselves and make fresh contributions in the great proletarian Cultural Revolution.

(1-6-67)

Protect the left-wing; support the left-wing, form and enlarge left wing units.

(11-6-67)

Everything has its major and minor reasons; all the major ones govern the minor ones. People of our country must think in terms of major reasons if they want to think and act properly.

(11-6-67)

Everything must be handled and reasoned out from the point of view of class and class struggle and with the method of class analysis; all leading cadres should be treated in the same way. The method of simply rejecting everything and negating everything, of directing the struggle against the cadres who shoulder most of the responsibility and do most of the work against the ‘heads’ [of departments] must be abandoned.

(12-6-67)

Let people speak up. The sky will not fall and you yourself will not be deposed as a result of it. [What if you] do not let people speak up? You may be deposed one day.

(21-6-67)

Do not stop half way and do not ever go backward. There is no way behind you.

(21-6-67)

[We] must skillfully direct the petty bourgeois ideology in our ranks on to the path of the proletarian revolution. This is the key to the victory of the great proletarian Cultural Revolution.

(25-6-67)

[We] must stand on the side, not on the opposing side, of the masses. This is a fundamental problem of the standpoint of a Marxist-Leninist.

(27-6-67)

Trust the majority of the cadres and the masses. This is essential.

(27-6-67)

Popularize the work of heart-to-heart talks. It is a good method.

(29-6-67)

We, the communists, do not want official positions; we want revolution. We must have a thoroughly revolutionary spirit and must be with the masses every hour, every minute. As long as we are with the masses, we shall always be victorious.

(4-7-67)

The organization of millions of people and the mobilization of a tremendous revolutionary force are what the present revolution needs in its offensive against the reactionaries.

(5-7-67)

Whenever acute opposition exists between the mass organizations of two factions, there will be need for careful political ideological work which can help to resolve all the differences. Careful political ideological work is needed even when [we] are dealing with conservative and reactionary organizations.

(7-7-67)

Revolution is the emancipation of productive force; it promotes the development of productive force.

(3-8-67)

Cadres who have made mistakes can re-establish themselves, provided that they do not persist with their mistakes, but reform them, and are forgiven by the revolutionary masses.

(3-8-67)

The basic problem of a revolution is the problem of political power. The possession of political power means the possession of everything, the loss of it means the loss of everything.

(13-8-67)

All proletarian revolutionaries unite and fight for political power against the handful of capitalist roaders in authority.

(17-8-67)

If our country does not build up a socialist economy, what is it going to be? It will be like Yugoslavia, a capitalist country in fact. The proletarian dictatorship will be transformed into a bourgeois dictatorship, worse still, a reactionary and fascist dictatorship. This problem deserves our fullest attention and [I] hope our comrades will give it their thought.

(17-8-67)

It is difficult not to make mistakes. The thing is to correct them conscientiously.

(21-8-67)

They [the revisionists] deny the party and class characteristics of a newspaper; they overlook the differences in principle between proletarian and bourgeois news services; they confuse the news service which reflects the collective economy of a socialist country with that which reflects the economic anarchy and group competition of a capitalist country.

(24-8-67)

Newspapers in a socialist country are fundamentally different from those in a capitalist country. In a socialist country, newspapers reflect the planned socialist economy based on public ownership. This is quite different from newspapers in a capitalist country which reflect economic anarchy and group competition. As long as class distinction exists in the world, newspapers are a means of class struggle.

(25-8-67)

Although the socio-economic system has been transformed, reactionary thought, bourgeois and upper-petty-bourgeois thought inherited from the past, still exists in the minds of a considerable number of people, and cannot be transformed quickly. Its transformation needs time, a long period of time. This is the class struggle in (our) society.

(26-8-67)

The present Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is only the first; there will inevitably be many more in the future. The issue of who will win in the revolution can only be settled over a long historical period. If things are not properly handled, it is possible for a capitalist restoration to take place at any time in the future.

(August 1967)

Think hard!

(1-9-67)

Throughout the socialist stage, there exist classes and class struggle. The struggle is protracted and complicated, sometimes even fierce. [Therefore] the instruments of our dictatorship must not be weakened; on the contrary, they should be strengthened.

(2-9-67)

Develop still further the movement of supporting the army and cherishing the people.

(2-9-67)

The four firsts are good; they are original. Since Comrade Lin Piao put forward the four firsts and the three-eight style, the PLA’s political and military work has taken a giant step forward. It has become more concrete and theoretically [more advanced].

(7-9-67)

Reactionaries who appear in disguise show people their false image and hide away their true faces. However since they are counter-revolutionaries, they can never cover up their true faces completely.

(12-9-67)

Within the working class, there is no basic clash of interests. Under the proletarian dictatorship, the working class has absolutely no reason to split into two hostile factional organizations.

(14-9-67)

Some of our comrades toddle along like women with bound feet. They complain about others: ‘Too fast, too fast!’

(22-9-67)

In a few more months the entire situation will be even better.

(September 1967)

Correct treatment of cadres is the key to creating the revolutionary ‘three-in-one’ combination, consolidating the revolutionary great alliance, and making a success of struggle-criticism transformation in each unit. It must definitely be handled well.

(September 1967)

The revolutionary red guards and revolutionary student organizations must form a grand alliance. As long as they are revolutionary mass organizations, they must form a great alliance according to revolutionary principles.

(1-10-67)

We must preserve a high degree of alertness in all departments of our work. We must be good at distinguishing fake supporters of the revolution who are actually reactionaries and douse them away from all our battle fronts, so that we may preserve the victories which are already won and will be won.

(17-10-67)

The form of revolutionary organization is determined by the requirements of revolutionary struggle. If an organizational form does not meet the requirements of a revolutionary struggle, it must be abandoned.

(19-10-67)

The cadre problem must be tackled through education by widening educational work.

(20-10-67)

Expand education and reduce attack.

What is fake is fake. Strip off the disguise!

(22-10-67)

To carry on the proletarian Cultural Revolution, [we] must depend on the broad masses of revolutionary students and teachers in schools and on the revolutionary workers. We must depend on the activists among them, i.e. the proletarian revolutionaries who are determined to carry the great proletarian Cultural Revolution to the end.

(4-11-67)

Therefore the great proletarian Cultural Revolution is a great revolution that touches the souls of the people and solves the problem of a world view for the people.

(6-11-67)

A revolutionary party and the revolutionary people must repeatedly undergo both positive and negative education. Through comparison and contrast, they become tempered and mature, thus making sure of victory. To belittle the role of the negative teacher is not to be a thorough dialectical materialist.

(6-11-67)

The handful of capitalist roaders in power in our party are the representatives of the bourgeoisie in our party.

(6-11-67)

The basic ideological programme of the great proletarian Cultural Revolution is ‘to combat selfishness and criticize revisionism.’

(6-11-7)

The Cultural Revolution can only be the emancipation of the masses by the masses.

(6-11-67)

This great Cultural Revolution, using the great democratic methods of the proletarian dictatorship, has mobilized the masses from below. At the same time, it puts into practice the grand alliance of the proletarian revolutionaries, the three-way alliance between the revolutionary masses, the PLA, and the revolutionary cadres.

(6-11-67)

The situation in the great proletarian Cultural Revolution is not just good, but excellent. The over-all situation is better than at any time in the past. The important sign of the excellent situation is that the masses have been fully aroused. Never before has a mass movement been aroused so extensively and penetratingly as it is at present.

(9-11-67)

The relationship between the levels should be properly handled; the relationship between the cadres and masses should also be handled well. In future, cadres should go individually and see what is happening below. They must hold fast to the mass line, discuss with the masses whenever a problem crops up, and be the pupils of the masses. In a certain sense, the fighters who have the richest practical experience are the most intelligent and the ablest.

(16-11-67)

The study classes organized by the PLA must have the participation of soldiers.

(12-12-67)

The two factions should talk less of each other’s weaknesses and mistakes. Let the others talk about their own weaknesses and mistakes. Each side ought to do more self-criticism seeking general agreement and leaving minor differences intact.

(22-12-67)

1. We must step forward to meet the masses, to accept their criticism, and to do our own self-criticism. This is to get oneself near the fire [so to speak].

2. We must step forward to explain our policies to the masses. Those who have had to wear a dunce cap or had their face blackened should take the cap off, clean their face, and go straight to work.

3. Think of long-term interests and unite the majority. The freaks and monsters are the landlords, rich peasants, reactionaries, bad elements, and rightists  —  the minority. Even some who have made serious mistakes should be saved by letting them correct their errors. Otherwise, how can we unite more than ninety-five per cent [of the people].

4. Convince the cadres and make them understand. Do not let everyone who has been through the test [criticism] become ashen with despair. We must go out, not with the word ‘fear’ (p’a) but with the word ‘dare’ (k’an) [in our minds]. In this way we can solve questions of any magnitude. If we go out with the word ‘fear’, [the opponents] will make more and more demands.

(Four Instructions at a Standing Committee Meeting of the Politburo, 1967)

The struggle to reshape the world by the proletariat and revolutionary peoples consists of these tasks: to reshape the objective world and also to reshape their own subjective world.

(12-1 68)

How do the counter-revolutionaries play their game of duplicity? How do they manage to present a false image to deceive us while clandestinely carrying on [activities] we do not even suspect? Millions of good people do not know this and therefore many counter-revolutionaries have wormed their way into our ranks. Our people do not have good eye-sight, they are unable to differentiate the upright from the crooked. They may be able to tell the good from the bad in the light of their activities under normal conditions. Nevertheless, we are rather inept at singling out certain people in the light of their activities under special conditions.

(17-1-68)

The party organization must consist of the advanced elements of the proletariat As a vigorous vanguard organization, it should be able to lead the proletarian revolutionary masses in their struggle against class enemies.

(19-1-68)

Setting up study classes is a good procedure, because many problems can be solved in them.

(5-2-68)

Form a strong people’s air force to defend the fatherland and to prepare for the repulsion of invaders.

(Inscription for the New Chingkangshan District  —  originally Chian, Kiangsi, 12-2-68)

Develop the revolutionary tradition and win even greater victory.

(12-268)

Resolutely overcome lack of discipline or even, in many places, anarchy.

