A Talk to Music Workers

#PUBLICATION NOTE

This edition of A Talk to Music Workers has been prepared and revised for digital publication by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism under the Central Committee of the Communist Party in Switzerland on the basis of the following editions:

• A Talk to Music Workers, in the Beijing Review, Vol. 22, No. 37 (14th of September, 1979).
• Talk With Music Workers, Version 1, in The Writings of Mao Zedong, 1949-76, First English Edition, Vol. 2, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk and London, 1992.

#INTRODUCTION NOTE

This is a talk given by Comrade Mao Zedong at a meeting with directors of the National Association of Musicians on the 24th of August, 1956. It was first published in the Red Guard collection Long Live Mao Zedong's Thought! in 1968.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#A TALK TO MUSIC WORKERS

#TALK AT A MEETING WITH DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUSICIANS

#Mao Zedong

#24th of August, 1956

#★

The fundamental principles of the class struggle, socialist revolution, and the transition from capitalism to socialism are the same for all countries. But things are different with respect to minor principles and the forms in which the fundamental principles are manifested. For example, the principles of war are the same, they involve attack and defence, advance and retreat, victory and defeat. But in the waging of war, there are differences, and indeed many differences, as to how to attack or how to defend. In the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, the two sides fought to a stalemate along the 38th Parallel. This was a form rarely seen before. Revolution certainly takes a variety of forms. The November Revolution and the Chinese revolution were different in many respects. In the Council Union, the revolution developed from the cities to the countryside, while in our country, it developed from the countryside to the cities.

The fundamental principles of the arts are universal, but their forms of expression should be varied, and there should be national forms and national styles. Take the leaves of a tree: at first sight, they look much the same, but upon close examination, each one is different. There is individuality as well as universality, dissimilarity as well as similarity. This is a law of nature and likewise a law of Marxism. This should also hold for composing music, for song and dance.

To say that things Chinese do not have their own laws is to negate them, and this is wrong. The Chinese language, Chinese music, and Chinese painting all have their own laws. Those people who spoke ill of Chinese painting just hadn't made a thorough study of their own things, and they thought they had to use the methods employed in Western painting. Of course, you can first learn things foreign before moving on to things Chinese. But things Chinese have their own laws. In music, you may apply appropriate foreign principles and use foreign musical instruments. But still, there must be national characteristics. We must have our own distinctive style, something that is unique.

Some people reject their own national characteristics and blindly worship the West; they hold that everything in the West is better, and even go so far as to advocate «wholesale Westernization». This is incorrect. «Wholesale Westernization» of the arts has little chance of being accepted. It's better to take Chinese art as the basis and engage in our own creative activity while absorbing some foreign things. You can try all sorts of things now, you can take your pick. You have to learn many things from foreign countries and learn them well. You can thus broaden your horizon. But the Chinese people won't welcome any mechanical transplanting of things foreign into our Chinese art. The case is different with medicine. Western medicine is really effective in curing illness. There is no question of national form in operating on the stomach, removing the appendix, or taking aspirin. Nor has the use of Chinese angelica and rhubarb anything to do with national form. But there is a question of form, of national form, in the arts. The arts are inseparable from the customs, feelings, and even the language of the people, from the history of the nation. There is a large measure of national conservatism in the arts, which can persist for even thousands of years. Ancient art can still be appreciated by later generations.

We should get acquainted with foreign things and read foreign books. That doesn't mean that Chinese people have to do things in exactly the same way as foreigners, nor does it mean that what is written by a Chinese must read like a translation. For Chinese people, our own things should remain primary.

Of course, we favour music with a national character. As Chinese, we would be in the wrong to do otherwise. But surely we ought not to have the suona horn or the huqin fiddle in our military bands, just as in the case of military uniforms, today we wear the present style and not those jackets with the character «Brave» on back and front. That's not the way national styles are cultivated. Musical instruments are tools. Whether a tool is good or bad is of course important, but what is essential is how one uses it. We can make use of foreign musical instruments, but must not copy foreign music in our musical composition.

