Have Firm Faith in the Majority of the People

#PUBLICATION NOTE

This edition of Have Firm Faith in the Majority of the People 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:

• Have Firm Faith in the Majority of the People, in the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, First English Edition, Vol. 5, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1977.
• Speech at Supreme State Conference, 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 speech delivered by Comrade Mao Zedong at the 13th Session of the Supreme State Conference of the People's Republic of China in Beijing, China on the 13th of October, 1957. It was first published in the Red Guard collection Long Live Mao Zedong's Thought! in 1969.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#HAVE FIRM FAITH IN THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE

#SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE 13TH SESSION OF THE SUPREME STATE CONFERENCE OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

#Mao Zedong

#13th of October, 1957

#★

A form has now been found for the rectification movement, namely, speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big-character posters. It is a new form created by the masses which is different from other forms employed by our Party in the past. True, there were a few big-character posters during the Rectification Movement in Yan'an, but we didn't encourage them. Nor was this form subsequently used in the «Three Checkups» and «Three Improvements». The «Three Checkups» were checking up on a person's past history, their performance of duty, and their views; I have forgotten what the «Three Improvements» were. At that time, the director of our New China News Agency, Fan Changjiang, was put on the spot. Only after he had gone through two months of rectification did he turn himself around. During the Movement Against the «Three Evils», because we had mobilized the masses, there were many ministers who got themselves out on a limb; it was not until afterward that we let them «come down the stairs». In the period of the revolutionary wars, we received no pay and had no ordnance factories, what our Party and army relied on were the soldiers and the people in different localities, the masses. And so, a democratic style of work has evolved over the years. But in those days, there was no such form as speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big-character posters such as there is now. Why? Because we were then in the heat of war and the class struggle was very sharp, and if we had allowed a free-for-all within our own ranks, that would have been bad. Things are different now. The war is over and the whole country except Taiwan Province is liberated. Hence this new form. New revolutionary content must find a new form of expression. Our revolution today is a socialist revolution, its aim is to build a socialist country, and it has found this new form. This form can be speedily popularized, it can be readily picked up in a few months.

There are chiefly two fears when it comes to speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big-character posters. One is fear of disorder. Are you afraid of disorder? I think many are. The other is fear of not being able to get out of one's predicament. Those who serve as factory or cooperative directors, college heads, or Party committee secretaries are all afraid that they won't be able to extricate themselves once views are aired or fires lit. It is easy now to convince people not to be afraid, but it was rather difficult in May. In Beijing's 34 institutions of higher education, the free airing of views was not allowed until after many meetings had been held. Only Luo Longji was relatively willing to have a free airing of views. Why is there no need for fear? Why is the airing of views to our advantage? Which is to our advantage — airing views in a big way, or in a small way, or not at all? No airing of views is not to our advantage and airing views in a small way can solve no problems, therefore views must be aired in a big way. First, this will not bring on disorder, and, second, it will not make extricating oneself impossible. Of course, the case is different with certain individuals, for example, Ding Ling cannot extricate herself, nor can Feng Xuefeng, who has lit a fire to burn up the Communist Party. They are only a handful and are Right-wingers. Other people need not worry, they should be able to extricate themselves. At most they have such faults as bureaucracy, sectarianism, or subjectivism, and if they do, they need only correct them, so there is no ground for fear. The fundamental thing is to have faith in the majority of the people, in the fact that the majority are good. The majority of the workers are good, and so are the majority of the peasants. And so are most members of the Communist Party and the Youth League. None of them want to throw our country into disorder. Most of the bourgeois intellectuals, the capitalists, and the members of the democratic political parties can be remoulded. Therefore, we need not be afraid, for there won't and can't be disorder. We must have faith in the majority, and by that, do we mean 51%? No, we do not, we mean 90 to 98%.

The socialist revolution is new to us all. The revolution we carried out in the past was only a democratic revolution, which was bourgeois in nature. It only destroyed imperialist, feudal, and bureaucrat-capitalist ownership, that is, ownership by such people as Jiang Jieshi, Song Ziwen, Kong Xiangxi, and Chen Lifu, but not individual ownership or national-capitalist ownership. Thus, many people could pass the test of the democratic revolution. While some were not really keen on a thoroughgoing democratic revolution and barely managed to come through, others were willing to work hard for it and passed the test all right. The test now is socialism, and it is hard for some people. Take, for example, that Party member in Hubei Province who was originally a farmworker — Liu Jiemei. This story was in the newspapers. For three generations, his family had to go begging. Liberation brought him a new life, he grew well off, and became a cadre at the district level. However, he complained bitterly about socialism and strongly disapproved of agricultural cooperation; he demanded «freedom» and opposed the State monopoly of the purchase and marketing of grain. An exhibition about the life of this man has now been organized to serve as class education. He wept bitter tears of remorse, saying he would mend his ways. He is from Huanggang County in Hubei Province, and an exhibition about him has been put on in that county, with him as the guide. His life can be divided into two parts: the beggar stage and the prosperous stage. I have already told some comrades in Hubei that people like that can probably be exempt from being stripped of their Party membership, because they are willing to be remoulded. Why is the test of socialism hard to pass? Because socialism means destroying capitalist ownership and transforming it into socialist public ownership, destroying individual ownership and transforming it into socialist collective ownership. Of course, this struggle will go on for many years, and it is hard to say for sure right now just how long the transitional period will be. The struggle this year is like a crest in the waves. Will there be such a crest every year, like those in the Yellow River every July and August, or August and September? I am afraid not. Nonetheless, there will be some in the next 15 years. You people from the Ministry of Water Conservancy had better build some dikes. [Laughter.] It seems to me that it probably won't be like that; the crest is getting smaller and smaller. Even if 100'000 or so Right-wingers are found, out of a population of 600'000'000, it is still a very small number.