Anarchy is detrimental to the interests of the people and against their wishes.

(1-3-68)

The experience of the revolutionary committees is threefold:  1. they have representatives from the revolutionary cadres; 2. they have representatives from the PLA; and 3. they have representatives from the revolutionary masses. They have carried out the revolutionary three-way alliance. The revolutionary committees must achieve a unified leadership by cutting through duplicated administrative structures. [Following the principles of] eliminating incompetent soldiers and simplifying the administration, the committees should organize a revolutionized leading core to make contacts with the masses.

(30-3-68)

The ‘three-way alliance’ revolutionary committee is an invention of the working class and the masses in this great Cultural Revolution.

The essential point of reforming the state agencies is to make contact with the masses.

(1-4-68)

The great proletarian Cultural Revolution is in essence a great political revolution under socialist conditions by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes. It is the continuation of the long struggle against the Kuomintang reactionaries waged by the CPC and the broad revolutionary masses under its leadership. It is continuation of the struggle between the proletariat [and the] bourgeoisie.

(10-4-68)

Except in the deserts, at every place of human habitation there is the left, the centre, and the right. This will continue to be so 10,000 years hence.

(22-4-68)

We must believe that more than ninety per cent of our cadres are good or comparatively good. The majority of those who have made mistakes can be reformed.

(13-5-68)

Protect or, on the contrary, repress the masses: this is the basic distinction between the CPC and the KMT, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and between the proletarian and bourgeois dictatorships.

(3-6-68)

The old Social Democrats in the past decades, and modern revisionists in the past dozen years or so. . . have formed a group of anti-communist, anti-people, and counter-revolutionary elements against whom we are waging a life-and-death struggle. There is no equality between us and them. Therefore the fight against them is a fight for our preservation and their extinction. The relationship between us and them can never be one of equality; it is a relationship of one class oppressing another  —  i.e. proletarian dictatorship over the bourgeoisie.

The day when the people are happy will be the day when the counter-revolutionaries begin their misery.

(10-6-68)

We must still run colleges. Here I must stress that we should still run physics and engineering colleges, but the period of schooling ought to be shortened, the education revolutionized, proletarian politics put in command, and the way of training technical personnel from the ranks of the workers advocated by the Shanghai Machine-Tool Factory adopted. Students must be selected from workers and peasants with practical experience, and after their study at school for several years they should return to practical production.

(21-7-68)

Our country has a population of 700 million people and the working class is the leading class. The leading role of the working class in the Cultural Revolution and all fields of work should be developed. The working class should also constantly raise its own political consciousness in the course of the struggle.

(14-8-68)

Set up three-way alliance revolutionary committees, conduct thorough criticisms, purify the ranks of the class, reform the party, simplify the administration, revise unreasonable rules and regulations, send down office personnel, and carry out ‘struggle-criticism-transformation’ in factories. Roughly speaking, these are the stages [we shall] pass through.

(26-8-68)

To carry out the proletarian educational revolution, it is imperative to have the leadership of the working class and its participation, together with the revolutionary three-way alliance of the soldiers of the PLA, students, and teachers, and the activists among the workers who have resolved to carry the proletarian educational revolution through to the end. Workers propaganda teams should remain at the schools for a long time to share the task of ‘struggle-criticism-transformation’ and to perpetuate their leadership there. In the countryside, schools are to be run by the most reliable allies of the working class  —  the poor, lower, and middle peasants.

(27-8-68)

The physician who has moved from the city to the countryside proves that the majority, even overwhelming majority, of students educated in old-style schools are capable of integrating with workers, peasants, and soldiers. Some of them can even be inventive and creative. However, they must be re-educated by workers, peasants, and soldiers under the guidance of the correct line [so that] their old thinking may be reformed thoroughly. Such intellectuals are welcomed by workers, peasants, and soldiers.

(12 and 4-9-68)

It is an excellent opportunity for the great number of cadres to learn anew by being sent down to do manual work. Only the aged and sick are exempted from taking this opportunity. Cadres who hold offices should be sent down on a rota basis.

(8-10-68)

 I.  A human being has arteries and veins and his heart makes the blood circulate. He breathes through the lungs, exhaling carbon dioxide and inhaling oxygen afresh, that is, getting rid of the waste and letting in the fresh. A proletarian party must also get rid of the waste and let in the fresh, for only in this way can it be full of vigour. Without eliminating waste and getting fresh blood the party has no vigour.

II.  Our power  —  who gives it to us? The working class gives it to us and the masses of labouring people who comprise over ninety per cent of the population give it to us. We represent the proletariat and the masses, and have overthrown the enemies of the people. The people therefore support us. One of the basic principles of the communist party is to rely directly on the revolutionary masses.

(16-10-68)

For consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, preventing a capitalist restoration, and constructing socialism, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution has been absolutely necessary and timely.

(30-10-68)

Historical experience is noteworthy. A line or a view must be constantly and repeatedly explained. It will not do to explain it only to a few; it must be made known to the broad revolutionary masses.

(25-11-68)

It is absolutely necessary for educated young people to go to the countryside to be re-educated by the poor and lower-middle peasants. Cadres and other city people should be persuaded to send their sons and daughters who have finished junior or senior middle school, college, or university to the countryside. Let us mobilize. Comrades throughout the countryside should welcome them.

(22-12-68)

In purifying our class ranks, it is necessary to take a firm hold first and then pay attention to the policy.

In treating the counter-revolutionary elements and those who had made mistakes, it is necessary to pay attention to the policy. The target of attack must be narrowed and more people must be helped through education. Evidence, investigation, and study should be stressed. It is strictly forbidden to extort confessions and accept such confessions. As for good people who have made mistakes, we must give them more help through education. When they are awakened, we must liberate them without delay.

(31-12-68)

a.  Serious attention should be given to policy in this stage of the struggle-criticism-transformation in the great proletarian Cultural Revolution.

b.  In formulating plans it is necessary to mobilize the masses and carefully leave some leeway.

(21-2-69)

The broad masses and the majority of the party members and cadres in the Soviet Union are good and revolutionary; so revisionist domination will not long survive.

(13-3-69)

It is necessary to sum up experience conscientiously.

When one goes to a unit to get to know the situation there, one must become acquainted with the whole process of the movement: its inception, its development, and its present state; how the masses have acted and how the leadership has acted; what contradictions and struggles have emerged and what changes have occurred in these contradictions; and what progress people have made in their knowledge so as to find out its laws.

(17-3-69)

The present is the time of spring farming. Let us hope that leading comrades, responsible personnel, and the popular masses will seize the opportunity to grasp the links in the chain of production in order to overtake last year’s records.

(22-3-69)

The poisonous pests have arranged their own grave-diggers. Their date of burial will not be too far away.

(Russian Revisionism, 29-3-09)

The proletariat is the greatest class in human history. Ideologically, politically, and numerically it is the greatest revolutionary class. It can and must unite the overwhelming majority of people around itself in order to isolate as much as possible and attack a handful of enemies.

(15-4-69)

We have won a great victory. But the defeated class will continue to struggle. Its members are still about and it still exists. Therefore we cannot speak of the final victory, not for decades. We must not lose our vigilance. From the Leninist point of view, the final victory in one socialist country not only requires the efforts of the proletariat and the broad popular masses at home, but also depends on the victory of the world revolution and the abolition of the system of exploitation of man by man on this earth so that all mankind will be emancipated. Consequently, it is wrong to talk about the final victory of the revolution in our country light-heartedly; it runs counter to Leninism and does not conform to facts.

(15-4-69)

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Twenty Manifestations of Bureaucracy

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Twenty Manifestations Of Bureaucracy

February, 1970

[SOURCE: Joint Publications Research Service, (Washington, DC)]

1.  At the highest level there is very little knowledge; they do not understand the opinion of the masses; they do not investigate and study; they do not grasp specific policies; they do not conduct political and ideological work; they are divorced from reality, from the masses, and from the leadership of the party; they always issue orders, and the orders are usually wrong, they certainly mislead the country and the people; at the least they obstruct the consistent adherence to the party line and policies; and they cannot meet with the people.

2.  They are conceited, complacent, and they aimlessly discuss politics. They do not grasp their work, they are subjective and one-sided; they are careless; they do not listen to people; they are truculent and arbitrary; they force orders; they do not care about reality; they maintain blind control. This is authoritarian bureaucracy.

3.  They are very busy from morning until evening, they labour the whole year long; they do not examine people and they do not investigate matters; they do not study policies; they do not rely upon the masses; they do not prepare their statements; they do not plan their work. This is brainless, misdirected bureaucracy. In other words, it is routinism.

4.  Their bureaucratic attitude is immense; they cannot have any direction; they are egoistic; they beat their gongs to blaze the way; they cause people to become afraid just by looking at them; they repeatedly hurl all kinds of abuse at people; their work style is crude; they do not treat people equally. This is the bureaucracy of the overlords.

5.  They are ignorant; they are ashamed to ask anything; they exaggerate and they lie; they are very false; they attribute errors to people; they attribute merit to themselves; they swindle the central government; they deceive those above them and fool those below them; they conceal faults and gloss over wrongs. This is the dishonest bureaucracy.

6.  They do not understand politics; they do not do their work; they push things off onto others; they do not meet their responsibilities; they haggle; they put things off; they are insensitive; they lose their alertness. This is the irresponsible bureaucracy.

7.  They are negligent about things; they subsist as best they can; they do not have anything to do with people; they always make mistakes; they offer themselves respectfully to those above them and are idle towards those below them; they are careful in every respect; they are eight-sided and slippery as eels. This is the bureaucracy of those who work as officials and barely make a living.

8.  They do not completely learn politics; they do not advance in their work; their manner of speech is tasteless; they have no direction in their leadership; they neglect the duties of their office while taking the pay; they make up things for the sake of appearances. The idlers [e.g., landlord] do not begin any matters, but concentrate mainly upon their idleness; those who work hard, are virtuous, and do not act like the officials are treated poorly. This is the deceitful, talentless bureaucracy.

9.  They are stupid; they are confused; they do not have a mind of their own; they are rotten sensualists; they glut themselves for days on end; they are not diligent at all, they are inconstant and they are ignorant. This is the stupid, useless bureaucracy.