There are 2'700'000'000 people on this Earth, and it simply wouldn't do if all were to sing one tune. Every nationality, East or West, should have things of its own. The Western countries have developed capitalism and have played a role in history. Now, the attention of the world is gradually turning toward the East. Would it be right for the countries of the East not to create their own things?

We can also produce some works that are neither Chinese nor foreign in style, as long as there are people who enjoy them. Some people have advocated wholesale Westernization, but this can't be done. The fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism ought to be accepted. It is neither reasonable nor advantageous to reject them. In the past, the Second International denied these fundamentals, but Lenin refuted their arguments. China also had its «Second International» — Jiang Kanghu's Socialist Party¹ — but it had very little influence. The forms in which the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism are manifested in practice should differ from country to country. In China, these principles must be integrated with the actual conditions of the Chinese revolution. The November Revolution had the national characteristics of a Russian revolution. Socialist in content and national in form — this is the way it is in art as well as in politics. The general principles of Western music must be integrated with Chinese conditions. This will give rise to richer modes of expression.

Chinese tofu, bean sprouts, preserved eggs, and Beijing duck are Chinese specialties and no other country can compare in their production; they can be spread internationally. Cuisine and clothing differ from country to country. What is worn in India is quite different from what is worn in China and is suited to the Indian environment. Chinese people eat with chopsticks while Western people use knives and forks. It wouldn't make sense to say that it is wiser and more scientific to use knives and forks and backward to use chopsticks.

It's always necessary to pay attention to history. A long history has its advantages and disadvantages. The history of the United States is short, and perhaps there is some advantage in that, for burdens are lighter and it isn't necessary to remember so many things. We have a long history, which has its advantages, too. If we were to throw out our old traditions, people would call it treasonous. You can't chop off history even if you want to. There's no getting around it. And yet it is really rather troublesome to look over such a long history.

We must learn scientific principles from foreign countries. And we learn these principles in order to apply them in the study of things Chinese. That's why we ask our doctors trained in Western medicine to study traditional Chinese medicine. We must learn the general principles of both the natural and the social sciences. The composition of water, the fact that humans have evolved from apes — these are the same for all countries. But what about the arts? Chinese music, dance, and painting have their own laws, but we find it hard to explain them, because we haven't studied well enough. We should first learn modern things from foreign countries and then use what we have learnt to study things Chinese. If we first study Western medical science, anatomy, pharmacology, and so on, and then go on to study traditional Chinese medicine and pharmacology, it should be possible for us to grasp things Chinese more quickly. Marx said that it would be easier to understand ancient society if modern society was studied first. This means reversing the sequence, but it saves time.

The trouble with handicraft art is that it's hard to attract our artists. They look down on Chinese folk art. There's a problem of interest here. We should try to awaken their interest gradually. They may not be persuaded right away, so we must keep up our efforts over a long period of time.

The fundamental principles of Marxist theory originated in the West, but does that mean that a distinction can be made between China and the West in this connection? Is it possible for us not to accept Marxism? The practice of the Chinese revolution has proved that not accepting Marxism would be detrimental to our own interests. The universal truth of Marxism must be integrated with the concrete practice of the revolution in different countries. It is precisely because the Chinese people accepted Marxism and integrated it with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution that we won victory in the revolution.

We must oppose dogmatism. We have suffered from dogmatism politically. Everything was learnt from Russia and was turned into dogma. This resulted in a great defeat; we lost practically everything in the White areas and 90% of the base areas and of the Red Army, and the victory of the revolution was delayed a good many years. And all this because dogmas, rather than realities, were taken as the starting point. The dogmatists failed to integrate the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. Although they said that the Chinese revolution was a democratic revolution, they wanted to overthrow all capitalists. Their approach was wrong; their realm was no longer that of a democratic revolution, but that of a socialist revolution. They didn't know the difference. They were wrong in their revolutionary methods and in their handling of inner-Party relations, and as a result, the revolution suffered grave losses. Dogmatism must be opposed. If it isn't, the revolution can't triumph.