How many people are there today in the whole country who do not approve of socialism? Together with many comrades in the localities, I have made an estimate. It shows that about 10% of our total population disapprove of or oppose socialism. The figure comprises the landlord class, the rich peasants, part of the upper-middle peasants, part of the national bourgeoisie, part of the bourgeois intellectuals, part of the upper stratum of the urban small bourgeoisie, and even a few workers and poor and lower-middle peasants, like that Liu Jiemei, whom we just talked about. What is 10% of a population of 600'000'000? 60'000'000. That's no small number and should not be underrated.

There are two underlying reasons for saying that we must have firm faith in the majority of the people. First, 90% of our people are in favour of socialism. This comprises the proletariat, the poor peasants, who are the semi-proletariat of the rural areas, the lower-middle peasants, and the majority of the upper stratum of the small bourgeoisie, the majority of the bourgeois intellectuals, and part of the national bourgeoisie. As I have just said, some people say that 10% oppose socialism, cooperation, and the State monopoly on the purchase and marketing of grain. [Someone says: «It's 15% among the middle peasants.»] I'm talking about the population of the country as a whole. I've tried to get to the bottom of this with a few secretaries of provincial Party committees. Second, among those who disapprove of or oppose socialism, how many are the worst Right-wingers, namely, Far Right elements, counter-revolutionaries, saboteurs, and those who, while not engaging in sabotage, are most obstinate and are likely to carry their ossified heads to their graves — that is, people who think the Moon is prettier in the United States than in China? Among the 3'000'000 people we surveyed, it was about 2%. What is 2% of the total population? 12'000'000. Banded together and equipped with guns, these 12'000'000 would make a sizable army. But why won't there be any great disorder in the country? Because they are scattered in different cooperatives, villages, factories, schools, and branches of the Communist Party, the Youth League, and the democratic political parties. Since they are scattered all over the place and cannot band together, there won't be any great disorder.

What is the scope of the socialist revolution, what classes are involved in this struggle? The socialist revolution is a struggle waged by the proletariat at the head of the working people against the bourgeoisie. Though relatively small in number, China's proletariat has allies in vast numbers, the most important of whom are the poor and lower-middle peasants, who form 70% or a little more of the rural population. The upper-middle peasants make up about another 20%. The present-day upper-middle peasants may be roughly divided into three categories: those who are for cooperation, 40%; those who are of two minds, 40%; and those who are against, 20%. Education and remoulding in recent years has brought about a split among the landlords and the rich peasants, some of whom are no longer entirely opposed to socialism. We should also take an analytical approach toward the bourgeoisie and bourgeois intellectuals and not regard them all as being opposed to socialism, because that is not the case. 90% of our entire population are for socialism. We must have faith in this majority. Through our efforts and great debates, we may win over an additional 8%, which will bring the total to 98%. The Right-wingers bitterly opposed to socialism are only 2%. Of course, we must be on the alert, because they are still a considerable force, as Comrade Deng Xiaoping put it just now.

The rich peasants are the bourgeoisie in the countryside, where very few people listen to them. The landlords are still more discredited. The comprador bourgeoisie has long been discredited. As for the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intellectuals, the upper stratum of the rural small bourgeoisie (the upper-middle peasants), the upper stratum of the urban small bourgeoisie (the relatively well-to-do small-scale proprietors), and the intellectuals from these strata, they do have a certain influence. The intellectuals in particular are much sought after, they are needed in every sphere. Universities need professors, primary and middle schools need teachers, newspapers need journalists, theatres actors, and construction projects scientists, engineers, and technicians. At present, there are 5'000'000 intellectuals and 700'000 capitalists, or together almost 6'000'000. If each has a family of five, five times 6'000'000 are 3'000'000. Comparatively speaking, the bourgeoisie and its intellectuals have a high level of education and technical know-how. That's why the Right-wingers are so cocky. Didn't Luo Longji say that the little proletarian intellectuals are incapable of leading a big small-bourgeois intellectual like him? He insisted on saying that he is not bourgeois, but small-bourgeois, a big small-bourgeois intellectual. In my opinion, not only the little proletarian intellectuals, but the workers and peasants who may know hardly any characters, at all are a great deal wiser than Luo Longji.

