Be Active in Promoting the Revolution

#PUBLICATION NOTE

This edition of Be Active in Promoting the Revolution 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:

• Be Activists in Promoting the Revolution, in the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, First English Edition, Vol. 5, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1977.
• Speech at the Conclusion of the Third Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee, Version 2, in The Writings of Mao Zedong, 1949-76, First English Edition, Vol. 2, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk and London, 1992.

#INTRODUCTION NOTE

This is the concluding speech delivered by Comrade Mao Zedong at the Enlarged Third Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Beijing, China on the 9th of October, 1957. It was first published in a Red Guard collection.

The Enlarged Third Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China was held in Beijing, China between the 20th of September and 9th of October, 1957.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#BE ACTIVE IN PROMOTING THE REVOLUTION

#CONCLUDING SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE ENLARGED THIRD PLENARY SESSION OF THE EIGHTH CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA

#Mao Zedong

#9th of October, 1957

#★

#1. ON THE PRESENT CONFERENCE

This conference has been a success. With the participation of comrades from the provincial and prefectural Party committees, such an Enlarged Plenary Session of the Central Committee is in fact a conference of cadres from three levels and is good for clarifying policies, exchanging experience, and achieving unity of will.

Perhaps it is necessary to convene this sort of conference once a year. For work is very complicated in a large country like ours. We did not call such a conference last year; we suffered in consequence, and a Right-wing deviation occurred. There had been a high tide the year before last, but last year saw a let-down. Of course, we held the Eighth Congress last year and didn't have time. Next time such a conference is convened, a few secretaries of county Party committees and of district Party committees in some big cities may be included; for instance, it would be all right to have an additional 100 or so. I suggest every province should also convene a provincial conference of cadres from three or four levels, with some from the cooperatives, to thrash out problems. This is the first point.

#2. ON THE QUESTION OF RECTIFICATION

A few words about rectification. Be bold, thorough, and resolute in letting people air their views and in making reforms. We must have this kind of resolve. This slogan was put forward by the Nanfang Ribao [Nanfang Daily] in Guangdong, which wrote a very good editorial on the question. Then, is it necessary to add a movement against the Right-wingers, and a vigorous one at that? No, it isn't. Because the Movement Against the Bourgeois Right-wingers is on the right track, and in some places has already ended. Now the stress should be on airing views and making reforms at the grassroots levels, that is, at the three levels of county, district, and township. In some departments at the central and the provincial and municipal levels, the airing of views should continue, but the emphasis should be on reform.

In the course of this year, the masses have created a form of making revolution, a form of waging mass struggle, namely, speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big-character posters. Our revolution has now found a form well suited to its content. This form could not have emerged in the past. Since we were then engaged in fighting, in the «Five Major Movements»¹ and the «Three Great Transformations»,² it was impossible for this form of unhurried debate to come into being. It would have been impermissible to devote a whole year to unhurried debate, to presenting facts, and to reasoning things out. Now it can be done. We have found this form, a form suited to the content of the current struggle of the masses, to the content of the present class struggle, and to the correct handling of contradictions among the people. Grasp this form, and from now on, you will find things much easier to manage. Major and minor questions of right and wrong as well as problems in revolution and construction can be solved through airing views and holding debates, and more quickly. The Left wing should freely air views and hold debates, not only with the Centrists, but also openly with the Right-wingers, and, in the villages, with the landlords and rich peasants. Not being afraid of «losing face», we have published in our newspapers such nonsense as «the Communist Party monopolizes everything», «the Communist Party should abdicate», and «get off your sedan-chair». We have just got «on» our «sedan-chair», and already, the Right-wingers want us to get «off». Speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big-character posters are the form best suited to mobilizing the initiative of the masses and enhancing their sense of responsibility.