10.  They want others to read documents; the others read and they sleep; they criticize without looking at things; they criticize mistakes and blame people; they have nothing to do with mistakes; they do not discuss things; they push things aside and ignore it; they are yes men to those above them; they pretend to understand those below them, when they do not; they gesticulate; and they harbour disagreements with those on their same level. This is the lazy bureaucracy.

11.  Government offices grow bigger and bigger; things are more confused; there are more people than there are jobs; they go around in circles; they quarrel and bicker; people are disinclined to do extra things; they do not fulfil their specific duties. This is the bureaucracy of government offices.

12.  Documents are numerous; there is red tape; instructions proliferate; there are numerous unread reports that are not criticized; many tables and schedules are drawn up and are not used; meetings are numerous and nothing is passed on; and there are many close associations but nothing is learned. This is the bureaucracy of red tape and formalism.

13.  They seek pleasure and fear hardships; they engage in back door deals; one person becomes an official and the entire family benefits; one person reaches nirvana and all his close associates rise up to heaven; there are parties and gifts are presented. . . This is the bureaucracy for the exceptional.

14.  The greater an official becomes, the worse his temperament gets; his demands for supporting himself become higher and higher; his home and its furnishings become more and more luxurious; and his access to things becomes better and better. The upper strata gets the larger share while the lower gets high prices; there is extravagance and waste; the upper and lower and the left and right raise their hands. This is the bureaucracy of putting on official airs.

15.  They are egotistical; they satisfy private ends by public means; there is embezzlement and speculation; the more they devour, the more they want; and they never step back or give in. This is egotistical bureaucracy.

16.  They fight among themselves for power and money; they extend their hands into the Party; they want fame and fortune; they want positions and, if they do not get them, they are not satisfied; they choose to be fat and to be lean; they pay a great deal of attention to wages; they are cosy when it comes to their comrades but they care nothing about the masses. This is the bureaucracy that is fighting for power and money.

17.  A plural leadership cannot be harmoniously united; they exert themselves in many directions, and their work is in a state of chaos; they try to crowd each other out; the top is divorced from the bottom and there is no centralization, nor is there any democracy. This is the disunited bureaucracy.

18.  There is no organization; they employ personal friends; they engage in factionalism; they maintain feudal relationships; they form cliques to further their own private interest; they protect each other, the individual stands above everything else; these petty officials harm the masses. This is sectarian bureaucracy.

19.  Their revolutionary will is weak; their politics has degenerated and changed its character; they act as if they are highly qualified; they put on official airs; they do not exercise their minds or their hands. They eat their fill every day; they easily avoid hard work; they call a doctor when they are not sick; they go on excursions to the mountains and to the seashore; they do things superficially; they worry about their individual interests, but they do not worry whatsoever about the national interest. This is degenerate bureaucracy.

20.  They promote erroneous tendencies and a spirit of reaction; they connive with bad persons and tolerate bad situations; they engage in villainy and transgress the law; they engage in speculation; they are a threat to the Party and the state; they suppress democracy; they fight and take revenge, they violate laws and regulations; they protect the bad; they do not differentiate between the enemy and ourselves. This is the bureaucracy of erroneous tendencies and reaction.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

People of the World, Unite and Defeat the U.S. Aggressors and All Their Running Dogs

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

People Of The World, Unite
And Defeat The U.S. Aggressors
And All Their Running Dogs

May 23, 1970

[SOURCE: Peking Review (23 May, 1970).]

A new upsurge in the struggle against U.S. imperialism is now emerging throughout the world. Ever since the Second World War, U.S. imperialism and its followers have been continuously launching wars of aggression and the people in various countries have been continuously waging revolutionary wars to defeat the aggressors. The danger of a new world war still exists, and the people of all countries must get prepared. But revolution is the main trend in the world today.

Unable to win in Vietnam and Laos, the U.S. aggressors treacherously engineered the reactionary coup d’etat by the Lon Nol Sirik Matak clique, brazenly dispatched their troops to invade Cambodia and resumed the bombing of North Vietnam, and this has aroused the furious resistance of the three Indo Chinese peoples. I warmly support the fighting spirit of Samdech Norodom Sihanouk, Head of State of Cambodia, in opposing U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. I warmly support the Joint Declaration of the Summit Conference of the Indo Chinese Peoples. I warmly support the establishment of the Royal Government of National Union under the Leadership of the National United Front of Kampuchea. Strengthening their unity, supporting each other and persevering in a protracted people’s war, the three Indo-Chinese peoples will certainly overcome all difficulties and win complete victory.

While massacring the people in other countries, U.S. imperialism is slaughtering the white and black people in its own country. Nixon’s fascist atrocities have kindled the raging flames of the revolutionary mass movement in the United States. The Chinese people firmly support the revolutionary struggle of the American people. I am convinced that the American people who are fighting valiantly will ultimately win victory and that the fascist rule in the United States will inevitably be defeated.

The Nixon government is beset with troubles internally and externally, with utter chaos at home and extreme isolation abroad. The mass movement of protest against U.S. aggression in Cambodia has swept the globe. Less than ten days after its establishment, the Royal Government of National Union of Cambodia was recognized by nearly twenty countries. The situation is getting better and better in the war of resistance against U.S. aggression and for national salvation waged by the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The revolutionary armed struggles of the people of the South-east Asian countries, the struggles of the people of Korea, Japan and other Asian countries against the revival of Japanese militarism by the U.S. and Japanese reactionaries, the struggles of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples against the U.S.-Israeli aggressors, the national-liberation struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples, and the revolutionary struggles of the peoples of North America, Europe and Oceania are all developing vigorously. The Chinese people firmly support the people of the three Indo-Chinese countries and of other countries of the world in their revolutionary struggles against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys.

U.S. imperialism, which looks like a huge monster, is in essence a paper tiger, now in the throes of its deathbed struggle. In the world of today, who actually fears whom? It is not the Vietnamese people, the Laotian people, the Cambodian people, the Palestinian people, the Arab people or the people of other countries who fear U.S. imperialism; it is U.S. imperialism which fears the people of the world. It becomes panic-stricken at the mere rustle of leaves in the wind. Innumerable facts prove that a just cause enjoys abundant support while an unjust cause finds little support. A weak nation can defeat a strong, a small nation can defeat a big. The people of a small country can certainly defeat aggression by a big country, if only they dare to rise in struggle, dare to take up arms and grasp in their own hands the destiny of their country. This is a law of history.

People of the world, unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs!

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Conversations with Wang Hai-Jung

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Conversations With Wang Hai-jung

December 21, 1970

[SOURCE: Mao Tse-tung, Joint Publications Research Service (JPRS), U.S, Department of Commerce 52029 (21 December, 1970).]

We should let the students read fiction and take a nap in class, and we should look after their health. Teachers should lecture less and make the students read more. I believe the student you referred to will be very capable in the future since he had the courage to be absent from the Saturday meeting and not to return to school on time on Sunday. When you return to school, you may tell him that it is too early to return to school even at eight or nine in the evening, he may delay it until eleven or twelve. Whose fault is it that you should hold a meeting Sunday night?

On One Occasion Chairman Mao Discussed The Problem Of Study.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talks with Responsible Comrades at Various Places During Provincial Tour

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Talks With Responsible Comrades
At Various Places During
Provincial Tour

From the middle of August to 12 September 1971

[SOURCE: Mao Chu-hsi wen-hsun.]

(Summary)

Chairman Mao said: I hope that you will practice Marxism and not revisionism; that you will unite and not split; that you will be sincere and open and not resort to plotting and conspiracy.

The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything. When the Party’s line is correct, then everything will come its way. If it has no followers, then it can have followers; if it has no guns, then it can have guns; if it has no political power, then it can have political power. If its line is not correct, even what it has it may lose. The line is a net rope. When it is pulled, the whole net opens out.

This Party of ours already has fifty years’ history, during which time we have had ten big struggles on the question of our line. During these ten struggles there were people who wanted to split our Party, but none of them were able to do so. This is a question worth studying: such a big country, such a large population, yet no split. We can only say that this means that the Party wants what the people want, and the Party members do not want a split. In view of its past history, the future of the Party is full of hope.

First came Ch’en Tu-hsiu, who went in for right opportunism. After the ‘August 7th’ Conference of 1927 he organized the ‘Leninist left-opposition faction’ together with Liu Jen-ching, P’eng Shu-chih and others, and eighty-one of them issued a statement. They aimed to split our Party but they did not succeed. They then fled to the Trotskyites.

Next Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai committed mistakes of line. His people came across a pamphlet of mine in Hunan which contained my remark, ‘Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.’ This infuriated them. How could political power possibly come from the barrel of a gun? So they stripped me of my position as alternate member of the Politburo. Later Ch’ü Ch’iu-pai was captured by the Kuomintang, wrote his ‘Superfluous Words’, betrayed us, and went over to the other side.[1]

After the Sixth Congress of the Party in 1928 Li Li-san started to put on airs. From June to September 1930 he followed his Li-san Line for over three months. He advocated attacks on big cities, and first winning victory in one or several provinces. I did not agree with all this. At the Third Plenum of the Sixth Central Committee Li Li-san fell.

From 1930 to 1931 Lo Chang-lung’s rightist faction set up a separate Central Committee and engaged in splitting activity.[2] But they did not succeed either.

The Wang Ming Line had the longest life-span. He had formed a faction in Moscow, and organized the ‘28½ Bolsheviks’. Relying on the might of the Third International they seized power in the Party and held it for a full four years. Wang Ming called the Fourth Plenum of the Sixth Central Committee in Shanghai, and published his pamphlet, Fight for the Greater Bolshevization of the Chinese Communist Party, in which he criticized Li Li-san for not being ‘left’ enough. He was not satisfied until he had made a clean sweep of the bases, as in the end he practically did. During the four years from 1931 to 1934 I had no voice at all at the Centre. The Tsunyi Conference of January 1935 corrected mistakes of Wang Ming’s line and he fell.