If the problems of the bourgeoisie and the intellectuals aren't handled well, the revolutionary cause will be adversely affected. In its treatment of the bourgeoisie, China has been different from the Council Union. Although China's bourgeoisie and their intellectuals are few in number, they have modern culture and we still need to unite with them. The landlord class also has culture, but it's archaic culture, not modern. They can compose a few classical poems and write some essays in the Tong Cheng style,² but these are of no use today. Speaking of workers and peasants, the workers have relatively more culture. They have some technical skills, but still can't serve as engineers, and they fall somewhat short of the bourgeoisie and intellectuals in culture. We can't say the peasants have no culture — intensive farming, the singing of folk-songs, and dancing are also culture. But the majority of them are illiterate and have no modern culture or technical skills. They can wield hoes and ploughs, but can't use tractors. In terms of modern culture and technology, the bourgeoisie is ahead of the other classes, and hence we must unite with them and transform them. Some bourgeois culture is outdated and can't be used, but much of it can. Among musicians, there are many who, in ideology, belong to the bourgeoisie. It was the same with us in the past. But we've changed over. Why can't they do so, too? In fact, many already have. Uniting with them is in the interest of the revolutionary cause of the working class. We must unite with them, help them to remould themselves, and win them over. You may all be regarded as «Western doctors»; you've all studied Western music. We must rely on you. Asking old-style minstrels to run specialized music schools won't do. We must rely on you to do this.

The Chinese revolution has Chinese characteristics. The revolution in Russia took the form it did because there was no other alternative. Lenin did think of other ways of dealing with the bourgeoisie.³ But at the time, the bourgeoisie didn't believe the Majoritarian Party would win, so they put up resistance. What's more, at first, the proletariat had no army, and there were only 80'000 Party members. Our situation was different from that in the Council Union. China was not an imperialist country. We had fought for more than 20 years. We had an army, and 2'000'000 Party members. And the Chinese national bourgeoisie was also oppressed by imperialism. That's why the Chinese revolution took a different form.

It is only natural that forms of expression should be varied. This applies to the arts as well as to politics. Certainly, big countries like China should create things new and original, but these should appeal to the masses. The greater the number of these popular creations, the better, and they shouldn't be all of a kind. Otherwise, this would lead to stereotypes. In the past, stereotyped writing was the fashion for 500 or 600 years. It's no good when only one form prevails everywhere. The sameness in women's and men's clothing can't last. With victory in the revolution, women have shunned dressing up for a time, and this signifies a change in the general mood, signifies revolution. This is fine, but it can't last. It's better to have diversity.

National forms may incorporate some foreign elements. There's surely no need to write novels in the old style with each chapter headed by a couplet giving the gist. But the language and presentation should be Chinese. Lu Xun was for a national style. But he also advocated very close translation. Personally, I'm for very close translation of theoretical works, because it has the advantage of accuracy.

We should be clear on this fundamental idea: It is also necessary to learn fundamental principles from the West. To insist that the scalpel must be in the Chinese style is absurd. As far as medicine is concerned, we should use the modern science of the West to study the laws of traditional Chinese medicine, so as to develop China's new medicine. The fundamental principles of music are the same in all countries. But they're put into practice differently, and their forms of expression should vary. Consider the writing of travel diaries. Suppose we go on an excursion to the Western Hills together. The places we visit are the same, and yet what each of us writes about them will be different.

It's necessary to learn all that is good in foreign countries. In medicine, for example, we should study bacteriology, biochemistry, anatomy, and pathology. It's also necessary to learn all that is good in China. We should pay due attention to things Chinese; otherwise, much of our research will serve no purpose. In Chinese history, there were a good many things which haven't been passed down. Emperor Ming of the Tang Dynasty was a poor emperor; during the first half of his reign, he was up to his job, but in the second half, he was a flop. He did understand the arts. He was a director of plays and he knew how to play the drum, but his skills weren't passed down. We must depend on you. You are «Western doctors», but there should be Sinification. When you have mastered a certain subject, you should apply it to the study of things Chinese and thus make what you've learnt Chinese.

It's not good if you lose confidence in things Chinese once you've studied things foreign. But this is not to say that you shouldn't learn from foreign countries.