Our Party has a democratic tradition. Without this tradition, it would have been impossible to accept such free airing of views, great debates, and big-character posters. During the Rectification Movement in Yan'an, people took notes, made self-criticisms, and helped each other, seven or eight to a group, and this lasted for several months. All those I have met are grateful for that rectification, they say it was only then that they began to shed their subjectivism. In the days of the Land Reform Movement, we consulted the masses whenever problems arose in order to straighten out ideas. In our army units, company commanders would personally see to it that their soldiers were properly covered at night and would have friendly chats with them on an equal footing. Forms of democracy abounded in the Rectification Movement in Yan'an, in the Land Reform Movement, in the democratic life of the army units, in the «Three Checkups» and «Three Improvements»,³ and, later on, in the struggles against the «Three Evils» and the «Five Evils», and in the ideological remoulding of intellectuals. But the free airing of views and the holding of great debates, to be followed by consultation and persuasion in the nature of «a gentle breeze and a mild rain» — it is only now that all this can come about. We have found this form which will immensely benefit our cause and make it easier for us to overcome subjectivism, bureaucracy, and commandism (by commandism, we mean striking or cursing people or forcing them to carry out orders) and for directors to become one with the masses.

This year has seen a great development in our democratic tradition, and this form of speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big-character posters should be handed down to future generations. It brings socialist democracy into full play. Democracy of this kind is possible only in socialist countries, not in capitalist countries. On the basis of such democracy, centralism is not weakened, but further strengthened, as is the dictatorship of the proletariat. For the proletariat must rely on its broad allies to exercise dictatorship, it cannot do so all by itself. The proletariat in China is small in number, some 10'000'000 only, and it must rely on the several hundred million poor and lower-middle peasants, urban poor, badly-off handicraftspeople, and revolutionary intellectuals in order to exercise dictatorship — otherwise, it cannot. Now that we have mobilized their enthusiasm, the dictatorship of the proletariat is being consolidated.

#3. ON THE QUESTION OF AGRICULTURE

The 40-article Programme for Agricultural Development has been revised and will soon be issued. Comrades, please do a good job of organizing debates and discussions on it in the villages. I have asked some comrades whether prefectures should draw up agricultural plans. They said yes. Should districts do likewise? Again, the answer was yes. What about the townships? Yet again, they said yes. And the cooperatives, too, should draw up such plans. Then there will be six levels in all: provincial, prefectural, county, district, township, and cooperative. Please take heed and lose no time in drawing up these agricultural plans. A plan and a programme are one and the same thing, and since we have been in the habit of using the word plan, let's call it that. We must persist in making comprehensive plans, giving more effective leadership, having Party secretaries pitch in, and having all Party members help run the cooperatives. Apparently, not all Party members helped run the cooperatives in the second half of last year, and Party secretaries rarely pitched in. This year, we must persist in doing what we had done before.

When will the plans be ready? I've asked some comrades and learned that they are ready in some places and not quite in others. With stress now being laid on the three levels of province, prefecture, and county, can their plans be ready this winter or next spring? If not, they must at all events be ready in the coming year, and at all six levels. For we have had several years of experience, and the 40-article National Programme for Agricultural Development is almost ready. This programme and the plans at the provincial and other levels should all be discussed in the villages. But since it would be too much to discuss all seven plans at the same time, it is preferable to stagger the airing of views and debates by the masses. Here, we are talking about long-term plans. What should be done if a plan turns out to be unsuitable? It will have to be revised after we've had a few more years of experience. For instance, the 40 articles will need further revision in a few years. This is inevitable. I think they will probably need a minor revision every three years and a major one every five years. It is always better to have some plan than none. The programme covers a period of 12 years, and now two years have passed, leaving only ten; unless we grasp the matter firmly, there will be the danger of failing to fulfil the targets set in the 40 articles for the yields of grain per mu [2/3 km²] for the three different regions, namely, 400, 500, and 800 catties [200, 250, and 400 kilograms]. Grasp the matter firmly, and these targets can be fulfilled.