During the Long March, after the meeting of the First and Fourth Front Armies, Chang Kuo-t’ao carried out a split and set up a separate Centre, but he did not succeed. Before the Long March the Red Army had 300,000 men. On its arrival in North Shensi only 25,000 remained. In the Central Soviet Area there had been 80,000. Of these only 8,000 arrived in North Shensi. Chang Kuo-t’ao did not want to go to North Shensi and carried out a split. But what way out was there at that time, other than to go to North Shensi? This was a question of political line. Our political line at that time was correct. If we had not gone to North Shensi, how could we have later gone to the North China Region, the East China Region, and the Central China Region, the North-East Region? How could we have built so many bases in the Anti-Japanese War? When we arrived in North Shensi, Chang Kuo-t’ao fled.

After nationwide victory Kao Kang and Jao Shu-shih created an anti-party alliance, with the intention of seizing power, but they did not succeed either.

At the 1959 Lushan Conference P’eng Te-huai colluded with a foreign country to seize power. Huang K’e-ch’eng, Chang Wen-t’ien, Chou Hsiao-chou popped up and opposed the Party. They formed a military club, though they did not discuss military affairs, but said such things as: ‘The people’s communes were set up too soon,’ ‘Our gains do not compensate for our losses,’ etc. P’eng Te-huai also wrote a letter which was an open declaration of war. His intention was to seize power, but he did not succeed.

Liu Shao-ch’i and his lot also wanted to split the Party, but they did not achieve their ambitions either.

Then came the struggle at the 1970 Lushan Conference.[3]

At the 1970 Lushan Conference they made a surprise attack and carried out underground activity. Why did they not dare to act openly? Clearly they had something to hide. So they first dissembled and then made a surprise attack. They concealed things from three of the five members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo. They also concealed things from the great majority of comrades on the Politburo apart from their own few big generals. These big generals included Huang Yung-sheng, Wu Fa-hsien, Yeh Ch’ün, Li Tso-p’eng, and Ch’iu Hui-tso, as well as Li Hsüeh-feng and Cheng Wei-shan.[4] Before they launched their surprise attack they did not let out a whisper. They caused trouble not merely for a day and a half, but from 23 August right through the 24th and up to midday on the 25th, altogether two days and a half. This kind of behaviour shows that they had some aim in mind! P’eng Te-huai formed a military club and issued a declaration of war. They were not even up to P’eng Te-huai’s level. This only shows how low their style of work was.

In my view, behind their surprise attack and their underground activity lay purpose, organization and a programme. Their programme was to appoint a state chairman, and to extol ‘genius’: in other words, to oppose the line of the Ninth Congress and to defeat the three-point agenda of the Second Plenum of the Ninth Central Committee. A certain person was anxious to become state chairman, to split the Party and to seize power. The question of genius is a theoretical question. Their theory was idealist apriorism. Someone has said that to oppose genius is to oppose me. But I am no genius. I read Confucian books for six years and capitalist books for seven. I did not read Marxist-Leninist books until 1918, so how can I be a genius? Didn’t I put circles round those adverbs several times over?[5] The Party Constitution was settled at the Ninth Congress. Why not take a look at it? I wrote ‘Some Opinions’,[6] which specially criticizes the genius theory, only after looking up some people to talk with them, and after some investigations and research. It is not that I do not want to talk about genius. To be a genius is to be a bit more intelligent. But genius does not depend on one person or a few people. It depends on a party, the party which is the vanguard of the proletariat. Genius is dependent on the mass line, on collective wisdom.

Comrade Lin Piao did not discuss that speech of his[7] with me, nor did he show it to me. When they had something to say they did not disclose it in advance. Probably this is because they thought they had a grip on things and were likely to succeed. But as soon as they were told that their ideas were not acceptable, they became jittery. At first they were as bold as brass, giving the impression they could raze Lushan to the ground or stop the earth revolving. But after a few days they hurriedly withdrew the draft.[8] If it was right, why withdraw it? This shows that they were devoid of ideas and in a panic.

The struggle with P’eng Te-huai at the 1959 Lushan Conference was a struggle between two headquarters. The struggle with Liu Shao-ch’i was also a struggle between two headquarters. The struggle at this Lushan Conference is yet another struggle between two headquarters.

The struggle at Lushan this time was different from the nine previous struggles. On the previous nine occasions we drew some conclusions, while this time we have shielded Vice-Chairman Lin and have not drawn conclusions concerning an individual. He must, of course, assume some responsibility. What are we to do about these people? We should still operate a policy of educating them, that is, ‘learning from past mistakes to prevent future ones and curing the disease to save the patient’. We still want to protect Lin. No matter who it is who has made mistakes, it is not a good thing to forget unity and the line. After I return to Peking I must seek them out again to have a talk. If they do not come to see me I will go to see them. Some of them may be saved, others it may not be possible to save. This depends on their actions. They have two possible futures: they may reform or they may not. It is difficult for someone who has taken the lead in committing major errors of principle, errors of line or direction, to reform. Looking back, did Ch’en Tu-hsiu reform? Did Ch’u Ch’iu-pai, Li Li-san, Lo Chang-lung, Wang Ming, Chang Kuo-t’ao, Kao Kang, Jao Shu-shih, P’eng Te-huai or Liu Shao-ch’i reform? They did not reform.

I spoke to Comrade Lin Piao and some of the things he said were not very accurate. For example he said that a genius only appears in the world once in a few centuries and in China once in a few millennia. This just doesn’t fit the facts. Marx and Engels were contemporaries, and not one century had elapsed before we had Lenin and Stalin, so how could you say that a genius only appears once in a few centuries? In China there were Ch’en Sheng and Wu Kuang, Hung Hsiu-ch’üan and Sun Yat-sen,[9] so how could you say that a genius only appears once in a few millennia? And then there is all this business about pinnacles and ‘one sentence being worth ten thousand’.[10] Don’t you think this is going too far? One sentence is, after all, just one sentence, how can it be worth ten thousand sentences? We should not appoint a state chairman. I don’t want to be state chairman. I have said this six times already. If each time I said it I used one sentence, that is now the equivalent of sixty thousand sentences.

But they never listen, so each of my sentences is not even worth half a sentence. In fact its value is nil. It’s only Ch’en Po-ta’s sentences that are worth ten thousand apiece to them. He talked about ‘establishing in a big way’, by which he gave the appearance of meaning to establish my prestige.[11] But when you get to the bottom of it, he really meant himself. They also said that the People’s Liberation Army was built and led by me, and commanded personally by Lin.[12] It seems that the person who founded it cannot command it! And I did not build it all by myself either.

When it comes to questions of line, questions of principle, I take a firm hold and do not relax my grip. On major questions of principle I do not make concessions. After the Lushan Conference I employed three methods: the first was throwing stones, the second was mixing sand into soil and the third was undermining the wall. I criticized the material produced by Ch’en Po-ta which fooled a great many people. I approved the report of the Thirty-eighth Army and the report of the Tsinan Military Region which opposed arrogance and complacency.[13] Then there was the Military Affairs Committee which held such a long discussion meeting without a word of criticism of Ch’en. I inserted a few critical notes about that in a certain document.[14] My method was to pick up these stones, write a few remarks on them, and let everyone discuss them. This is what I call throwing stones. When soil is too compressed it cannot breathe. If you mix in a little sand, then it can breathe. The staff of the Military Affairs Committee was too uniform in its composition, and needed to have some new names added. This is mixing sand in the soil. The reorganization of the Peking Military Region was undermining the wall.[15]

What is your opinion of the Lushan Conference? For instance, is the Sixth Brief Report of the North China Group really revolutionary, semi-revolutionary or counter-revolutionary? I myself regard it as a counter-revolutionary report. You were all present at the meeting of the ninety-nine, when the Premier made the summing-up speech and the self-examinations of the five big generals were issued, as well as those of big generals Li Hsüeh-feng and Cheng Wei-shan, so that everyone thought that the problem had been solved.[16] But in fact the Lushan affair had not finished, the problem had not been solved. They wanted to suppress it. They did not even let cadres of the rank of head of the General Command and the General Staff departments know about it. This would not do!

What I have been saying are my own personal opinions, which I am giving you informally. I shall not draw formal conclusions now, this must be done by the Central Committee.

*

You should be prudent. First of all the army must be prudent and secondly the regions must be prudent. You must not be arrogant, if you are arrogant you will commit errors. The army must be unified; it must be rectified. I just don’t believe that our army could rebel. I just don’t believe that you, Huang Yung-sheng, could order the Liberation Army to rebel! Under [each] army are divisions and regiments and the judicial, political and support units. If you try to mobilize the army to do bad things, do you think they will obey you?

You should pay attention to military affairs. You should not only be civil officials but also military officials. Grasping army work means studying the line and rectifying incorrect styles of work. You should not go in for mountain-top-ism or sectarianism, but pay attention to unity. I approve of the army’s traditional style of quick and decisive action. But this style cannot be applied to questions of ideology, for which it is necessary to make the facts known and reason with people.

I added my approval to the document of the Canton Military Region on the ‘three supports and two militaries’.[17] In order to get people to give it their attention I appended the words, ‘To be studied seriously’, to the Central Committee’s endorsement. Now that the regional Party Committees have been established, they should exercise unified leadership. It would be putting the cart before the horse if the matters already decided by regional Party committees were later turned over to the army Party committees for discussion.

In the past the military training given to our armed forces included unit-by-unit coaching. From individual coaching to battalion coaching took five to six months. Now that they only go in for civil and not military matters, our army has become a cultural army.

When ‘one good’ leads ‘three goods’ perhaps that ‘one good’ of yours will lead correctly and perhaps it will lead incorrectly.[18] And then there are the congresses of representatives of activists. It is worth studying what their actual effect is. Some are successful, but many are not. This is primarily a question of line. If the line is mistaken then the activists’ congress cannot be successful.

‘In industry learn from Tach’ing, in agriculture learn from Tachai; let the people of the whole country learn from the PLA.’ This is incomplete. We should add, ‘Let the PLA learn from the people of the whole country.’