In modern culture, foreign countries are more advanced than we are; this point must be acknowledged. But is it the same for the arts? In some particulars, China has its distinctive qualities, while in others, foreign countries excel. In novels, foreign countries are ahead, while we have fallen behind. Lu Xun understood things foreign as well as things Chinese, but he didn't look down on things Chinese. Only on Chinese medicine and Beijing opera were his views to some extent incorrect. Chinese medicine couldn't save his father. And he preferred local theatre.

Confucius was an educator and a musician. He ranked music second among the «Six Courses».

By absorbing the good points of foreign countries, we'll be able to make our own things leap ahead. The Chinese and the foreign should be combined and become an organic whole, and there shouldn't be indiscriminate use of things foreign. When we learn the foreign method of making hats, we should use it to make Chinese hats. Useful foreign things should all be learnt and used to improve and develop things Chinese, to create new things unique to China. We can borrow a bit, but what is our own should be primary. We need Dead Souls, but we also need The True Story of Ah Q. Lu Xun translated Dead Souls, Destruction, and so on; however, his brilliance didn't lie primarily in translation, but in his own creative works.

Chinese culture should be developed. It's bad not to be able to appreciate or play foreign music. It's wrong not to translate foreign works. It's wrong to oppose «foreign devils», as Empress Dowager Cixi did. We should learn from abroad and use what we learn to create things Chinese.

Don't be afraid to perform a little foreign music. Of the «Nine Categories» and «Ten Categories» of music of the Sui and Tang Dynasties, many came from Central Asia and a few from Korea and India. The playing of foreign music hasn't meant the loss of our own music; our own music has continued to develop. If we can digest foreign music and absorb its strong points, this will be beneficial to us. The indiscriminate rejection and the wholesale absorption of Western culture are both wrong.

We should keep on making things Chinese and not making them foreign. This way, your controversy can be resolved. We must oppose dogmatism and conservatism. Neither will do China any good. Studying things foreign isn't equivalent to copying them all. We learn from the ancients to benefit the living, and we learn from foreigners to benefit the Chinese people.

We must study each aspect well, the Chinese as well as the foreign. Doing two things by half won't do. We've got to take the two half measures and turn them into two wholes.

This isn't the same as taking «Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for practical use».⁴ By «learning», we mean the fundamental principles, which are applicable everywhere and shouldn't be differentiated as «Chinese» or «foreign».

To be neither horse nor donkey is also permissible. Mules are neither horses nor donkeys. The union of horse and donkey is bound to change the form; total avoidance of change is impossible. The appearance of China, whether in politics, economy, or culture, should change and not remain old-fashioned. But China's characteristics ought to be preserved. We should graft foreign things on to a basic Chinese stock. They should be crossbred and combined organically.

Western things will also change. Not all things Western are good, and it's only the good that we should take. We ought to critically assimilate useful elements from the West on our own Chinese foundation.

The face of the world underwent a fundamental change after the November Revolution. This change has further developed since the Second World War. In the assimilation of foreign things, they must be transformed in a critical manner and become Chinese. We must especially pay attention to absorbing foreign things from the socialist camp and from the progressive people in the capitalist camp. Lu Xun's novels certainly aren't the same as foreign novels, nor are they the same as ancient Chinese novels. They are modern Chinese novels.

You are students of Western things, «Western doctors», so to speak, you are our treasures, and we should pay heed to you and rely on you. It's wrong to exclude those who study foreign things. It must be admitted that what they study is advanced, that the modern West is one step ahead of us. To refuse to admit this and just call them dogmatists won't convince people. Dogmatism must be rectified — but it must be rectified in the manner of «a gentle breeze and mild rain». We should pay heed to them, but at the same time, we must persuade them to attach importance to things Chinese and not to seek wholesale Westernization. We ought to study the strong points of foreign countries and use them to sort out and systematize things Chinese, to create things of our own with a unique national flavour. Only thus can we clarify things and make sure that we don't lose our national confidence. Once this fundamental orientation has been grasped, our work will have greater prospects.