The Right-wingers and the Centrist elements among the bourgeoisie and its intellectuals and among the upper stratum of the small bourgeoisie and its intellectuals are not reconciled to the leadership of the Communist Party and the proletariat. They say they support the Communist Party and the Constitution; in a way, they mean it, and their hands are raised in favour, but at heart, they are not really reconciled. Here, a distinction must be made between the Right-wingers, who are hostile, and the Centrist elements, who are half inclined to be reconciled and half not. Aren't there persons who say the Communist Party is incapable of leading this or leading that? This view is not confined to the Right-wingers, but is shared by some of the Centrist elements. In short, according to their argument, our days are numbered, the Communist Party has no choice but to move to another country and the proletariat to another planet. Because you are no good at anything! The Right-wingers say, you are not fit for any trade whatsoever. The main purpose of the current debate is to win over the halfhearted Centrist elements, so that they will understand what the law of social development is all about and realize they'd better listen to the proletariat, which does not have a high level of education, and to the poor and lower-middle peasants in the countryside. Speaking of educational level, the proletariat and the poor and lower-middle peasants are not as good, but when it comes to making revolution, it is they who are really good at it. Can this convince the majority of the people? Yes, it can. It can convince the majority of the bourgeoisie, of the bourgeois intellectuals, and of the upper stratum of the small bourgeoisie. And also most of the university professors, primary- and middle-school teachers, artists, writers, scientists, and engineers. Those who are not quite reconciled will gradually become reconciled, after some years. For example, with regard to the Council Union, people were never willing to accept it before; now that it has put up its own «moon», it appears that it might be a bit capable. [Laughter.] In the Council Union, they also went through a stage like this, with people saying that the Communist Party wasn't capable, that it couldn't lead this or that. They solved this problem a long time ago now; their revolution took place 40 years ago. Ours is still only eight years past, so it's no wonder. Since 90% of the population support socialism, we shouldn't fear disorder. There won't be any. As long as you're not afraid of people like Feng Xuefeng and Ding Ling, you shouldn't be afraid of being put on the spot. How can you be put on the spot? You can get out of it! All we need is to practise democracy in the «Three Main Fields»; if you make a mistake, just correct it.

With the majority of the people supporting socialism, the current appearance of the new form — speaking out, airing views, and holding debates in a big way, and writing big-character posters — is advantageous. This form has no class character. The Right-wingers, too, can use it. We are indebted to the Right-wingers for inventing the expression «in a big way». In my talk of the 27th of February this year, I didn't use this expression, I said nothing about speaking out, airing views, and holding debates in a big way. Last year, Du Lingyi wrote an article, and at a meeting here in May last year, when we talked about letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend, we were referring to «airing views» and «speaking out», and in neither case was the expression «in a big way» used. What is more, letting a hundred flowers blossom was meant to apply only to the sphere of literature and art and letting a hundred schools of thought contend only to academic matters. Later on, the Right-wingers called for extending the application to political matters, in other words, they called for the airing of views on all matters, for a «period of airing views», and, what is more, they wanted them aired in a big way. It is evident that this slogan can be used by the bourgeoisie as well as by the proletariat; it can be used by the Left wing, the Centre, and the Right wing alike. Which class really benefits from this slogan of speaking out, airing views, and holding debates in a big way, and writing big-character posters? In the final analysis, the proletariat, not the bourgeois Right-wingers. The reason is that 90% of the population don't want disorder in the country, they want to build socialism. Of the remaining 10% who disapprove of socialism or are opposed to it, many are of two minds, and only 2% are dyed-in-the-wool anti-Socialist elements. How can they possibly plunge the country into disorder? Therefore, in the final analysis, the slogan of speaking out and airing views in a big way, the form or method of speaking out, airing views, and holding debates in a big way, and writing big-character posters, benefits the majority of the people and helps them remould themselves. There are two roads — the road of socialism and the road of capitalism, and it is socialism that this slogan benefits. I say it's like putting on a play. Formerly, during the period of the War of Resistance Against Japan, there was a Society for the People's Rejuvenation in the North, which was organized by Miao Bin. Miao Bin was an old friend of mine who belonged to the Reorganization Clique in the Nationalist Party. He later became a traitor and organized the Society for the People's Rejuvenation, which put on plays. It was reported in the newspapers — they went to Taiyuan to put on plays to laud the Imperial Japanese Army and oppose the Chinese people. So, because traitors put on plays, should we then not put on any plays? We should still put on plays. There's also the matter of classical poetry. You, venerable old Mr. Huang Yanpei, you are an expert in this — it's a form that can be used by anybody. In those poems written by a professor at Beijing University, one line says that we are «running wild and roughshod over others». He used this form to oppose the revolution. Even at that time, I said that we shouldn't take excessive action against people like this. At that time, with the ideas he had, he just had to write a little bit of poetry to insult people. I greatly appreciated those poems of his. [Laughter.]