*

You should study the article written by Lenin on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Eugene Pottier. Learn to sing ‘The Internationale’ and ‘The Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention’. Let them not only be sung but also explained and acted upon. ‘The Internationale’ and Lenin’s article express throughout a Marxist standpoint and outlook. What they say is that slaves should arise and struggle for truth. There never has been any supreme saviour, nor can we rely on gods or emperors. We rely entirely on ourselves for our salvation. Who has created the world of men? We the labouring masses. During the Lushan Conference I wrote a 700-word article which raised the question of who created history, the heroes or the slaves.[19] ‘The Internationale’ says we must unite until the day comes when Communism will certainly be realized. If you study Marxism you will see that it teaches unity and not splitting. We have been singing ‘The Internationale’ for fifty years but people have tried to split our Party ten times. I think it possible that they will do it another ten times, or twenty times, or thirty times. You don’t believe it? Maybe you don’t but I do. When we reach Communism will there be no struggles? I don’t believe that either. When we reach Communism there will still be struggles, but they will be between the new and the old, the correct and the incorrect, that is all. After tens of millennia have passed by, the incorrect will still be no good and will fail.

The Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention must be ‘remembered clearly, each and every one’ and ‘the people of the whole country welcome and support them’. Yet there are a few of the rules and points for attention which are not clearly remembered, especially the first of the Three Rules and the first and fifth of the Eight Points. These are not remembered clearly. How fine it would be if they could all be clearly remembered and put into effect. The first of the Three Rules is that in all actions orders must be obeyed, for only if we march in step can we win victory. If we are not in step we cannot win victory. Then there are the first and fifth of the Eight points which say that towards the people, and towards fellow soldiers and subordinates, we should always be polite. We must not put on airs; warlord ways must be rooted out. These are the points of emphasis. If there were no points of emphasis there would be no policy. I hope that we will use the Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention to educate the army, educate the cadres, educate the masses, educate the Party members and the people.

*

The Lushan Conference called for the study of books by Marx and Lenin.[20] I hope you will read more books from now on. It just won’t do if high-ranking cadres don’t even know what is materialism and what is idealism. What do we do if we find the books of Marx and Lenin difficult? We can ask a teacher to help us. You are all secretaries, but you ought to be students too. I myself become a student every day. I read two volumes of Reference Material[21] daily, and that’s why I know a little about international affairs.

I never approved of one’s wife becoming the office manager in one’s own work unit. Over at Lin Piao’s, it is Yeh Ch’ün who manages his office. When the four of them want to ask Lin Piao about anything they have to go through her. In doing any work one should do it oneself and read and endorse papers oneself. One should not rely on one’s secretary. One shouldn’t let one’s secretary wield so much power. My secretary is only responsible for receiving and dispatching papers. I select the documents myself, read them myself, and when something has to be done I do my own writing so that no mistakes are made.

*

The Cultural Revolution dragged out Liu Shao-ch’i, P’eng, Lo, Lu, and Yang. This was a big achievement. There were also some losses. Some good cadres have still not been able to re-emerge. The great majority of our cadres are good. The bad ones are a very small minority. Those who have been cleared out only comprise one per cent, while those who have been suspended are less than three per cent. The bad ones must be given appropriate criticism. The good ones must be praised, though not to the skies. It does a person under thirty no good at all if you call him a ‘super-genius’. At the recent Lushan Conference some comrades were deceived and hoodwinked. The problem does not lie in you but in Peking. It does not matter if you have made mistakes. Our Party has a rule that those who made mistakes should first make a self-examination, and then they should be permitted to correct their mistakes.

We must take care to educate people in our ideological and political line. Our principle must still be ‘learning from past mistakes to avoid future mistakes’, and ‘curing the disease to save the patient’. Unite to win still greater victories.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

Appendix: South of the Mountains to North of the Seas — Interview with Edgar Snow

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

APPENDIX

South Of The Mountains
To North Of The Seas

January Ninth, 1965: American journalist Edgar Snow’s Interview with Chairman Mao Tse-tung [excerpts]

After I had been back in China more than two months, I was invited to dinner by Mao Tse-tung on the night of 9 January 1965, when we conversed together for about four hours.

...........................................

Our talk ranged over what Mao himself called shan nan hai pei, or ‘from south of the mountains to north of the seas’. It was hai k’uo t’ien kung, covering ‘an expanse far and wide’, and in some respects unique.

...........................................

Tibet And The Gods

I said: ‘China has been through difficult years since I last saw you but now has emerged on an impressive high level. In 1960 you told me that 90 per cent of the people supported the government and only 10 per cent opposed it. How does that look now?

Mao replied that some Chiang Kai-shek elements were still around but their total was small. Many had changed their thinking and there was hope for more. As for the children of such people, they could be re-educated. Anyway, one could say that about 95 per cent of the people, or even more, were united and supported socialism.

...........................................

‘Are the Panchen Lama’s difficulties a matter of his feudal ties with the old lama landlord power over the former serfs,’ I asked, ‘or would you say it was a conflict over his duties as a religious leader versus the new political power separated from the church?’

Mao replied that it was basically a matter of the land question, not religious freedom. The feudal lords had lost their land, their serfs had been freed and were now the masters. The Panchen Lama had been keeping company with some ‘bad eggs (‘Huai tan’) of the old privileged class who not only obstructed change but had organized a clique. Certain members of the clique had exposed their plans. Some people around the Panchen were not too old to reform and might yet show progress. The Panchen himself might change his ideas. He was still a member of the National People’s Congress. He was now living in Peking but he could return to Lhasa whenever he desired; it was up to him.

As for lamaism as a religion, nobody was oppressing its true believers, all the temples were open and services maintained, but the trouble was the living buddhas didn’t always practice what they preached and were far from indifferent to non-spiritual affairs. The Dalai Lama himself had told Mao he didn’t believe he was a living god although if one said that openly the Dalai would have to deny it.

..................................

‘Are there still some gods in China?’

Yes, of course; as I knew, the Chinese did not have only one god, but many. There were gods for everything, door gods, kitchen gods, rain gods, mountain gods, mercy gods, and so on. Could not even a stone become a god? There were still millions who believed in Islam and many millions more who were Buddhists and Taoists. There were also several million Christians, Catholics and Protestants. And some genuinely believed in the lama gods, too.

‘I wonder if you have ever been to Tibet?’

No, he had never been to Tibet, except the eastern fringes which they crossed during the Long March. At that time he had travelled a great deal, but there were some areas he hadn’t been able to see. They (the Nationalists) wouldn’t let him see Yunnanfu (Kunming), for example. They had let him see Kweichow but they wouldn’t let him see Kweiyang (the capital). Now he could probably visit Yunnan but he had not done so. He also had not been to Sinkiang (Chinese Turkestan).

Remembering that it was thirty years ago that he had first told me about his father’s encounter with the tiger, he said at that time, towards the end of the first war with the Nationalists, their conditions were very poor. Yet that old Chinese Red Army was united and strong even if in numbers it was small. I had seen them when they had possessed only light weapons.

‘Except for those heavy spears carried by the Poor Men’s Militia.’

Yes, and even broomsticks. Victory or defeat was not determined by weapons at hand at the outset. What was really decisive was the will to victory and right aims. Many elements went into that. Now more than twenty years had passed, their weapons were better, but the same factors still determined victory or defeat.

‘People then were thinking mainly of liberating China from Japan. Certainly I did not then foresee the full significance of revolutionary China’s rise in the world.’

...........................................

U.S.

‘Some American commentators in Saigon have compared the strength of the Vietcong there with the 1947 period in China, when the People’s Liberation Army began to engage in large-scale annihilations of Nationalist forces. Are the conditions relatively comparable?’

The Chairman thought not. China’s second revolutionary war had involved liberating the whole vast country. By 1947 the People’s Liberation Army already had more than a million men, against several million troops on Chiang Kai-shek’s side. The P.L.A. had then used divisional and group army strength, whereas the South Vietnamese Liberation Forces were now operating at battalion or at most regimental strength. American forces in Vietnam were still relatively small. Of course if they increased they could help speed up the arming of the people against them. But if I should tell United States leaders that they were building up a revolutionary movement which would defeat them, they would not listen. They would not let the Vietnamese decide their own affairs. Had they listened to Ngo Dinh Diem? Both Ho Chi Minh and he (Mao) thought that Ngo Dinh Diem was not so bad. They had expected the Americans to maintain him for several more years. But impatient American generals became disgusted with Diem and got rid of him. After all following his assassination, was everything between Heaven and Earth more peaceful?

‘Can Vietcong forces now win victory by their own efforts alone?’

Yes, he said, he thought that they could. Their position was relatively better than that of the Communists during the first (revolutionary) civil war (1927-37) in China. At that time there was no direct foreign intervention but now already the Vietcong had the American intervention to help arm and educate the rank and file and the army officers. Those opposed to the United States were no longer confined to the Liberation Army. Diem had not wanted to take orders. Now this independence had spread to the generals. The American teachers were succeeding.

Asked whether some of these generals would soon join the Liberation Army, Mao said yes, that some would eventually follow the example of Kuomintang generals who had turned over to the Communists.

On The Third World

‘United States intervention in Vietnam, the Congo, and other former colonial battlefields suggests a question of some theoretical interest as seen within Marxist concepts. The question is whether the contradiction between neo-colonialism and the revolutionary forces in what the French like to call the “Third World”  —  the so-called under-developed or ex-colonial or still colonial nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America  —  is today the principal political contradiction in the world? Or do you consider that the basic contradiction is still one between the capitalist countries themselves?’

Mao Tse-tung said that he had not reached an opinion about that. Perhaps I could help him? He recalled that President Kennedy had also been interested in that question. Had he not declared that as far as the United States, Canada, and Western Europe were concerned there was not much real and basic difference? The President had said that the real problem of the future was in the southern hemisphere. In advocating ‘Special Forces’ and training to meet ‘local revolutionary wars’ the late President might have had my question in mind.

On the other hand, contradictions between imperialists were what had caused two world wars in the past, and their struggles against colonial revolutions had not changed their character. Weren’t those wars fought for the purpose of redividing colonies? If another big war occurred wouldn’t it be for the purpose of redividing control over the so-called underdeveloped countries? In fact, the so-called developed countries were not so united today. If one looked at France one saw two reasons for de Gaulle’s policies. The first was to assert independence from American domination. The second was to attempt to adjust French policies to changes occurring in the Asian-African countries and Latin America. The result was intensified contradiction between the imperialist nations. But was France part of its so called ‘Third World’? Recently he had asked some French visitors about that and they had told him no, that France was a developed country and could not be a member of the ‘Third World’ of undeveloped countries. It seemed that the matter was not so simple.