In my opinion, China must depend on intensive cultivation to feed itself. One day, China will become the world's number one high-yield country. Some of our counties, such as Chaozhou and Shantou, are already producing 1'000 catties [500 kilograms] per mu [2/3 km²]. Will it be possible to reach 2'000 catties [1 ton] per mu in half a century? In the future, will it be possible for the region north of the Yellow River to produce 800 catties [400 kilograms] per mu, that north of the Huai River 1'000 catties [500 kilograms], and that south of it 2'000? There are still a few decades left before these targets are reached at the beginning of the 21st century, or maybe it won't take that long. We depend on intensive cultivation to feed ourselves, and even with a fairly large population, we still have enough food. I think an average of 3 mu [2 km²] of land per person is more than enough, and in the future, less than 1 mu will yield enough grain to feed one individual. Of course, birth control will still be necessary, and I am not encouraging more births.

Here, I am not including livestock feed. The Secretary of the Xiangtan Special District Party Committee in Hunan Province delivered a speech, saying that there is a household of seven people, with 500 catties [250 kilograms] for each person, and they were able to consume only 400 catties [200 kilograms] of that, leaving a surplus of 100 catties [500 kilograms] for each person. In the South, 400 catties of rice is enough; in Hebei, they need only around 300 catties [150 kilograms]. The results of the debates in North Hebei show that, in the past, even the upper-middle peasants consumed only as much as 360 catties [180 kilograms], and they shouted and screamed a lot that they didn't have enough to eat and were being starved to death.

Please investigate how much grain the peasants actually consume. We must encourage diligence and thrift in running the household and economy in the use of grain, so as to have reserves. When the State has a reserve and each cooperative and family has one, too, we shall be quite well off with these three kinds of reserves. Otherwise, if all the grain is eaten up, what prosperity will there be to speak of?

This year, there should be a little more accumulation wherever a good harvest has been reaped or natural disasters have not occurred. It is most necessary to make up for possible shortages with surpluses. In cooperatives in some provinces, such as Hunan Province, in addition to the accumulation fund (5%), the public welfare fund (5%), and management expenses, production costs account for 20% of the total value of output and capital construction expenditures in turn account for 20% of production costs. This amounts to RMB 600'000'000 a year. I discussed the matter with comrades from other provinces, who said these capital construction expenditures were probably a bit too high. What I am saying today is to be taken as suggestions, which you may carry out if feasible, otherwise not. Moreover, it is not necessary for all provinces and counties to act in exactly the same way, and I leave the matter to you for consideration. The management expenses of cooperatives in some places have so far assumed too large a proportion and should therefore be reduced to 1%. That would reduce it to RMB 120'000'000 a year. They consist of allowances to cadres of cooperatives plus administrative expenses. They should be cut and capital expenditures on farmlands increased.

The Chinese people should have high aspirations. We should teach everyone in the cities and villages of the country to have lofty aims and high aspirations. To indulge in eating and drinking, to eat and drink everything up, can this be considered a high aspiration?. No, it can't. We should be diligent and thrifty in running our households and should make long-term plans. When people wear red or white, that is, at weddings or funerals, the practice of giving lavish feasts can well be dispensed with. We should practise economy in these matters and avoid extravagance. This is a matter of changing old customs. To this end, it is necessary to argue things out through airing views in a big way, or maybe in a small way. Then there is gambling. In the past, it was impossible to ban this practice, which can be changed only through the free airing of views and debate. In my opinion, changing old customs should also be included in the plans to be drawn up.

Then there is the question of eliminating the «Four Pests» and paying attention to hygiene. I'm very keen on wiping out the «Four Pests»: rats, sparrows, flies, and mosquitoes. As there are only ten years left, can't we make some preparations and carry out propaganda this year and set about the work next spring? Because that is just the time when flies emerge. I still think that we should wipe out these pests and that the whole nation should pay particular attention to hygiene. This is a question of civilization, the level of which should be significantly raised. The people of Lechang County, Shaoguan District, Guangdong Province have set a good example for the elimination of the «Four Pests». There should be an emulation drive; every possible effort must be made to wipe out these pests and everyone should pay attention to hygiene. Progress is liable to be uneven in different provinces and counties, anyway let's see who is champion. China should become a country of «Four Withouts»: without rats, without sparrows, without flies, and without mosquitoes.

There should also be a ten-year programme for family planning. If we wait until the population reaches 800'000'000, then it will be too late. However, it should not be promoted in the national-minority areas or in sparsely populated regions. Even in densely populated regions, it is necessary to try it out in selected places and then spread it step by step until family planning gradually becomes universal. Family planning requires open education, which simply means airing views freely and holding great debates. I propose to add birth control to the school curriculum. As far as procreation is concerned, the human race has been in a state of total anarchy and has failed to exercise control. The complete realization of family planning in the future will be out of the question without the weight of society as a whole behind it, that is, without general consent and joint effort.

There is also the question of comprehensive planning. I've just talked about agricultural plans, but there are also plans for industry, commerce, culture, and education. It is absolutely necessary to make a comprehensive plan which brings industry, agriculture, commerce, culture, and education together and coordinates them. Please take a look at the document from Zhejiang. The experience of Hongan County is very useful. Their method of cultivation of experimental plots is an experience worth spreading everywhere. The directors of counties, districts, townships, and cooperatives should each cultivate a small plot and experiment to see if a high yield can be reached and what methods serve that end.

We must get to know farming techniques. It is no longer possible to engage in agricultural work without acquiring these techniques. Politics and the professions form a unity of opposites, in which politics is predominant and primary, and while we must fight against the tendency to ignore politics, it won't do to confine oneself to politics and have no technical or professional knowledge. Whatever line our comrades are in, whether it is industry, agriculture, commerce, or culture and education, they should all acquire some technical and professional knowledge. I think a ten-year plan should also be made here. Our cadres in all trades and professions should strive to be proficient in technical and professional work, turn themselves into experts, and become both Red and expert. It is wrong to talk about becoming expert before becoming Red, which is tantamount to being White before being Red. For in fact, those who talk thus intend to remain White to the end, and becoming Red later is just empty talk. Nowadays, some cadres are no longer Red, since they have succumbed to rich-peasant thinking. Some people are White, like the Right-wingers in the Party, who are politically White and technically inexpert. Others are grey and still others pinkish. It is the Left-wingers who are really Red, blazing Red, like the colour of our five-star red flag. But being Red alone won't do, one should have professional and technical knowledge as well. At present, many cadres are only Red, but not expert, and lack professional or technical knowledge. The Right-wingers say that we don't have the ability to lead, that «laypeople cannot lead experts». We rebut them by asserting that we can. When we assert we can, we mean that politically we can. As for technical knowledge, we still have a lot to learn, and we will certainly be able to learn it.

The proletariat cannot build socialism without its own vast contingent of technicians and theoretical workers. We should form a contingent of proletarian intellectuals within the next ten years (the plans for the development of science also cover 12 years, and there are still ten years left). Our Party members and non-Party activists should all strive to become proletarian intellectuals. Plans for training proletarian intellectuals should be worked out at all levels, particularly at the three levels of province, prefecture, and county, or else time will have passed with no such people trained. An old Chinese saying goes: «It takes ten years to grow trees, but 100 years to rear people.» Let's subtract 90 from the 100 years and rear people in ten. It's not true that it takes ten years to grow trees, since it takes 25 years in the South and even longer in the North. But it is quite possible to bring up people in ten years. We have had eight years and if we add ten, we will have had 18 years; it can be expected that by then, a contingent of working-class experts with Marxist ideology will have fundamentally been formed. After that, for another ten years, the task will be to enlarge this contingent and raise its level.

Talking about the relationship between agriculture and industry, we should of course concentrate on heavy industry and give priority to its development; this is a principle about which there can be no question or wavering. But with this precondition, we must develop industry and agriculture simultaneously and build up a modern industry and modern agriculture step by step. We often talk about making China an industrial country, which actually involves the modernization of agriculture. The stress of our propaganda should now be on agriculture. Comrade Deng Xiaoping has also spoken about this.

#4. CONCERNING THE TWO METHODS OF DOING THINGS

There are at least two methods of doing things, one producing slower and poorer results and the other faster and better ones. Here, both speed and quality are involved. Don't consider just one method, always consider at least two. Take railway building, for example. There should be several plans, so that out of several routes one can be chosen. There can be several and at least two, methods for comparison. For instance, should views be aired in a big way or in a small way? Should there be big-character posters or not? Which of the two is better? Questions of this sort are legion, but somehow no free airing of views has been allowed. None of the authorities in the 34 institutions of higher education in Beijing have allowed this, or allowed it readily and unhesitatingly. For them, this is a matter of drawing the fire upon themselves! To make them let people air views freely calls for plenty of persuasion and, what is more, considerable pressure, that is, issuing an open call and holding many meetings, so that they find themselves checkmated and «driven to join the Liang Mountain rebels».⁴ When we made revolution in the past, diverse opinions arose in the Party with regard to this or that method and this or that policy, but in the end, as we adopted the policy best suited to the prevailing conditions, greater progress was made in the periods of the War of Resistance Against Japan and the War of Liberation than in the preceding periods. Likewise, there can be this or that policy for construction, and here, too, we should adopt the policy best suited to the actual conditions.

The Council Union, Yugoslavia, Poland, and so on — all these countries have had different policies, methods, and experiences in construction. Of these different experiences, the Soviet experience in construction is fairly complete. By complete, I mean it includes the making of mistakes. No experience can be considered complete unless it includes the making of mistakes. To learn from the Council Union does not mean to copy everything mechanically, which is exactly what dogmatism does. It was after we had criticized dogmatism that we encouraged people to learn from the Council Union, and so there was no danger. Since the Rectification Movement in Yan'an and the Seventh Congress, we have stressed learning from the Council Union, which has not only done us no harm, but has proved beneficial. This is because the Council Union's experience is the most complete. For example, it now has artificial satellites. Now everyone says it is capable. In the past, in China, there were people (such as Long Yun) who said that the Council Union was no good. The United States also looked down on it. And yet, then, it sent off this thing, which has been orbiting the Earth for five days now. In the past, even I myself didn't believe in the propaganda about people going to visit the Moon, but now I do. That was because I only understand social science, but not natural science. I am only Red, not expert. In revolution, we are experienced. In construction, we have just begun and have had only eight years of experience. In our construction, the achievements are primary, but we are not free from mistakes. We shall still make mistakes in the future, but we hope fewer. It now appears that we can not only go to the Moon, but to Venus and Mars as well. They say we can go to the Moon in five or ten years. If I still didn't believe that now, I would just be a Right-winger refusing to mend his ways. Learning from the Council Union must include studying its mistakes. Having studied them, we need make fewer detours. Can't we avoid the Council Union's detours and do things faster and better? We should of course strive for this. In steel production, for instance, can't we reach 20'000'000 tons in a period of three five-year plans or a bit longer? We can, if we make the effort. For this purpose, we shall have to set up more small steel plants. I think we should run more steel plants that turn out 30'000 to 50'000 or 70'000 to 80'000 tons annually, because they are very useful. It is also necessary to set up middle plants with an annual capacity of 300'000 or 400'000 tons.

#5. ON THE QUESTION OF LAST YEAR'S EVENTS

Several things were swept away last year. One was the principle of doing things with greater, faster, better, and more economical results. The demand for greater and faster results was dropped, and with it, the demand for better and more economical results was swept away, too. No one, I think, objects to doing things better and more economically; it is just doing things with greater and faster results that people don't like and some comrades label «rash». As a matter of fact, «better» and «more economical» are meant to restrict «greater» and «faster». «Better» means better in quality, «more economical» means spending less money, «greater» means doing more things, and «faster» also means doing more things. This slogan is self-restricting, since it calls for better and more economical results, that is, for better quality and lower cost, which precludes greater and faster results that are unrealistic. I am glad that a couple of comrades have spoken on this question at the present session. Besides, I've read an article on it in the newspaper. Our demand for greater, faster, better, and more economical results is realistic, in conformity with the actual conditions, and not subjectivist. We must always do our utmost to achieve greater and faster results; what we oppose is only the subjectivist demand for greater and faster results. In the second half of last year, a gust of wind swept away this slogan, which I want to restore. Is this possible? Please consider the matter.

The 40-article Programme for Agricultural Development was also swept away. These 40 articles went out of vogue last year, but are now staging a «comeback».

Committees for promoting progress were swept away, too. I once raised this question: Are the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the Party committees at all levels, the State Council, and the people's councils at all levels — in short, the multitude of «committees», among which the Party committees are primary — are all these committees intrinsically for promoting progress or for promoting retrogression? They ought to be committees for promoting progress. To my mind, the Nationalist Party is a committee for promoting retrogression and the Communist Party a committee for promoting progress. Last year, at the Second Plenary Session, a small group promoting retrogression was organized. In last year alone, this group spent RMB 3'000'000'000. I think that, on this point, we can promote a bit of retrogression. But if we promote retrogression too much, we will be making a mistake; that is to say, we should not excessively oppose «rash advance». Can't we now restore those committees for promoting progress which were swept away by last year's gust of wind? If you all speak against their restoration and are bent on organizing committees for promoting retrogression, then, with so many of you for retrogression, there is nothing I can do about it. However, judging from the present session, everyone wants to promote progress and there hasn't been a single speech in favour of retrogression. It was the Right-wing Zhang-Luo alliance that wanted us to go backward. In those cases where things are really moving too fast and beyond proper bounds, temporary and partial retrogression is permissible, that is to say, we have to take a step backward or slow down a step. But our general policy is always to promote progress. For example, we have dropped the idea of having 6'000'000 sets of double-shared ploughs, which is retrogression, but we will always uphold the elimination of the «Four Pests», which is progress.

#6. THE PRIMARY CONTRADICTION IN CONTEMPORARY CHINA

The contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the socialist road and the capitalist road, is undoubtedly the primary contradiction in contemporary Chinese society. Our present task is different from that in the past. Previously, the primary task for the proletariat was to lead the masses in struggles against imperialism and feudalism, a task that has already been accomplished. What, then, is the primary contradiction now? We are now carrying on the socialist revolution, the spearhead of which is directed against the bourgeoisie, and at the same time, this revolution aims at transforming the system of individual production, that is, bringing about cooperation; consequently, the primary contradiction is between socialism and capitalism, between collectivism and individualism, or, in a nutshell, between the socialist road and the capitalist road. The resolution of the Eighth Congress makes no mention of this question. It contains a passage which speaks of the primary contradiction as being that between the advanced socialist system and the backward social productive forces. This formulation is incorrect. At the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee, we stated that, after nationwide victory, the primary contradiction would be, internally, that between the working class and the bourgeoisie, and, externally, that between China and imperialism. Though we made no public reference to this statement after the session, we have been acting on it ever since, because our revolution has developed into the socialist revolution, and that is what we have been engaged in. The «Three Great Transformations» constitute a socialist revolution, a revolution mainly in the ownership of the means of production; they have been fundamentally accomplished. They have all been sharp class struggles.

In the second half of last year, there was a slackening in class struggle, a slackening that was brought about deliberately. But once we allowed it, the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois intellectuals, the landlords, the rich peasants, and part of the upper-middle peasants started the attack on us. That was what happened this year. We allowed the slackening and they started the attack — that suited us fine, we gained the initiative. As an editorial in the Renmin Ribao [People's Daily] puts it: «The tree may prefer calm, but the wind will not subside.»⁵ They wanted to raise a gale, a typhoon of some force! Well then, we started building a «shelter belt». This was the struggle against the bourgeois Right-wingers, the rectification movement.

Rectification consists of two tasks: one is to fight against the Right-wingers, including the fight against bourgeois ideology, and the other is to carry out reforms, which also entails a struggle between the two lines. Subjectivism, bureaucracy, and sectarianism are all bourgeois phenomena, whose presence in our Party should be blamed on the bourgeoisie. Will it still be possible to blame it on the bourgeoisie a century or two hence? That would be rather difficult, I'm afraid. Will there still be bureaucracy and subjectivism then? Yes, there will, but the blame will be placed on backwardness. In society, there will always be the Left wing, the Centre, and the Right wing, and there will always be the advanced, the middling, and the backward. By that time, if you are guilty of bureaucracy and subjectivism, you will be backward.

The rectification movement will go on until the 1st of May next year, there is that much time for it. Is there going to be a slackening again after the 1st of May? I think yes. Can such a slackening be called a Right-wing deviation? I think not. Take a meeting, for example. If it goes on and on, night and day for six months on end, I'm afraid many people will simply disappear. Therefore we should do our work according to circumstances, now speeding it up, now slowing it down. Last year, we scored such a big victory that the capitalists beat drums and struck gongs to show their allegiance; if we hadn't allowed a slackening, we would have found it hard to justify ourselves, as there was no adequate excuse. We have said that the problem of ownership is solved fundamentally, but not completely. Class struggle has not died out. Hence slackening is not a concession in principle, but is called for by the circumstances.

I think that the rectification movement should go on until the 1st of May next year and that it should stop in the latter half of the year. We shall see then whether there is any need for another rectification movement or another debate in the countryside and shall discuss the matter next year. Anyway, there must be another rectification movement the year after next. If we do not launch one then, or worse still, for several years, the old and new Right-wingers and the ones currently emerging will start wriggling again; besides, some elements to the Right of Centre, some Centrist elements, and even some on the Left are liable to change. There are some strange characters in the world, whose Right-deviationist sentiments will surface, and who will come forward with unwholesome comments and Right-wing observations if you slacken for any length of time. It is also necessary to carry out constant education in our army units on the «Three Main Rules of Discipline» and the «Eight Points for Attention». If you suspend it for a few months, morale will slacken. Morale should be boosted several times a year. Education should be conducted among the new recruits. Even the ideology of veterans and senior cadres would change without rectification.

#7. OUR DIFFERENCES WITH THE COUNCIL UNION

A word in passing about our differences with the Council Union. First of all, there is a contradiction between us and Hrusev on the question of Stalin. He has drawn such a black picture of Stalin, and we do not agree with him. He has made Stalin so terribly ugly! This, then, is no longer a matter that concerns his country alone, it concerns all countries. We have put Stalin's portrait up in the Square of Heavenly Peace. This accords with the wishes of the working people the world over and indicates our fundamental differences with Hrusev. As for Stalin himself, you should at least give him a 70:30 evaluation, 70% for his achievements and 30% for his mistakes. This may not be entirely accurate, for his mistakes may be only 20% or even 10%, or perhaps somewhat more than 30%. All things considered, Stalin's achievements are primary and his shortcomings and mistakes are secondary. On this point, we take a view different from Hrusev's.

Next, we also disagree with Hrusev and his associates on the question of peaceful transition. We maintain that the proletarian political party of any country should be prepared for two possibilities, one for peace and the other for war. In the first case, the Communist Party demands peaceful transition from the ruling class, following Lenin in the slogan he advanced during the period between the March and November Revolutions. Similarly we made a proposal to Jiang Jieshi for the negotiation of peace. This is a defensive slogan against the bourgeoisie, against the enemy, showing that we want peace, not war, and it will help us win over the masses. It is a slogan that will give us the initiative, it is a tactical slogan. However, the bourgeoisie will never hand over State power of their own accord, but will resort to violence. Then there is the second possibility. If they want to fight and they fire the first shot, we cannot but fight back. To seize State power by armed force — this is a strategic slogan. If you insist on peaceful transition, there won't be any difference between you and the Social-Democratic Parties. The Japanese Socialist Party is just like that, it is prepared for only one possibility, that is, it will never use violence. The same is true of all the Social-Democratic Parties of the world. Generally speaking, the political parties of the proletariat had better be prepared for two possibilities: one, a sophisticated person uses their tongue, not their fists, but two, if a bastard uses their fists, I'll use mine. Putting the matter this way takes care of both possibilities and leaves no loophole. It won't do otherwise. Now, the Communist Parties in a number of countries, the Communist Party of Britain, for example, only advance the slogan of peaceful transition. We talked this over with the leader of the British Party, but couldn't get anywhere. Naturally, they may well feel proud, for as their leader queried: «How can Hrusev claim to have introduced peaceful transition? I advanced it long before he did!»

Besides, the Soviet comrades do not understand our policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend. What we want is to have a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend within the framework of socialism, within the ranks of the people, and with the exclusion of counter-revolutionaries. Of course, realignment may take place among the people themselves, a faction of whom may turn into our enemies. Take the Right-wingers, for instance. In the past, they were among the people, but now it seems to me that they are 1/3 people and 2/3 counter revolutionary. Shall we deprive them of the right to vote? On the whole, it is preferable not to do so, except for those few who are to be punished by law or reformed through labour. Some of them may even be allowed to sit on the National Committee of the Political Consultative Conference, because anyway, it is all right for the committee to have about 1'000 people. In appearance, the Right-wingers are still in the ranks of the people, but in reality, they are our enemies. We openly declare that they are our enemies and that the contradiction between us and them is one between the people and the enemy, because they are against socialism, against the leadership of the Communist Party, and against the dictatorship of the proletariat. In short, their words and deeds do not conform to the «Six Criteria»!⁶ They are poisonous weeds. A few poisonous weeds will always crop up among the people, no matter when.

#8. LET US BESTIR OURSELVES AND MAKE ARDUOUS EFFORTS

Lastly, we should bestir ourselves and make arduous efforts in our study. Mark these three words, «make», «arduous», and «efforts». We must bestir ourselves and make arduous efforts. Now, many of our comrades do not make arduous efforts, and some comrades devote their surplus energy after work chiefly to playing cards and mahjong and to dancing, and this I think is bad. We should devote our surplus energy after work chiefly to study and should make study a habit. What, then, should we study? For one thing, we should study Marxism-Leninism, for another, technology, and for a third, natural science. Besides, there is literature, and especially the theories of literature, which directors must know something about. They should also have some knowledge of journalism and education. In short, there is a very wide range of knowledge, of which we should get some general understanding. For we are supposed to exercise leadership over these matters! What kind of specialists can people like us be called? We can be called political specialists. How can we carry on without knowing about these matters and exercising leadership over them? All provinces have their own newspapers, which were neglected in the past, and their own literary and artistic journals and organizations, which were also neglected, as were the united front and the democratic political parties, and as was education. All these things were neglected, and so it was precisely in these fields that rebellion erupted. But once these things were attended to, the whole situation changed within a few months. Luo Longji asked, how could little proletarian intellectuals lead big small-bourgeois intellectuals? He was wrong there. He says he is small-bourgeois, but actually, he is bourgeois. The «little intellectuals» of the proletariat will do precisely that — exercise leadership over the big bourgeois intellectuals. The proletariat has had a group of intellectuals in its service, the first of whom was Marx, then there were Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, and now there are people like us and many others. The proletariat is the most advanced class, it will lead the revolution all over the world.