We should not be afraid of disorder or of being unable to extricate ourselves. On the other hand, the Right-wingers will find it difficult to extricate themselves, although it will still be possible for them to do so. In accordance with dialectics, the Right-wingers will, I think, split into two factions. Probably quite a few of them, pushed by the general trend of events, will clarify their thinking, change their standpoint, behave themselves, and not be so stubborn. When that happens, their Right-winger label will be removed, they will no longer be called «Right-wingers», and besides will be given jobs. A handful of the worst Far Right elements may remain unrepentant to the end and carry the Right-winger label to their graves. It doesn't matter much, there will always be such individuals. We'll just have to take away their voting rights.

[Zhou Enlai says: «They will have to be reformed through labour.»]

For example, someone like Lin Xiling, what kind of work is she doing now? She is sweeping floors at the People's University. I hear that she wanted to do that kind of work. She used to be a child, but she's not anymore, now she's 28 years old. She lies and says that she's only 21, but she's actually 28 years old already. She couldn't get into the Youth League and was unhappy. Now she's become isolated, and she does a little bit of labour at school, undergoing reform through labour. That's an individual case. But how can you expect Fei Xiaotong, or even Wu Jingchao of the People's University, to undergo reform through labour? It wouldn't quite be appropriate, would it? Such big intellectuals; their shoulders are too weak to carry anything and their hands are too weak to lift anything. Right now, a good many of our cadres should go down to do manual labour. Beijing has sent several tens of thousands of people down to do manual labour. They must do manual labour for several years, and this can be considered reform through labour, too. In the future, before being allowed to enter university, students should first do a few years' manual labour; otherwise, they will go through their entire lives without ever having worked or tilled the soil. Of course, I'm not here to frighten you, demanding that you, venerable Mr. Huang Yanpei, Mr. Chen Yuan, and Zhang Wenbo, should all go down and do manual labour. [Huang Yanpei says: «Doing a bit of work around the house is all right.»] Didn't the ancients say: «Clean the house, sweep the courtyard, and behave yourself appropriately in conversation and action»? [Laughter.]

We've said all these things before. Of course, we didn't say it as explicitly and thoroughly as now, and in particular, we didn't go into it as deeply as now. Since the Right-wingers stirred up trouble, we have been able to do some stock-taking: on the one hand, 90% of the population are in favour of socialism, and with some effort, we can make it 98%; on the other hand, 10% disapprove of socialism or are opposed to it, among whom the worst Far Right elements dead set against socialism account for only 2%. With this stock-taking, we know where we are. Under the leadership of the political party of the proletariat and with the majority of the people supporting socialism, we can use the method of speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big-character posters to avoid such incidents as the one in Hungary and what is happening in Poland now. There is no need for us to ban a journal as was done in Poland,¹ all we have to do is to publish a couple of editorials in the Party newspaper. We wrote two editorials criticizing the Wenhui Bao [Literary News]. The first one was not thorough and did not hit the nail on the head, but after the second, the Literary News set about correcting its mistakes. So did the Xinmin Bao [New People's News]. When I was talking with Zhao Chaogou, the editor of the New People's News, I said that he had managed things very well. He said that he had made mistakes. I told him that he had made mistakes, but he had corrected them, so it was all right. The New People's News is a very small paper; none of you read it, do you? It's worth reading. This could not happen in Poland, for they have not solved the problems of counter-revolutionaries and Right-wingers and of which road to take, nor have they put emphasis on the struggle against bourgeois ideas. Consequently, banning a journal touched off an incident. I think things are easier to manage in China and I have never been pessimistic. Didn't I say there wouldn't be disorder and we shouldn't be afraid? Disorder can be turned to good account. Wherever views are aired to the full, with the worst types howling and growling and great disorder following in their wake, things will be much easier to manage.

Before Liberation, China had only 4'000'000 industrial workers, and now there are 12'000'000. Though small in number, the working class, and the working class alone, has great promise. The other classes are all classes in transition, they all have to make the transition toward the working class. In the first step of this transition, the peasants become collective peasants, and in the second step, workers on State farms. The bourgeoisie will be eliminated, but not physically; the bourgeoisie will be eliminated as a class, but remoulded as individuals. The bourgeois intellectuals need remoulding, and so do the small-bourgeois intellectuals. They can be gradually remoulded and eventually transformed into proletarian intellectuals. On the 30th of April, I quoted the saying: «With the skin gone, to what can the hair attach itself?» The purpose of that meeting was to talk about the problem of remoulding the various classes. If the intellectuals do not attach themselves to the proletariat, they will be in danger of «dangling in mid-air». Many people have now joined the trade unions, and some ask: «Aren't we members of the working class now that we are in trade unions?» No. Some have joined the Communist Party, and yet they are anti-Communists. Aren't Ding Ling and Feng Xuefeng Communists who are anti-Communists? Joining a trade union does not automatically make a person a member of the working class, for they have to undergo a process of remoulding. Isn't Qian Weizhang a trade-union member? Isn't Qian Duansheng a trade-union member? Members of the democratic political parties, university professors, scholars, and writers have no friends among the workers and peasants. That is a serious drawback. A good many of the Right-wingers are talented people; on this point, I actually have considerable appreciation for them. But it is unacceptable for them to use their talents to oppose socialism and communism. How can we remould them? Fei Xiaotong, for one, has over 200 friends among the higher intellectuals in places like Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, Wuhan, and Wuxi. He simply cannot break away from the group and, what is more, he has made a conscious effort to organize these people and has aired views on their behalf. That's the source of his trouble. I would ask, can't you change a little? [Laughter.] Chuck your group of 200 and seek another 200 among workers and peasants. He told me he didn't know where to find any, so I asked him if he didn't talk about the need for conducting surveys, and told him that he should simply conduct a survey from the standpoint of the working class. I talked with him in the beginning of June. So you see, it's also fine to have a few Right-wingers as friends. In my opinion, all intellectuals should make friends among the worker and peasant masses, where they can find true friends. Make friends with old workers. Among the peasants, don't too readily make friends with the upper-middle peasants, but seek your friends among the poor and lower-middle peasants. For the old workers have a keen sense of orientation, and so do the poor and lower-middle peasants. That's why I never get pessimistic about China's state of affairs. I talked about this on the 27th of February. We mustn't be afraid of disorder, and if there is any disorder, we can turn it into a good thing.

The rectification movement comprises four stages — airing of views, counter-attack, reform, and study — as Comrade Deng Xiaoping just said. This means the stage of free airing of views, that of counter-attack on the Right-wingers, that of checkup and reform, and lastly, that of studying some Marxism-Leninism and making criticism and self-criticism in the manner of «a gentle breeze and a mild rain» in group meetings. When «a gentle breeze and a mild rain» was first proposed in a document on rectification issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the 1st of May this year, quite a few people, mainly Right-wingers, took exception to the idea and wanted «a strong gale and a torrential downpour», which has turned out to be advantageous to us. This is what we had expected. For the same thing happened in the Rectification Movement in Yan'an; instead of the gentle breeze we had proposed, a strong gale arose, but in the end, it was the gentle breeze that prevailed. When big-character posters appeared in their thousands in factories, people in leading posts had a tough time. For ten days or so, some wanted to quit or resign, saying they couldn't take it any more, couldn't eat or sleep. That was the case with the secretaries of university Party committees in Peking, they lost their appetites and couldn't go to sleep. The Right-wingers said they must have an unrestricted airing of views and no rejoinders. We too said we would let them shoot their mouths off and not answer. So in May, we left them alone and did not come out with any refutation until the 8th of June, and thus all views were freely aired. Roughly speaking, more than 90% of the views aired were valid and the Right-wing ones were a tiny fraction. We just had to stick it out and hear them through before hitting back. Each organization has to go through this stage. The rectification has to be conducted in every factory and agricultural cooperative. It is now being carried out in the army. This is most necessary. If you skip it, the «free market» will expand. It is a strange world, for if rectification is allowed to lapse for three years, many strange arguments will crop up and bourgeois ideas will reemerge in the Communist Party, the Youth League, and the democratic political parties, and among university professors, primary- and middle-school teachers, journalists, engineers, and scientists. Just as one's house must be tidied up and one's face washed every day, I think rectification should, in general, be conducted once a year and last a month or so. Perhaps there will be crests again. We are not responsible for the current one, the Right-wingers are. Didn't we say that even in the Communist Party we had Gao Gang? Could it be that there wasn't a single Gao Gang in the democratic political parties? I just don't believe that. Again, such types as Ding Ling, Feng Xuefeng, and Jiang Feng have been found in the Communist Party, aren't their likes already found in the democratic political parties, too?

The bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intellectuals ought to recognize the necessity of remoulding themselves. The Right-wingers refuse to do so, and because of their influence, some others are also reluctant to accept remoulding, claiming they have already been remoulded. Zhang Naiqi says remoulding is horrible, as bad as having one's tendons pulled out and one's skin torn off. We say one should cast off one's old self and he says that means having your tendons pulled out and your skin torn off. Now, who is going to pull out that gentleman's tendons and tear off his skin? Many have forgotten what our aim is, why we want to do all this and what is good about socialism. Why is ideological remoulding necessary? Because we want the bourgeois intellectuals to acquire the proletarian worldview and transform themselves into proletarian intellectuals. The old intellectuals will be obliged to make the change, because new intellectuals are coming on the scene. In terms of knowledge, you can say that the new intellectuals haven't made the grade yet, but eventually they will. The emergence of these new forces will pose a challenge to the old scientists, engineers, professors, and teachers and spur them on. We reckon that most can make progress and some can remould themselves into proletarian intellectuals.

The proletariat must build up its own army of intellectuals, just as the bourgeoisie does. The regime of a given class cannot do without its own intellectuals. How could bourgeois dictatorship be possible in the United States without its intellectuals? Ours is a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the proletariat must build its own army of intellectuals, including all those intellectuals from the old society who truly take a firm working-class standpoint after being remoulded. Probably, Zhang Naiqi can be counted among those Right-wingers who refuse to change. When urged to make the change into a proletarian intellectual, he refuses, saying he made the change long ago and is now a «Red bourgeois». Well, let's follow the method of self-assessment and public discussion; you can make the assessment yourself, but it has to be put to the public for discussion. We say you are not up to the mark, Zhang Naiqi, you are a White bourgeois. Some people argue for becoming expert first and Red later. To be expert first and Red later means to be White first and Red later. Not Red now, but Red in the future — if they are not Red now, then what is their present colour? White. of course. Intellectuals should be at once Red and expert. To be Red, they must make up their minds thoroughly to transform their bourgeois worldview. They don't have to read a lot of books, what they must do is to get a true understanding of the following questions: What is the proletariat? What is the dictatorship of the proletariat? Why is it that the proletariat alone has great promise, while the other classes are all classes in transition? Why must our country take the socialist road and not the capitalist road? Why is the leadership of the Communist Party indispensable?

Many people take exception to what I said on the 30th of April: «With the skin gone, to what can the hair attach itself?»² I said there used to be «Five Skins» in China. Three of them were old ones, namely, imperialist ownership, feudal ownership, and bureaucrat-capitalist owner ship. In the past, the intellectuals depended on these skins for a living. They also depended on national-capitalist ownership and on ownership by small-scale producers, that is, small-bourgeois ownership. Our democratic revolution was aimed at removing the first three skins and, counting from the time of Lin Zexu,³ it went on for more than a century. The last two skins, namely, national-capitalist and small-producer ownership, were targets of the socialist revolution. All these «Five Skins» are now things of the past. The three older skins disappeared long ago and now the other two are gone. What skin is there now? The skin of socialist ownership. Of course, this is divided into two parts, public ownership and collective ownership. On whom do they depend for a living? Whether members of the democratic political parties, professors, scientists, or journalists, they all depend on the working class, on the collective peasants, on public ownership, and on collective ownership; in a word, they live off socialist ownership. With those «Five Skins» gone, the hair is flying in mid-air, and it won't stay put when it comes down. The intellectuals still look with disdain on this new skin, they have a very low opinion of the proletariat and the poor and lower-middle peasants, who, they say, are as ignorant of astronomy as of geography, and they think that people of all «Three Religions» and «Nine Schools of Thought»⁴ are not fit to hold a candle to them. The intellectuals are reluctant to accept Marxism-Leninism. But let's take an example — eating dog meat. I have some experience with this matter. In my whole life, I have never eaten dog meat, yet I still oppose it. People may say, if you've never eaten dog meat, why do you oppose it? You say dog meat tastes bad, but have you ever eaten it? How can you know that dog meat tastes bad, huh? You've never eaten it, yet you express your opinion all the time, saying dog meat tastes bad. Furthermore, if dog meat is put in front of you, you take one sniff and run away. That's because public opinion has always been that dog meat tastes bad. Actually, the ancients ate a lot of dog meat. Mencius's economic programme had dog-raising as a provision. He said: «If chickens, pigs, and dogs do not miss their breeding season, then the 70-year-olds will have meat to it.» Only those who are 70 years old may eat meat — you can't eat meat if you're 69 years old. This was because, at that time, the social productive forces were weak, and there were not very many things to eat. Getting back to Marxism, Marxism-Leninism was opposed by many people in the past. The imperialists opposed it. Jiang Jieshi opposed it, day in day out, saying, «Communism is not suited to China's conditions», and making people afraid of it. It requires time as well as a Socialist ideological revolutionary movement for intellectuals to embrace Marxism-Leninism and transform their bourgeois worldview into the proletarian worldview. The movement this year is meant to pave the way.

After the counter-attack on the Right-wingers, all is calm now in some departments, organizations, and colleges; those in leading posts are having an easy time and are unwilling to carry out the reforms called for by the many correct criticisms put forward. Such is the case with some departments, organizations, and colleges in Beijing. In my opinion, there should be another high tide of airing views at the present stage of reform. Put up big-character posters and ask: «Why don't you carry out reforms?» Challenge them! This challenge can be very useful. The stage of reform should be allowed a little time, say, a couple of months. It is to be followed by a period of study, to study some Marxism-Leninism and to make criticism and self-criticism in the manner of «a gentle breeze and a mild rain». That will be the fourth stage. Such study of course is not simply a matter for a couple of months, what I mean is that people's interest in study should be awakened as the movement draws to a close.

The counter-attack on the Right-wingers will have to draw to a close. Some Right-wingers have anticipated this. The storm will be over sooner or later, they said. That's quite true. You can't attack the Right-wingers all the time, day after day, and year after year. For instance, in Beijing, the air is not as thick with the dust of the battle against the Right-wingers as before, because the counter-attack is nearly over. However, it is not quite over, and we must not relax our efforts. To this day, some Right-wingers obstinately refuse to surrender, for instance, Luo Longji and Zhang Naiqi. I think we should try reasoning things out with them a few more times, and if they still refuse to be convinced, what can we do — call them to meetings every day? A number of Far Right elements will never mend their ways, and we will just have to give them up. They are only a handful, we'll leave them to their own devices and shelve them for several decades. Anyway, the majority will press ahead.

Are we going to throw the Right-wingers into the sea? No, not a single one. The Right-wingers are a hostile force, because they oppose the Communist Party, the people, and socialism. But now, we don't treat them in the way we treat the landlords and counter-revolutionaries, and the fundamental indicator of the difference is that they are not deprived of their right to vote. Perhaps a few will have to be denied this right and made to reform through labour. Our practice is not to make arrests and not to deprive them of their right to vote, but instead to give them some leeway, and this will help to split them. Didn't I say a while ago that the Right-wingers are of two types? Type one are those who, having mended their ways, will have the Right-winger label removed and who may return to the ranks of the people. Type two are those who will remain incorrigible to the day they report to the King of Hell. They will say: «We are not the surrendering type, Your Majesty. See what ‹integrity› we have!» They are the loyal servants of the bourgeoisie. The Right-wingers maintain ties and identify with the feudal remnants and counter-revolutionaries and act in concert with them. The landlords jumped with joy at that paper Literary News and bought copies to read to the peasants and intimidate them. «Look here», they would say, «all this is printed in the newspaper!» They wanted to retaliate. Then there are the imperialists and Jiang Jieshi, who also identify with the Right-wingers. For instance, the reactionaries in Taiwan and Xianggang stand four-square behind Chu Anping's allegation of the «monopoly of everything by the Communist Party», Zhang Bojun's demand for a «political planning chamber», and Luo Longji's call for a «political rehabilitation committee». US imperialism, too, is very sympathetic to the Right-wingers. I once put it to you: «If the Americans invade Beijing, what will you do? What attitude will you adopt? What action will you take? Will you join the United States in setting up a puppet regime, or will you come along with us to the mountains?» I said then that my intention was to take to the mountains, first going to Zhangjiakou and then to Yan'an. I was talking in extreme terms and considering the worst possibility — we are not afraid of disorder. Even if the United States should occupy half of China, it wouldn't frighten us. Didn't Japan have the greater part of China under its occupation? And didn't we fight back and create a New China? In conversations with some Japanese, I said that we should thank Japanese imperialism for its aggression, because it did us a lot of good by awakening the opposition of our whole nation and promoting the awakening of our people.

The Right-wingers are liars, they are dishonest and do bad things behind our backs. Who would have thought Zhang Bojun would do so many bad things? I think the higher the office these types hold, the greater their treachery. The Zhang-Luo bloc was delighted with the two slogans, «long-term coexistence and mutual supervision», and «letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend». They used these two slogans to oppose us. We said we favoured long-term coexistence, but they tried to turn it into a short-term one for us. We said we favoured mutual supervision, and they rejected any supervision. For a time, they ran amok, and in the end, they got the opposite of what they wanted, turning long-term coexistence into a short-term one for themselves. What about Zhang Bojun's ministerial post? I'm afraid he can no longer keep it. Surely, the people will not agree to a Right-winger heading a ministry! Then there are some well-known Right-wingers who are deputies to the National People's Congress. What is to be done about them? I'm afraid it is difficult to keep them in these posts. For instance, Ding Ling can no longer be a deputy. In some cases, it may not be good if no posts or no jobs are given them. For instance, Qian Weichang can perhaps still keep his post as professor, but not the vice-chancellorship. As for some other professors, perhaps they should not continue in that capacity for the time being, because the students won't go to their lectures. Then what work can they do? We can assign them some other jobs on the campus, let them reform themselves in the meantime and take up teaching again after a few years. All these questions need considering, it is a complicated business. Revolution itself is a complicated business. So I would like you to discuss the question of how the Right-wingers are to be dealt with and what arrangements are to be made for them.

How do things stand with the various democratic political parties and at the grassroots? I'm afraid you who are in responsible posts haven't a very clear idea. For a time, Far Right elements may have muddied the waters in some organizations, so that we could not see to the bottom. Investigation reveals that they actually account for only 1 or 2%. Drop a little alum into the water and you can see to the bottom. The current rectification movement is like a dose of alum. After views are aired and debates held in a big way, we can see through to the bottom. We have been able to see through to the bottom of things in factories, villages, and colleges, and get to the bottom of things in the Communist Party, the Youth League, and the democratic political parties.

Now, a few words about the 40-article Programme for Agricultural Development. After two years of experience, the fundamental targets are still kept at four, five and eight, that is, an annual yield of 400 catties [200 kilograms] of grain per mu [2/3 km²] north of the Yellow River, 500 catties [250 kilograms] north of the Huai River, and 800 catties [400 kilograms] south of the Huai River. This goal should be attained in 12 years, that's the essential point. Fundamentally, no change has been made in the programme as a whole, with the exception of a few articles. Some questions have been solved, for instance, the question of cooperative transformation has been settled in the main, and the relevant articles have been revised accordingly. Previously, some points were not emphasized, such as farm machinery and chemical fertilizer, and since big efforts are going to be made in these spheres, these points have now been stressed in the relevant articles. Some readjustment has been made in the sequence of articles. After due deliberation at the Joint Session of the Standing Committees of the National People's Congress and of the National Committee of the Political Consultative Conference, this revised Draft Programme for Agricultural Development will be promulgated for discussion throughout the countryside, as was its previous version. It may also be discussed in factories, various circles, and the democratic political parties. This winter, or sometime in December, the Communist Party must hold the Second Session of the Eighth National Congress, and only then will this draft programme be ratified. This draft programme put forward by the Communist Party of China was drawn up by our political planning chamber, that is, by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, and not by the «political planning chamber» envisaged by Zhang Bojun. The Communist Party will submit it to the State Council, and the State Council will in turn submit it to the National People's Congress. Let's hold a session of the National People's Congress this winter, in December or January, so that we can pass next year's plan and budget a little earlier than usual. In the past, we've always done this in May or June. Now, we should change it and do it earlier. At that time, we should also pass the Programme for Agricultural Development.

It is essential to get the entire peasantry to discuss this programme. We must enhance the vigour and enthusiasm of the people. Enthusiasm flagged in the second half of last year and the first half of this and then dropped further because of the trouble created by the Right-wingers in city and countryside. The rectification movement and the Movement Against the Bourgeois Right-Wingers have given this enthusiasm a big push. In my opinion, the 40-article Programme for Agricultural Development is well suited to China's conditions and is not the product of subjectivism. There was some subjectivism in the programme, such as the proposal for 6'000'000 double-shared ploughs, but we have eliminated it. Taken all in all, there is great hope for this programme. China can be changed, ignorance can be changed into knowledge and lethargy into vitality.

There is an article in the programme about doing away with the «Four Pests», that is, wiping out rats, sparrows, flies, and mosquitoes. I'm very interested in this matter, I don't know how you feel about it. But I assume you are interested, too. Some people say that sparrows can eat insects, but in my opinion, we should wipe them out, because they compete with people for food. On the one hand, they do eat insects, but on the other hand, they also eat grain. As for rats, nobody approves of them. Nobody approves of flies and mosquitoes, either; they have a bad reputation. At present, there aren't too many flies and mosquitoes in Beijing, but they have come out again. In the past, we didn't do anything about mosquitoes, we only concentrated on flies and sparrows. Doing away with the «Four Pests» is a big public health movement and a campaign to destroy superstition. Eliminating them is not easy. To exterminate the «Four Pests» also calls for the free airing of views, great debate, and big-character posters. If the entire nation is mobilized to do this and achieves some success, I believe there will be a change in the mentality of the people and the morale of the Chinese nation will be given a big boost. We must invigorate this nation of ours.

Getting rid of the «Four Pests» will also require several years of spot experimentation — probably three years of spot experimentation, five years of sudden and all-out attack, and two years of mopping up. Once we have moved ahead in this, I think, the prospects for the success of family planning will be good. There should be a great debate on this matter, too, and there should be periods of trial, expansion, and popularization, each lasting several years.

There is much for us to do. Many things stipulated in the 40-article Programme for Agricultural Development need to be done. That's only a plan for agriculture; there are also plans for industry and for cultural and educational work. The look of our country will change when the first three five-year plans are fulfilled.

We estimate that the annual output of steel may reach 20'000'000 tons at the end of the Third Five-Year Plan. With output this year at 5'200'000 tons, the goal will probably be attained in ten years. India produced 1'600'000 tons of steel in 1952, and its current output is a little over 1'700'000 tons, an increase of only 100'000 tons or so in five years. What about us? Our output in 1949 was only 190'000 tons, it registered over 1'000'000 tons at the end of the three-year rehabilitation period, and now, five years later, it has reached 5'200'000 tons, an increase of more than 3'000'000 tons in five years. Five more years and our output may top the 10'000'000 mark or a bit more to reach 11'500'000 tons. Then, with the fulfilment of the Third Five-Year Plan, can we make it 20'000'000 tons? Yes, we can. It's just like playing mahjong — you double your stakes.

I say this country of ours is full of hope. The Right-wingers say it is hopeless, they are utterly wrong. They lack confidence; since they oppose socialism, naturally, they have no confidence. We adhere to socialism, and we are brimming over with confidence.

Besides these, there are a few other documents dealing with labour, wages, and matters having to do with the overall system. These will be discussed with everybody here, and they will be presented to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. There's also the issue of the connection between wages and labour insurance and welfare benefits; this will also be discussed. I'm afraid we should do a bit more experimenting first; consider it a draft plan and do some spot experimentation in the factories. Only then will we be able to make a final decision.

This meeting today has had the character of a briefing. I call on everyone to please study at home the question of rectification and the Programme for Agricultural Development. The latter will be distributed to all of you.