‘Perhaps it could be said that France is in the Third World but not of it?’

Perhaps. This question which had engaged the interest of President Kennedy had led him (Mao said he had read) to study Mao’s own essays on military operations. He had also learned from Algerian friends during their struggle against France that the French were reading his works and using his information against them. But at that time he had told the Algerian prime minister, Abad, that his own (Mao’s) books were based on Chinese experience and would not work in reverse. They could be adapted to the waging of people’s war. They did not save the French from defeat in Algeria. Chiang Kai-shek had also studied the Communists’ materials but he had not been saved either.

Mao remarked that the Chinese also study American books, but that it would be bad for them to fight an anti-people’s war. For instance, he had read The Uncertain Trumpet, by General Maxwell Taylor, the United States ambassador in Saigon. General Taylor’s view was that nuclear weapons probably could not be used, therefore non-nuclear arms would decide. He favoured developing nuclear weapons but wanted priority in their development given to the army. Now he had his chance to test out his theories of special warfare. He had been in Vietnam only since last June, not as long as the duration of the Korean war. In Vietnam General Taylor would gain some valuable experience.

The Chairman had also read some articles of war on how to handle guerrillas issued by United States authorities to their troops. These instructions dealt with the shortcomings and military weaknesses of the guerrillas and held out hopes for American victory. They ignored the decisive political fact that whether it was Diem or some other puppets, no government cut off from the masses could win against wars of liberation. No good could result from helping such governments. The Americans (authorities) would not listen to him, however. They also would not listen to me.

‘In South-East Asia as well as in India and certain countries of Africa and even Latin America there exist some social conditions comparable to those that brought on the Chinese revolution. Each country has its own problems and solutions will vary widely, yet I wonder if you agree that social revolutions will occur which may borrow much from the Chinese experience?’

Anti-feudal and anti-capitalist sentiments combined with opposition to imperialism and neo-colonialism, he replied, grew out of oppression and wrongs of the past. Wherever the latter existed there would be revolution but in most countries I was talking about the people were merely seeking national independence, not socialism  —  quite another matter. European countries had also had anti-feudal revolutions, but the United States had had no real feudal period.

‘The United States had a brief period of regional feudalism during the period of slavery in the southern states. After a hundred years the ex-slaves are still fighting for social and political equality, so one can’t say that feudal influences don’t hang on in the United States.’

The United States, he said, had first fought a progressive war of independence from British imperialism, and then fought a civil war to establish a free labour market. Washington and Lincoln were progressive men of their time. When the United States first established a republic it was hated and dreaded by all the crowned heads of Europe. That showed that the Americans were then revolutionaries. Now the American people needed to struggle for liberation from their own monopoly capitalists. What part of the United States did I come from?

‘I was born in Missouri, the Middle West, in a geographical situation comparable to your native province, Hunan. We have produced no revolutionaries but Missouri produced Mark Twain and Harry Truman two quite different articles. Missouri was not a slave state, but it was part of the homeland of American Indians taken from them hardly two hundred years ago. Americans think they are not imperialists but the American Indians are of a different opinion. China was not quite so ruthless in despoiling the minority peoples. After 3,000 years, more than half the area of the country is theirs and you still have nearly fifty million non-Han autonomous peoples. How are relations between the Han and the minority peoples today?’

He said that they were improving. In a word, the important thing was to respect them and treat them as equals.

‘Among the roughly three fifths of the earth which belongs in the Third World category very acute problems exist, as we know. The gap between the ratio of population growth and production is becoming more and more advantageous. The gap between their standard of living and that of the affluent countries is rapidly widening. Under such conditions will time wait for the Soviet Union to demonstrate the superiority of the social system  —  and then wait a century for parliamentarism to arise in the underdeveloped areas and peacefully establish socialism?’

Mao thought it would not wait so long

‘Does that question not perhaps touch upon the nexus of China’s ideological dispute with the Soviet Union?’

He agreed that it did.

‘Do you think it would be possible to complete not only the national liberation of emerging nations of the Third World but also their modernization, without another world war?’

Use of the word ‘complete’ must give one pause, he said. Most of the countries concerned were still very far from socialist revolutions. In some there were no Communist parties at all while in others there were only revisionists. It was said that Latin America had about twenty Communist parties; of those eighteen had issued resolutions against China. He paused and ended by saying that only one thing was certain. Wherever severe oppression existed there would be revolution.

Khrushchev And The Cult

‘Western commentators, and especially the Italian Communists, severely criticized the Soviet leaders for the conspiratorial and undemocratic way in which Khrushchev was thrown aside. What is your view about that?’

Mao did not directly answer the question. He replied that Mr. Khrushchev had not been very popular in China even before his fall. Few portraits of him were to be seen. But Khrushchev’s books were for sale in the bookstores before the fall and they were still for sale here but not in Russia. The world needed Khrushchev; his ghost would linger on. There were bound to be people who liked him. China would miss him as a negative example.

‘On the basis of your own 70/30 standards  —  that is, a man’s work may be judged satisfactory if it is 70 per cent and only 30 per cent in error  —  how would you grade the present leadership of the Soviet Party? How far is it still below passing?’

Mao said he would not choose to discuss the present leaders in those terms.

‘Is there any improvement in Sino-Soviet relations?’

Possibly some but not much. The chief difference was that the disappearance of Khrushchev had deprived them of a good target for polemical articles.

‘In the Soviet Union,’ I said, ‘China has been criticized for fostering a “cult of personality”. Is there a basis for that?’

Mao thought that perhaps there was some. It was said that Stalin had been the centre of a cult of personality, and that Khrushchev had none at all. The Chinese people, critics said, had some feelings or practices of this kind. There might be some reasons for saying that. Probably Mr. Khrushchev fell because he had had no cult of personality at all. . .

‘While you were making a revolution in China you also revolutionized foreign Sinology and now there are various schools of Maoists and Pekingologists. Not long ago I attended a conference where professors debated whether you had or had not made any original contributions to Marxism. I asked one professor, at the close of the conference, whether it would make any difference in their controversy if it could be shown that Mao himself had never claimed to have made any creative contribution. The professor impatiently replied. “No, indeed. That would be quite beside the point”’

Mao laughed. More than two thousand years ago, he said, Chuang Chou wrote his immortal essay on Lao Tzu (in The Chuang Tzu). A hundred schools of thought then arose to dispute the meaning of The Chuang Tzu.

‘In 1960 when I last saw you I asked whether you ever wrote or had any intention of writing an autobiography. You replied that you had not, except as you had told me something about your life. Nevertheless, some professors have discovered “autobiographies” written by you. A question currently exercising the professors is whether you in fact wrote your celebrated philosophical essays, “On Contradiction” and “On Practice” in the summer of 1937, as asserted in your Selected Works, or whether they were really composed some years afterwards. I myself seem to recall having seen unpublished longhand translations of those essays in the summer of 1938. Would you give me your own opinion about when you composed those two essays?’

He replied that he had indeed written them in the summer of 1937. During the weeks preceding and immediately following the Lukouchiao incident[1] there had been a lull in his life in Yenan. The army had left for the front and Mao had found time to collect materials for some lectures on basic philosophy for use in the (Yenan) Anti-Japanese Academy. Some simple and yet fundamental text was needed for the young students being prepared, in brief three-month courses, for political guidance during the years immediately ahead. At the insistence of the Party Mao prepared ‘On Contradiction’ and ‘On Practice’ to sum up the experience of the Chinese revolution, by combining the essentials of Marxism with concrete and everyday Chinese examples. Mao said that he wrote most of the night and slept during the day. What he had written over a period of weeks he delivered in lecture form in a matter of two hours. Mao added that he himself considered ‘On Practice’ a more important essay than ‘On Contradiction’.

‘An essay called “Dialectical Materialism”, not included in your Selected Works, has been attributed to you by Mao Tse-tung specialists in the West. Did you write any such essay?’

Mao asked for the question to be repeated. He replied that he had never written an essay entitled ‘Dialectical Materialism’. He thought that he would remember it if he had.

‘You were very busy learning about the art of war from 1927 onwards. Had you found time to read Hegel before 1937?’

Mao said that he had read Hegel and he had also read Engels before then. He added (thinking of his American critics, perhaps) that he had never read any American Marxist theorists. Were there any good ones? I asked whether in his youth he had heard of Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class. If it had been translated into Chinese Mao had not seen it. I mentioned a book which had made a big impression on nineteenth-century American utopian socialists, and was still very interesting reading for its prophetic quality. Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward. As for modern American Marxist thinkers, there was Paul Sweezy’s Theory of Capitalist Development. Mao said he regretted that he had not read any of them.

The Bomb

‘Speaking of tigers, as we were,’ I said, ‘do you still believe that the bomb is a paper tiger?’

That had been just a way of talking, he said, a figure of speech. Of course the bomb could kill people. But in the end the people would destroy the bomb. Then it would truly become a paper tiger.

‘You have been quoted as saying that China had less fear of the bomb than other nations because of her vast population. Other peoples might be totally wiped out but China would still have a few hundred millions left to begin anew. Was there ever any factual basis to such reports?’

He asked when and how he was supposed to have said that. I replied that one source was attributed to a Yugoslav diplomat who claimed that Mao had said that even if all Europeans were wiped out China would still have 300 millions left

Mao answered that he had no recollection of saying anything like that but he might have said it. He did recall a conversation he had had with Jawaharlal Nehru when the latter visited China (in October 1954). As he remembered it he had said China did not want a war. They didn’t have atom bombs, but if other countries wanted to fight there would be a catastrophe in the whole world, meaning that many people would die. As for how many, nobody could know. He was not speaking only of China. He did not believe one atom bomb would destroy all mankind, so that you would not be able to find a government to negotiate peace. He had mentioned this to Nehru during their conversation. Nehru said that he was chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India and he knew about the destructiveness of atomic power. He was sure that no one could survive. Mao replied that it would probably not be as Nehru said. Existing governments might disappear but others would arise to replace them.

He had heard that Americans had made a film called On the Beach, which showed nuclear war bringing the world to an end. Was that a scientific film?

‘It’s what is called science fiction.’

Not so long ago, said Mao, Mr. Khrushchev had announced that he had a deadly weapon capable of killing all living things. Then he immediately retracted his statement  —  not only once but many times. Mao would not deny anything he had said, nor did he wish me to deny for him this so-called rumour (about the power of survival of China’s millions in a nuclear war). Americans also had said very much about the destructiveness of the atom bomb and Khrushchev had made a big noise about that. They had all surpassed him in this respect (boasting of their destructive potency), so that he was more backward than they, was not that so?’ [Mao was ridiculing, by implication, those who supposed him to be an ignorant peasant unaware of the full meaning of nuclear terror.]

Yet recently he had reports of an investigation by Americans who visited the Bikini Islands six years after nuclear tests were conducted there. From 1959 onwards research workers had been in Bikini. When they first entered the main island they had had to cut open paths through the undergrowth. They had found mice scampering about and fish swimming in the streams as usual. The well water was potable, plantation foliage was flourishing, and birds were twittering in the trees. Bacteria had multiplied at the rate of 400 kilogrammes per square mou. Probably there had been two bad years after the tests but nature had gone on. How was it that mice had survived? Plant life was destroyed but not the seeds which lay dormant until the earth’s surface was purified. For the bacteria, the birds, the mice, and the trees, the atom bomb really was a paper tiger. Possibly for man himself it was different. . .

The deeper implication of Mao’s last remark was that even if man disappeared from the earth  —  committed mass suicide  —  life could not be extinguished by man’s bomb.

Disarmament?

All the governments were talking about complete and total disarmament. China herself had proposed disarmament since a long time past. So had the Soviet Union. The U.S.A. kept talking about it. What we were getting instead was complete and thorough rearmament.

‘President Johnson may find it difficult to settle problems in the East one by one. Perhaps if he desired to expose the world to the real complexity of those problems he might do worse than to cut to the heart of the matter by accepting China’s proposal to hold a summit conference to consider the total destruction of nuclear weapons’.

Mao agreed but concluded that it would be quite impossible. Even if Mr. Johnson himself desired such a meeting he was after all but a bailiff [Huang liang chuang t’ou, an estate overseer.]  —  for the monopoly capitalists  —  and they would never permit it. China had had only one atomic explosion and perhaps it had to be proved that one could divide into two, and so on ad infinitum. Yet China did not want a lot of bombs, which were really quite useless since probably no nation dared employ them. A few would suffice for scientific experiments. Even one bomb was not liked in China’s hands.

‘I remember your telling me a story about an ignorant local warlord in South China who posted a bulletin offering a reward for the capture of “Mr Soviet”[2] rumoured to be leading some bandits and causing lots of trouble. Now it is Mr. China A-Bomb that is causing trouble. Why is that?’

Yes, Mao feared that his reputation was not good; the imperialists just did not like him. They didn’t like Mr. China A-Bomb. Yet was it really just to blame Mr. China A-Bomb for everything and to start anti-Chinese movements? Did China kill Ngo Dinh Diem? And yet that had happened. When the assassination of President Kennedy occurred the Chinese (Communists) were quite surprised. They had not planned that. Once more, they were quite surprised when Khrushchev was removed in Russia. They had not ordered that.

On The United Nations

‘Indonesia has withdrawn from the United Nations, accompanied by applause from China[3]. Do you think the move will set a precedent and that other withdrawals will follow?’

Mao said that it was the United Sates which had first set the precedent, by excluding China from the United Nations. Now that a majority of nations might favour restoring China’s seat despite U.S. opposition, there was a new scheme to require a two thirds majority instead of a simple majority. But the question was, had China gained or lost by being outside the U.N. during the past fifteen years? Indonesia had left because she felt that there was not much advantage to remaining in the U.N. As for China, was it not in itself a United Nations? Any one of several of China’s minority nationalities was much larger in population and territory than some states in the U.N. whose votes had helped deprive China of her seat there. China was a large country with plenty of work to keep her busy outside the U.N.

What did I think? Would China have been better off being in the U.N. during the past fifteen years?

‘Yes, perhaps so, if it did not mean dividing one China into two Chinas. But some people now say that China does not want to join the U.N. under any conditions?’

To say that would be bad. If two thirds of the U.N. invited China to join, and if the Chinese did not accept, wouldn’t they be called nationalists? (That is, anti-internationalists.) But even if the U.N. decided to recognize mainland China rather than the Taiwan clique, wouldn’t there still be difficulties? How could they give a seat to China while still condemning her as an aggressor? (Referring to the U.N. resolution which branded China an aggressor for intervening after American troops crossed into northern Korea.) But suppose the title of aggressor were even taken away from China? What then? Would the U.N. brand the U.S. an aggressor in Vietnam? Probably the United States would not agree to such changes. Thus there was no danger of China entering the U.N.

‘Is it now practicable to consider forming a union of nations excluding the United States?’

Mao pointed out that such forums already existed. One example was the Afro-Asian Conference. Another was Ganefo  —  Games of the New Emerging Forces  —  organized after the United States excluded China from the Olympics.

(Preparations for the Afro-Asian Conference scheduled to open in Algiers in March 1965 had been plagued by many problems. These included the Indonesia-Malaysia dispute and insistence on the part of the pro-China Bandung powers that the U.S.S.R must be excluded from the Conference, as a strictly European power. China then regarded the Afro-Asian organization as the potential centre of planned development of a Third World largely independent of neo-colonial or Western capital. Following Chinese principles of ‘self-reliance’ in internal development, and of mutual help between the Afro-Asian states, the process of modernization might by-pass the slow and painful methods of capital accumulation by traditional bourgeois means. Such a theoretical alternative of course would have implied more rapid and radical political evolution and an earlier arrival at pre-socialist conditions in the capital-poor Afro-Asian states. It had been obvious for some time that the Afro-Asian Conference was also viewed as a potential permanent assembly of the have-not nations to exist independently from the American-dominated United Nations from which China and her closest allies had long been excluded and from which Indonesia had recently excluded itself. Events moved in a different direction, to a great extent helped by Sino-Soviet hostility.)

How Many Chinese?

‘In fact, Mr. Chairman, how many people are there inside China’s own United Nations,’ I asked. ‘Can you give me a population figure resulting from the recent census?

The Chairman replied that he really did not know. Some said that there were 680 to 690 millions but he did not believe it. How could there be so many?

When I suggested that it ought not to be difficult to calculate, on the basis of ration coupons (cotton and rice) alone, Mao indicated that the peasants had sometimes confused the picture. Before Liberation they had hidden births and kept sons off the register out of fear of having them conscripted. Since liberation there had been a tendency to report greater numbers and less land, and to minimize output returns while exaggerating the effects of calamities. Nowadays a new birth was reported at once, but when someone died it might not be reported for months. (His implication seemed to be that extra ration coupons could be accumulated in that way.) No doubt there had been a real decline in the birth rate, but the peasants were still too slow to adopt family planning and birth control. The decline in the death rate was probably greater than the decline in births. Average longevity had gone up from about thirty years to close to fifty years.

The U.S. In Vietnam

‘Do you have any advice for the U.S.A.?’

They had already suggested, a long time ago, that the United States withdraw a bit. The United States had its hands stretched all over the world. As usual the American rulers would not listen.

The American position was difficult, especially in Vietnam. To withdraw was not good; not to withdraw was also not good [Pu-hao...yeh pu-hao]. Wherever there were signs of disturbance the American imperialists must send troops, first moving here and then there.

‘I have heard some people in Washington argue that the fleet and the marines might as well be in Vietnam as anywhere else. They have to be paid anyway.’

Yes, they had plenty to do. Reactionaries everywhere needed their help. In the Congo, for instance. In the end, they must all go home. In the past China had seen American troops in Tientsin, Tsingtao, Shanghai, even Peking. They had all left. In fact they had left very rapidly.

The conditions of revolutionary anti-imperialist victory in China had been, first, that the old ruling group was weak and incompetent, led by Chiang Kai-shek, a man who was always losing battles. Second, the people’s Liberation Army was strong and ably led and people believed in its cause. In places where such conditions did not prevail the Americans could intervene. Otherwise they would stay away or soon leave.

We were at dinner when Mao asked whether I considered that Mr. Johnson could try a Vietnam policy any different from that of his predecessors. I said probably not; it would be easier to follow the old ruts deeper into the trap. But the war in Vietnam was not popular and Mr. Johnson liked to be popular. His administration faced many internal problems which a bigger war in Asia could not really solve. In balance, however, since Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung probably would not provide Mr. Johnson with ‘an attractive way out’, he would not leave until the costs became very great. I had already given my opinion to Foreign Minister Ch’en Yi, that ‘it would not surprise me to see 100,000 American troops in Vietnam before next year’.

Mao asked what kind of internal problems Mr. Johnson faced.

I ticked off several obvious ones, including unemployment, especially high among blacks, which helped to increase racial tension. War could, of course, tend to cut down unemployment temporarily. Automation was a factor in unemployment, and I also mentioned the great population shift from the farms, where mechanization and capitalization had eliminated so many small proprietors and poured millions of landless people into the urban labour market. Now only about eight per cent of the total U.S. population was needed to produce more food than the country could consume.

Mao asked me to repeat the figure. When I did so he shook his head sceptically. How could that be? was all he said.

China And The U.S.

‘Naturally I personally regret that forces of history have divided and separated the American and Chinese peoples from virtually all communication during the past fifteen years. Today the gulf seems broader than ever. However, I myself do not believe it will end in war and one of history’s major tragedies.’

Mao said that forces of history were also bound, eventually, to bring the two peoples together again; that day would surely come. Possibly I was right that meanwhile war could be avoided.

War could occur only if American troops came to China. They might come and they might not come. If they came they would not really benefit much. That simply would not be allowed. Probably the American leaders knew that and consequently they would not invade China. Then there would be no war because if they did not send troops to China the Chinese certainly would never send troops to attack the United States.

‘What of the possibilities of war arising over Vietnam? I have read many newspaper stories indicating that the United States has considered expanding the war into North Vietnam.’

No, that would not happen. Mr. Rusk had now made it clear that the U.S. would not do that. Mr. Rusk might have earlier said something like that but now he had corrected himself and said that he had never made such a statement. Therefore, there need not be any war in North Vietnam.

‘Judging from conversations I have had from time to time with a few high American officials, including Dean Rusk, I would say that the makers and administrators of United States policy, the rulers of the United States, simply do not understand you.’

Why not? China’s armies would not go beyond her borders to fight. That was clear enough. Only if the United States attacked China would the Chinese fight. Wasn’t that clear? Chinese were very busy with their internal affairs. Fighting beyond one’s own borders was criminal. Why should the Chinese do so? The South Vietnamese could cope with their situation.

‘American officials repeatedly say that if United States forces were withdrawn from Vietnam then all South-East Asia would be overrun.’

The question is, said Mao, ‘overrun’ by whom? Overrun by Chinese or overrun by the inhabitants? China was overrun but only by Chinese.

‘Are there now any Chinese troops in Vietnam?’

Mao affirmed that there were no Chinese forces in Northern Vietnam or anywhere else in South-East Asia. China had no troops outside her own frontiers.

‘Dean Rusk has said that if China would give up her aggressive policies then the United States would withdraw from Vietnam. What does he mean?’

Mao replied that China had no policies of aggression to abandon. Where was China aggressing? China had committed no acts of aggression. China supported revolutionary movements, but not by invading countries. Of course, whenever a liberation struggle existed China would publish statements and call demonstrations to support it. It was precisely that which vexed the imperialists.

Mao went on to say that on some occasions China deliberately made a loud noise, as, for example, around Quemoy and Matsu. A flurry of shots there could attract a lot of attention perhaps because the Americans were uneasy so far away from home. Consider what could be accomplished by firing some blank shells within those Chinese territorial waters. Not so long ago the United States Seventh Fleet in the Taiwan Straits was deemed insufficient to reply to the shells. The U.S. also dispatched part of its Sixth Fleet in China’s direction and brought over part of the navy from San Francisco. Arrived here, they had found nothing to do. So it seemed that China could order the American forces to march here or to march there.

It was the same with Chiang Kai-shek’s army. They had been able to order Chiang to scurry this way and then to hurry off in another direction. Of course when navy men were warm and had full bellies they must be given something to do. But how was it that shooting off empty guns at home could be called aggression while those who actually intervened with arms and bombed and burned people of other lands were not considered aggressors?

Some Americans had once said that the Chinese revolution was led by Russian aggressors but in truth the Chinese revolution was armed by Americans. In the same way the Vietnamese revolution was also being armed by Americans, not by China. The liberation forces had not only greatly improved their supplies of American weapons during recent months but had also expanded their forces by recruiting American-trained troops and officers from the puppet armies of South Vietnam. China’s liberation forces had grown in numbers and strength by recruiting to their side the troops trained and armed by the Americans for Chiang Kai-shek. The movement was called the ‘changing of hats’. When Nationalist soldiers changed hats in large numbers because they had no confidence in their officers and felt that they would be killed needlessly, that the peasants would kill them for wearing the wrong hat, then the end was near. Changing hats was becoming more popular now among the Vietnamese puppets.

‘Do you mean to say that the circumstances of victory for the Liberation Front now exist in South Vietnam?’

Mao thought that the American forces were not yet ready to leave. Fighting would go on perhaps for one to two years. After that the United States troops would find it uninteresting and might go home or go somewhere else.

‘In a recent interview with Premier Chou Enlai, I understood him to say that China would oppose a Geneva Conference to enforce the Treaty of 1954 unless the United States first withdrew its troops from Vietnam. Is it your policy now to insist upon the withdrawal of United States forces before participating in a Geneva Conference to discuss the international position of a unified Vietnam?’

The Chairman said that he did not know what Premier Chou had said to me. He himself thought that several possibilities should be mentioned. First, a conference might be held and United States withdrawal would follow. Second, the conference might be deferred until after the withdrawal. Third, a conference might be held but United States troops might stay around Saigon, as in the case of South Korea. Finally, the South Vietnamese Front might drive out the Americans without any conference or international agreement.

The 1954 Geneva Conference had provided for the withdrawal of French troops from all Indo-China and had forbidden any intervention by any other foreign troops. The United States had nevertheless violated the Geneva convention and that could happen again. . . Frankly, it was a good thing for the United States to keep troops in South Vietnam. That trained the people and made their Liberation Army strong. It was not enough to have a single Ngo Dinh Diem, just as in China a single Chiang Kai-shek had not been enough. There had to be a Japan to overrun the country for eight and a half years. Only then did the nation develop able leaders and a strong revolutionary army able to defeat the internal reactionaries and drive out the American imperialists.

‘How would China respond if the United States adopted a peace policy, offered to withdraw its forces from South Korea, Taiwan, all South-East Asia, everywhere abroad, if China and other powers would agree not only to total destruction of nuclear weapons but to total world disarmament?’

Mao said that frankly he had never given any thought to such a notion.

‘I have never met President Johnson, but I suppose that if you had any special message for him I might be able to give it to him. Is there anything you would like to say to him?’

After a pause: No, there was not. [Simply, Pu-shih]

‘Under the circumstances,’ I asked, ‘do you really see any hope of an improvement in Sino-American relations?’

Yes, he thought there was hope. It would take time. Maybe there would be no improvement in his generation (lifetime). He was soon going to see God. [In Chinese, ‘Pu chiu yao chien Shang-ti’, ‘to be obliged to see God before long. Mao used Shang-ti, meaning the ‘Emperor God, supreme over all other gods, a term less ambiguous than Tien, which can mean God as Nature or a universal primordial principle.]

Going To See God

‘Speaking of your health, as we were not, judging from this evening you seem to be in good condition.’

Mao Tse-tung smiled wryly and replied that there was perhaps some doubt about that. He said again that he was getting ready to see God very soon. Did I believe it?

‘I wonder if you mean you are going to find out whether there is a God. Do you believe that?

No, he did not, but some people who claimed to be well informed said that there was a God. There seemed to be many gods and sometimes the same god could take all sides. In the wars of Europe the Christian God had been on the side of the British, the French, the Germans, and so on, even when they were fighting each other. At the time of the Suez Canal crisis God was united behind the British and the French but then there was Allah to back up the other side.

At dinner Mao had mentioned that both his brothers had been killed. His first wife had also been executed during the revolution (1930) and their son had been killed during the Korean war. Now, he said that it was odd that death had so far passed him by. He had been prepared for it many times but death just did not seem to want him. What could he do? On several occasions it had seemed that he would die. His personal bodyguard was killed while standing right beside him. Once he was splashed all over with the blood of another soldier but the bomb had not touched him.

‘Was that in Yenan?’

In Yenan, too. His bodyguard had been killed during the Long March[4]. There had been other narrow escapes. According to laws of dialectics all struggles must finally be resolved, including man’s struggle for life on this earth.

‘Accidents of fate which spared you have made possible perhaps the most remarkable career in Chinese history. In all China’s long annals I cannot recall any man who rose from rural obscurity not only to lead a successful social revolution but to write its history, to conceive the strategy of its military victory, to formulate an ideological doctrine which changed the traditional thought of China, and then to live out the practice of his philosophy in a new kind of civilization with broad implications for the whole world.’

After a moment of reflection Mao said that I knew he had begun life as a primary school teacher. He had then had no thought of fighting wars. Neither had he thought of becoming a Communist. He was more or less a democratic personage such as myself. Later on  —  he sometimes wondered by what chance combination of reasons he had become interested in founding the Chinese Communist Party. Anyway, events did not move in accordance with the individual will. What mattered was that China had been oppressed by imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism. Such were the facts. . . .

‘Youths who heard you lecture in 1937 later learned about revolution in practice, but what can be the substitute for youths in China today?’

Of course those in China now under the age of twenty had never fought a war and never seen an imperialist or known capitalism in power. They knew nothing about the old society at first hand. Parents could tell them but to hear about history and to read books was not the same thing as living it.

‘Man makes his own history but he makes it in accordance with his environment. You have fundamentally changed the environment in China. Many wonder what the younger generation bred under easier conditions will do. What do you think about it?’

He also could not know, he said. He doubted that anyone could be sure. There were two possibilities. There could be a continued development of the revolution towards communism. The other possibility was that youth could negate the revolution and do bad things (ken huai shih): make peace with imperialism, bring the remnants of the Chiang Kai-shek clique back to the mainland, and take a stand beside the small percentage of counter-revolutionaries still in the country. I had asked his opinion. Of course he did not hope for counter-revolution but future events would be decided by future generations, and in accordance with conditions we could not foresee. From the long-range view future generations ought to be more knowledgeable than we are, just as men of the bourgeois-democratic era were more knowledgeable than those of the feudal ages. Their judgement would prevail, not ours. The youth of today and those to come after them would assess the work of the revolution in accordance with values of their own.

Mao’s voice dropped away and he half closed his eyes. Man’s condition on this earth was changing with ever increasing rapidity. A thousand years from now all of us, he said, even Marx, Engels, and Lenin would probably appear rather ridiculous.

Before I rose to leave the Chairman sent his greetings to the American people and said simply that he wished them progress. If he wished them liberation weren’t some people bound to disagree? Wouldn’t they say that they already had the right to vote? But to those among them who were not really liberated, and desired liberation, to them he wished his best.

Mao Tse-tung walked me through the doorway and, despite my protests, saw me to my car, where he stood alone for a moment, coatless in the sub-zero Peking night, to wave me farewell in the traditional manner of that ancient cultured city. I saw no security guards around the entrance nor can I now recall having seen even one armed body guard in our vicinity all evening..........

Mao shook hands and gave me a precautionary word, to take care, quoting a Chinese maxim: ‘Unpredictable high winds and misfortunes are in the skies!’

As the car drove away I looked back and watched Mao brace his shoulders and slowly retrace his steps and re-enter the great Hall of the people.

Notes

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung