On Democratic Centralism
#PUBLICATION NOTE
This edition of On Democratic Centralism 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 edition: Talk at an Enlarged Working Conference Convened by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, in Beijing Review, Vol. 21, No. 27, 7th of July, 1978.
#INTRODUCTION NOTE
This is a talk given by Comrade Mao Zedong at an Enlarged Work Conference convened by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Beijing, China on the 30th of January, 1962. It was first published by Wang Chaoxing in Long Live Mao Zedong's Thought!, Vol. 5, Wuhan, 1968.
#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!
#ON DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM
#TALK AT AN ENLARGED WORK CONFERENCE CONVENED BY THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA
#Mao Zedong
#30th of January, 1962
#★
Comrades!
I'm now going to put forward a few ideas. [Warm applause.] Altogether, I'll deal with six points, focusing on the question of democratic centralism while also touching on other questions.
#1. THE WAY THE PRESENT CONFERENCE IS BEING HELD
More than 7'000 people have come to this Enlarged Central Work Conference. At the outset, Comrade Liu Shaoqi and others prepared a draft report. Before the draft could be discussed by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, I suggested to them that, rather than first holding a meeting of the Political Bureau to discuss it, we should immediately issue it to the comrades attending the Conference for their comments and opinions. Comrades, there are among you people from various fields and localities — from provincial, prefectural, and county Party committees, from the Party committees of various enterprises, and from central departments. Most of you are closer to the lower levels and should know the situation and problems better than us comrades on the Standing Committee, the Political Bureau, and the Secretariat of the Central Committee. Besides, since you occupy different posts, you can raise questions from different angles. That is why we should ask for your opinions. As expected, after the draft report was issued to you, it brought about lively discussion. While agreeing with the fundamental policy of the Central Committee, you also put forward many ideas. Later, a drafting committee of 21 was set up, which included responsible members from regional bureaus of the Central Committee. After eight days of discussion, it produced the second draft of the report. It should be said that this second draft is the Central Committee's concentration of a discussion by over 7'000 people. Without your ideas, it could not have been written. Both the first and second parts have undergone very substantial revision in the second draft, and, for this, you should be given the credit. I hear that you have all commented on the second draft quite favourably and consider it to be fairly good. If we hadn't used this method, but had run the Conference in the usual manner — that is, hearing a report first, then discussing it and approving it with a show of hands — we wouldn't have done as well.
This is a question of how to hold meetings. Distribute the draft, invite comments from those present and make amendments accordingly before giving a report. When making a report, one shouldn't just read it out, but should offer some supplementary ideas and explanations. By following this method, we can promote democracy more fully, pool wisdom from all quarters, and compare different points of view, and our meetings will become more lively. It has been advisable to use this method for the present Conference, which is being held to sum up the working experience of 12 years, and particularly that of the past four years, for there are many questions and, consequently, many opinions. But can all conferences adopt this method? No, not all. To use this method, we must have plenty of time. It may sometimes be used at sessions of our People's Congress. Comrades from provincial, prefectural, and county Party committees, when you call meetings in the future, you, too, can adopt this method if conditions permit. Of course, you are busy and cannot usually spend a lot of time on conferences. But there's no harm in having a try when you find the conditions right.
What sort of method is this? It's the method of democratic centralism, the method of the mass line: first democracy, then centralism; from the masses, to the masses; integration of the leadership with the masses. This is the first point I wanted to discuss.
#2. THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM
It seems that some of our comrades still don't understand democratic centralism as described by Marx and Lenin. Some of these comrades are already veteran revolutionaries, of the 1938 mould or some other mould — anyway, they've been members of the Communist Party for several decades and still don't understand this question. They are afraid of the masses, afraid of the masses speaking out, afraid of mass criticism. What possible reason is there for Marxist-Leninists to be afraid of the masses? While they avoid mentioning their own mistakes, these comrades are likewise afraid of having their mistakes mentioned by the masses. The more they're afraid, the more they're going to be haunted by ghosts. In my opinion, one shouldn't be afraid. What is there to be afraid of? Our attitude is, uphold the truth and readily correct mistakes. The question of what is right or wrong, what is correct or incorrect, in our work falls under the category of contradictions among the people. Contradictions among the people can't be resolved by curses or firsts, still less by knives or guns. They can be resolved only by discussion and reasoning, criticism and self-criticism. In a word, they can be resolved only by the democratic method, by letting the masses speak out.
There should be full democracy both inside and outside the Party, that is, democratic centralism should be practised in earnest in both spheres. Problems should be brought out into the open frankly and the masses allowed to speak out, speak out even if we are going to be verbally abused. The worst that can come out of this verbal abuse is that we will be toppled and thus be unable to continue in our current jobs — demotion to lower organizations or transfer to other localities. What's so impossible about that? Why should a person go only up and not down? Why should one work only in one place and not be transferred to another? I think that, whether they are appropriate or not, both demotion and transfer have advantages. They help to temper people's revolutionary will, enable them to research many new situations, and acquire more useful knowledge. I myself had experience in this respect and benefited a great deal from it. If you don't believe my point, you might give it a try. Sima Qian said:
When King Wen was detained, he produced the Book of Changes; when Confucius was in distress, he compiled the Spring and Autumn Annals. Qu Yuan was exiled and so composed The Lament. Zuo Qiuming lost his sight and the Discourses of the States followed. Sun Wu was mutilated before he wrote The Art of War. Lü Buwei was transferred to the Shu region and so the world inherited his Examinations. Han Fei was imprisoned in the Kingdom of Qin, and he wrote «The Difficulties of Persuasion» and «Solitary Indignation», two chapters of his great work. Of the 300 poems in the Book of Odes, most were written by sages to vent their pent-up indignation.
In modern times, people have had doubts about whether in fact King Wen produced the Book of Changes or Confucius compiled the Spring and Autumn Annals, and we can leave these examples aside and let the specialists solve these problems. But Sima Qian believed these things to be true. And it is a fact that King Wen was detained and that Confucius was in distress. Except for the one about Zuo Qiuming's going blind, the events related by Sima Qian all refer to the incorrect handling of people by their superiors in ancient times. There were cases where we, too, handled some cadres incorrectly, and, no matter whether their handling was completely incorrect or only partially so, after reexamination, they should be rehabilitated according to the merits of each case. But, generally speaking, such incorrect treatment — demotion or transfer — tempers their revolutionary will and enables them to absorb much new knowledge from the masses. Here, I must make it clear that I am not advocating indiscriminate, incorrect treatment of our cadres, our comrades, or anybody else, in the way the ancients detained King Wen, harassed Confucius, exiled Qu Yuan, and removed Sun Wu's kneecaps. I am not advocating this way of doing things, I am opposed to it. What I mean is that, at every stage of human history, there have always been such cases of mishandling. In class societies, such cases are numerous. In a socialist society, such things cannot be entirely avoided either. They are unavoidable, whether in periods of leadership with a correct or with an incorrect line. There is one distinction, however. Under a correct line, as soon as cases which have been mishandled are discovered, after reexamination, the people concerned will be rehabilitated and apologies will be made to them, so that they will enjoy ease of mind and lift up their heads again. But, under an incorrect line, this becomes impossible, and the mistakes can be corrected at a suitable occasion only by those who represent the correct line through the method of democratic centralism. As for those who have actually made mistakes and who, after criticism by comrades and review at a higher level, have been correctly demoted or transferred, it goes without saying that such demotion or transfer will help them correct their mistakes and acquire new knowledge.
At present, there are some comrades who are very afraid of the masses launching discussion and putting forward ideas which differ from those of the leading bodies or the directors. Whenever a problem is being discussed, they suppress the initiative of the masses and don't allow them to speak out. This attitude is abominable. Democratic centralism is written into our Party Constitution and State Constitution, but they don't apply it. Comrades, we are revolutionaries. If we have really made mistakes, mistakes which are harmful to the cause of the Party and the people, we should seek the opinions of the masses and of comrades and criticize ourselves. Such self-criticism should sometimes be repeated several times over. If once is not enough and people are not satisfied, it should be done a second time; if they are still not satisfied, then it should be done a third time; it should go on until nobody has any more criticisms. Some provincial Party committees have done just this. A few provinces have shown some initiative and let people speak out. The early ones started self-criticism in 1959, the late starters began in 1961. Some provinces, such as Henan, Gansu, and Qinghai, were forced to carry out self-criticism. Some people say that there are other provinces which seem to be starting self-criticism only now. But, no matter whether they carry out self-criticism on their own initiative or are forced to do so, no matter whether they do so early or late, provided they look squarely at their mistakes and are willing to admit and correct them and let the masses criticize them — provided they adopt this attitude, we should always welcome it.
Criticism and self-criticism is a method; it is the method of resolving contradictions among the people, and, indeed, the only method. There is no other method. But, if we don't have full democracy and don't truly practise democratic centralism, this method of criticism and self-criticism cannot be adopted.
Don't we have many difficulties right now? It is impossible to overcome these difficulties unless we rely on the masses and awaken the enthusiasm of the masses and the cadres. But, if you don't explain the situation to the masses and the cadres, open your hearts to them, and let them voice their opinions, if they are still afraid of you and don't dare speak, it will be impossible to awaken their enthusiasm. I said in 1957 that we should create «a political situation in which we have both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of will and personal ease of mind and liveliness».1 We should create such a political situation both inside and outside the Party. Otherwise, it will be impossible to awaken the enthusiasm of the masses. We cannot overcome difficulties without democracy. Of course, it's even more impossible to do so without democratic centralism. But, if there's no democracy, there won't be any centralism.
Without democracy, there can't be correct centralism, because centralism can't be established when people have divergent views and don't have unity of understanding. What is meant by centralism? First, there must be concentration of correct ideas. Unity of understanding, policy, plan, command, and action is attained on the basis of concentrating correct ideas. This is unity through centralism. But, if all those concerned are still not clear about the problems, if their opinions are still unexpressed or their anger is still not vented, how can you achieve this unity through centralism? Without democracy, it is impossible to sum up experience correctly. Without democracy, without ideas coming from the masses, it is impossible to formulate good lines, principles, policies, or methods. As far as the formulation of lines, principles, policies, and methods is concerned, our leading bodies merely play the role of a processing plant. Everyone knows that a factory cannot do any processing without raw material. It cannot produce good finished products unless the raw material is sufficient in quantity and suitable in quality. If there is no democracy, if there is no knowledge of what is going on down below and no clear idea about it, if there is no adequate canvassing of the opinions of all concerned and no communication between higher and lower levels, and if instead issues are decided solely by the leading bodies of the higher levels on the strength of one-sided or inaccurate material, then such decisions can hardly avoid being subjective, and it will be impossible to achieve unity in understanding and action or achieve true centralism. Isn't the main topic of our present Conference opposition to decentralism and the strengthening of centralism and unity? If we fail to promote democracy in full measure, then will this centralism, this unity, be genuine or sham? Will it be real or empty? Will it be correct or incorrect? Of course, it will only be sham, empty, and incorrect.
Our centralism is centralism built on the basis of democracy. Proletarian centralism is centralism with a broad democratic basis. The Party committees at all levels are the bodies which exercise centralized leadership. But leadership by the Party committee means collective leadership, not arbitrary decision by the first secretary alone. Within Party committees, democratic centralism alone should be practised. The relationship between the first secretary and the other secretaries and committee members is one of the minority being subordinate to the majority. Take the Standing Committee or the Political Bureau of the Central Committee by way of example. It often happens that, when I say something, regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect, if the others don't agree, I must accede to their opinion, because they are the majority. I am told that there are now some provincial, prefectural, and county Party committees where all matters are decided by the first secretary alone. This is quite wrong. How can we justify the idea that what one person says goes? I am referring to important matters here, not to the routine work coming after decisions. If a matter is important, it must be discussed collectively, different opinions must be heeded, and the complexities of the situation and the dissenting opinions must be analysed seriously. Thought must be given to the various possibilities and estimates made of the various aspects of a situation, what is good and what is bad, what is easy and what is difficult, what is possible and what is impossible. This should be done as carefully and thoroughly as possible. To act otherwise is just one-person tyranny. Those first secretaries should be called tyrants and not «squad commanders» practising democratic centralism. Once upon a time, there was a certain Xiang Yu, who was called the Tyrant of Western Chu. He hated listening to opinions which differed from his own. One Fan Zeng offered him advice, but Xiang Yu didn't listen to what he had to say. There was another man named Liu Bang, the founder of the Han Dynasty, who was better at accepting ideas different from his own. An intellectual called Li Yiji went to see Liu Bang. When he was first announced, it was as a scholar of the Confucian school. Liu Bang said that there was a war going on, and that he couldn't see scholars. Li Yiji flare up and said to the gatekeeper: «You get in there again and say that I'm an alcoholic from Gaoyang, not a scholar.» The gatekeeper did as he was told. «All right, ask him in.» When Li Yiji entered, Liu Bang was washing his feet, but he quickly got up to welcome him. Still angry, because Liu Bang had refused to see a scholar, Li Yiji gave him a dressing down. He said: «Look here, do you want to conquer the world or don't you? Why do you take an elder so lightly?» Li Yiji was then over 60 years old, and Liu Bang was younger, so Li called himself an «elder». At this, Liu Bang apologized and promptly accepted Li Yiji's plan of seizing Chenliu County. This incident can be found in the biographies of Li Yiji and Lu Jia in the Historical Records. In the feudal period, Liu Bang was described by historians as a hero «who was generous and open-minded, and who readily listened to advice». Liu Bang and Xiang Yu fought for many years. In the end, Liu Bang won, and Xiang Yu was defeated. This was no accident. Today, some of our first secretaries can't even match the feudal Liu Bang, but have a bit of Xiang Yu in them. If these comrades don't change, they'll ultimately be overthrown. Isn't there an opera called The Tyrant Bids His Lady Farewell? If these comrades remain unchanged, the day will come when they, too, will be «bidding their ladies farewell». [Laughter.] Why do I have to put the matter so strongly? It's because I hope that, by speaking a bit sarcastically, I can prick some comrades and get them to give this some hard thought. It will be best if they can't sleep for a night or two. If they can sleep, then I'll be the unhappy one, because they still haven't felt any pain.
Some of our comrades can't bear to hear any opinion contrary to their own and can't tolerate any criticism. That is very wrong. During this Conference, the group meeting of one province started off in a very lively manner, but, as soon as the secretary of the provincial Party committee went to sit in, a hush fell, and nobody said a word. Comrade provincial Party secretary, why do you go and sit there? Why don't you stay in your own room and think things over and let the others talk freely? Since such an atmosphere has been brought about, and people don't dare speak in your presence, then you should absent yourself. Whoever makes mistakes must criticize themself, and we must let others speak up, let others criticize. On the 12th of June last year, the last day of the Work Conference in Beijing convened by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, I discussed my own shortcomings and mistakes. I asked the comrades to convey what I said to the provinces and localities. I found out later that many localities were not informed. It's as if my mistakes could or should be hidden. Comrades, they mustn't be kept hidden! Of all the mistakes made by the Central Committee, I am responsible for those directly related to me, and I have a share of the responsibility for those not directly related to me, because I am its Chairperson. It's not that I want other people to slough off their responsibility — there are some other comrades who also bear responsibility — but I am the person who ought to be primarily responsible. The secretaries of our provincial, prefectural, and county Party committees, right down to the secretaries of Party committees of districts, enterprises, and communes, being first secretaries, should be responsibility for shortcomings and mistakes in work. Shirking responsibility, fearing to shoulder it, and forbidding people to speak out, as if one were a tiger whose backside no one dares touch — ten out of ten who adopt this attitude will fail. People always speak out sooner or later. You think that people really won't dare to touch the backsides of tigers like you? They bloody well will!
Unless we fully promote people's democracy and inner-Party democracy, and unless we fully implement proletarian democracy, it will be impossible for China to have true proletarian centralism. Without a high degree of democracy, it is impossible to have a high degree of centralism, and without a high degree of centralism, it is impossible to establish a socialist economy. And what will happen to our country if we fail to establish a socialist economy? It will turn into a revisionist State like Yugoslavia, indeed, a bourgeois State, and the dictatorship of the proletariat will turn into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and a reactionary, fascist dictatorship at that. This is a question which very much deserves our vigilance, and I hope that our comrades will give it a good deal of thought.
Without democratic centralism, the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be consolidated. To practise democracy among the people, and to exercise dictatorship over the enemies of the people — these two aspects are not to be separated. When they are combined, we have proletarian dictatorship, or what may be called people's democratic dictatorship. Our slogan is: «A people's democratic dictatorship led by the proletariat and based on the worker-peasant alliance.» How does the proletariat exercise leadership? It leads through the Communist Party. The Communist Party is the vanguard of the proletariat. The proletariat unites with all classes and strata who favour, support, and participate in socialist revolution and socialist construction, and exercises dictatorship over the reactionary classes, or, rather, their remnants. In our country, where the system of exploitation of some by others has already been destroyed and the economic basis of the feudal class and the bourgeoisie done away with, the reactionary classes are no longer as formidable as in the past. For example, they are no longer as formidable as in 1949, when the People's Republic was founded, or as in 1957, when the bourgeois Right-wingers frenziedly attacked us. Therefore, we speak of them as the remnants of the reactionary classes. But in no case should we underestimate these remnants. We must carry on our struggle against them. The reactionary classes which have been overthrown still seek a comeback. And, in socialist society, new bourgeois elements continue to emerge. Classes and the class struggle exist throughout the socialist stage. This struggle is long and complex, and at times even very sharp. Our instruments of dictatorship must be strengthened, not weakened. Our public security system is in the hands of comrades who follow the correct line. But it is possible that security departments in one place or another are in the hands of bad people. And there are also a few comrades doing public security work who don't rely on the masses or on the Party. In ferreting out counter-revolutionaries, they don't follow the line of working through the masses under the leadership of the Party committees, but rely solely on secret work, on so-called professional work. Professional work is necessary; investigation and interrogation are absolutely necessary in dealing with counter-revolutionaries. But the most important thing is to follow the mass line under the leadership of the Party committee. It is especially necessary to rely on the masses and the Party in exercising dictatorship over the reactionary classes as a whole. Dictatorship over the reactionary classes does not mean the physical elimination of all reactionary class elements; the aim is to remould them, to remould them by suitable methods, to make them into new human beings. Without broad democracy for the people, it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be consolidated or for political power to be stable. Without democracy, without mobilizing the masses, and without supervision by the masses, it is impossible to exercise effective dictatorship over the reactionaries and bad elements or to remould them effectively; they will continue to make trouble and may stage a comeback. We must be vigilant on this question, and I hope that comrades will give it a good deal of thought, too.
#3. WHICH CLASSES SHOULD WE UNITE WITH AND WHICH CLASSES SHOULD WE REPRESS?
This is a question of fundamental standpoint.
The working class should unite with the peasantry, the urban small bourgeoisie, and the patriotic national bourgeoisie, and, first and foremost, with the peasantry. Intellectuals, such as scientists, engineers, technicians, professors, teachers, writers, artists, actors, medical workers, and journalists, do not constitute a class; they are attached either to the bourgeoisie or to the proletariat. Are we to unite only with those intellectuals who are revolutionary? No. So long as intellectuals are patriotic, we shall unite with them and help them do their work well. Workers, peasants, urban small bourgeois, patriotic intellectuals, patriotic capitalists, and other patriotic democrats together comprise more than 95% of the population. Under our people's democratic dictatorship, they all belong to the category of the people. And, among the people, we must practise democracy.
Those whom the people's democratic dictatorship should repress are feudal lords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and anti-Communist Right-wingers. The counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and anti-Communist Right-wingers represent the feudal class and the reactionary bourgeoisie. These classes and bad people comprise about 4 or 5% of the population. It is they whom we must compel to undergo remoulding. It is they who are the object of the people's democratic dictatorship.
With whom do we stand? With the masses, who comprise over 95% of the population? Or with the feudal lords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and Right-wingers, who comprise 4 or 5% of the population? We must side with the people and never with their enemies. For a Marxist-Leninist, this is a question of fundamental standpoint.
Just as this holds true within our country, it also holds true internationally. Sooner or later, the people of all countries, the masses comprising more than 90% of the world's population, will want revolution and support Marxism-Leninism. They won't support revisionism; though some people may support it for a while, they will eventually cast it aside. They are bound to awaken gradually, they are bound to oppose imperialism and reaction, and they are bound to oppose revisionism. A true Marxist-Leninist must stand firmly on the side of the masses, who comprise over 90% of the world's population.
#4. UNDERSTANDING THE OBJECTIVE WORLD
People's understanding of the objective world, their leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom, involves a process. Take, for instance, the question of how to carry out the democratic revolution in China. From its founding in 1921 to its Seventh Congress in 1945, 24 years elapsed before our Party reached complete unity of understanding on this question. During this period, we underwent a Party-wide rectification movement, which lasted 3 1/2 years, from the spring of 1942 to the summer of 1945. It was a thoroughgoing movement, and the method of democracy was adopted, that is to say, no matter who had made mistakes, it was all right, provided they acknowledged and corrected them. What is more, everybody helped them to acknowledge and correct them. This was called «‹learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones› and ‹curing the sickness to save the patient›»2 or «starting from the desire for unity, distinguishing right from wrong through criticism or struggle, and arriving at a new unity on a new basis». It was at that time that the formula {Unity→Criticism→Unity} came into being. The Rectification Movement helped the comrades of the whole Party to reach unity of understanding. It was in that period, and especially after the Rectification Movement, that the problems of how the democratic revolution ought to be conducted and how the Party's general line and specific policies ought to be formulated were completely solved.
In the period between the founding of the Party and the War of Resistance Against Japan, we had the Northern Expedition and the ten years of the Agrarian Revolutionary War. We won two victories and met with two defeats. The Northern Expedition was victorious, but, in 1927, the revolution suffered a defeat. Spectacular successes were achieved in the Agrarian Revolutionary War, and the Red Army grew to a strength of 300'000. But, later, we again suffered reverses, and our army of 300'000 was reduced to only some 20'000 in the Long March. After it reached northern Shaanxi, it took in some recruits, but still fell short of 30'000, that is, less than 1/10 of the original 300'000. After all, which was stronger, the army of 300'000 or the army of less than 30'000? The army of less than 30'000, because, having sustained those heavy reverses and gone through those extreme hardships, we had become tempered and experienced and had rectified the erroneous line and restored the correct line. In the report to this Conference, it is said that we have become stronger, not weaker, because our line was correct and our achievements were primary in the past four years, and because we have become experienced through making mistakes in our practical work and suffering from them. This is exactly how things stand. In the period of the democratic revolution, we came to understand this objective world of China only after we had experienced victory, then defeat, victory again, then defeat again, only after we had twice drawn comparisons. On the eve and in the course of the War of Resistance Against Japan, I wrote a number of essays, such as Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War, On Protracted War, On New Democracy, and Introducing «The Communist», and I drafted a number of documents on policy and strategy for the Central Committee. All of them sum up revolutionary experience. These essays and documents could only be written at that time, and not before, because, until then, we hadn't been through storm and stress and couldn't compare our two victories and two defeats, and, therefore, we weren't adequately experienced and couldn't fully understand the laws governing the Chinese revolution.
Generally speaking, it was the Chinese, and not the comrades of the Communist International handling Chinese problems, who succeeded in gaining an understanding of this objective world of China. These comrades in the Communist International didn't understand Chinese society, the Chinese nation, and the Chinese revolution — or we can say that they didn't understand them well. For a long time, we ourselves failed to have a clear understanding of China as an objective world, not to mention the foreign comrades!
It was not until the period of the War of Resistance Against Japan that we formulated a general line for the Party and a whole set of specific policies that suited the prevailing conditions. It was only then that we came to understand the Chinese democratic revolution, this realm of necessity, and that we gained freedom. By that time, we had already been making revolution for some 20 years. Through all those years, there was a considerable degree of blindness in our revolutionary work. If anyone claims that any comrade — for instance, any comrade of the Central Committee, or, for that matter, I myself — completely understood the laws governing the Chinese revolution right from the start, then they are a braggart, and you must on no account believed them. It just wasn't so. In the past, and especially in the early years, all we had was a passion for revolution, but, when it came to how to make revolution, what the targets were, which targets should come first and which later, and which had to wait until the next stage, we didn't have clear or at least wholly clear ideas for a fairly long time. In giving a historical account of how we Chinese Communists got to know, with much difficulty yet successfully, the laws governing the Chinese revolution in the period of democratic revolution, I hope to guide comrades to understand one thing: that getting to know the laws governing socialist construction necessarily involves a process. We must take practice as the starting point and move from having no experience to having some experience, from having little experience to having more experience, from socialist construction, this still unknown realm of necessity, to the realm of freedom, a leap in cognition — the attainment of freedom through the gradual overcoming of our blindness and the gradual understanding of the objective laws.
We still lack experience in socialist construction. I've discussed this problem with delegations of fraternal parties from several countries. I told them that we had no experience in building a socialist economy.
I have also discussed this problem with some journalists from capitalist countries, among them an American called Edgar Snow. He had long wanted to come to China, and, in 1960, we let him. I had a talk with him. I said: «As you know, we have a set of experiences, a set of principles, policies, and measures with regard to politics, military affairs, and the class struggle; but, when it comes to socialist construction, we hadn't done any in the past, and we still don't have experience. You may say: «Haven't you been at it for 11 years?» Well, yes, we have, but we still lack knowledge and experience. Even if we are beginning to acquire a little, it doesn't amount to much.» Snow wanted me to say something about China's long-term construction plans. I said: «I don't know.» He said: «You're being too cautious.» I replied: «It's not a question of being cautious. I really don't know, we just don't have the experience.»[Source: Mao Zedong: Talk With the American Writer Edgar Snow (22nd of October, 1960)] Comrades, it's true that we don't know, we still lack experience and really don't have such long-term plans yet. 1960 was the very year we ran into a lot of difficulties. In 1961, I spoke of these things again during a discussion with Montgomery. He said: «In another 50 years, you'll be terrific.» What he meant was that, after 50 years, we would become powerful and would be «aggressive» toward others, but not before that. He had already expressed this view toward me when in China in 1960. I said: «We are Marxist-Leninists, ours is a socialist State, not a capitalist State, and, therefore, we won't perpetrate aggression against others, whether in 100 years or 10'000 years. As for the construction of a powerful socialist economy in China, 50 years won't be enough, it will take 100 years or even more. In your own country, the development of capitalism has taken several hundred years. We won't count the 16th century, since the Middle Ages weren't over yet. But from the 17th century to the present is already more than 360 years. In our country, the construction of a powerful socialist economy will take more than 100 years, I reckon.» What period was the 17th century? It was the end of the Ming and the beginning of the Qing Dynasty. Another century was to elapse before we came to the first half of the 18th century, or the Qianlong period of the Qing Dynasty, the period when the author of The Dream of the Red Chamber, Cao Xueqin, lived, a period which gave birth to fictional characters like Jia Baoyu, who was dissatisfied with the feudal system. In the Qianlong period, the buds of capitalist relations of production already existed in China, but it remained a feudal society. Such is the social background of the emergence of the multitude of fictional characters in the Daguan Garden. Before this, in the 17th century, capitalism was already developing in a number of European countries. It has taken over 300 years for the capitalist productive forces to develop to their present state. Socialism is vastly superior to capitalism, and our economy will develop faster than those of the capitalist countries. But China has a large population, had little to start with, and is economically backward, so, in my opinion, it will be impossible for it to effect a tremendous expansion of the productive forces to catch up with and overtake the world's most advanced capitalist countries in less than 100 years. Perhaps it will actually take only a few decades — say, 50 years — as some people envisage. If it does turn out that way, we'll thank Heaven and Earth, and it will be wonderful! But I would advise comrades to anticipate more difficulties and so to envisage a somewhat longer period. It took more than 300 years to build up a powerful capitalist economy; what would be wrong with building a powerful socialist economy in our country in around 50 to 100 years? The next 50 to 100 years or so, beginning from now, will be a great era of radical change in the social system throughout the world, an earth-shaking era without equal in any previous historical period. Living in such an era, we must be prepared to engage in tremendous struggles, which in form will have many features different from those of struggles in the past. In this undertaking, we must integrate, in the best possible way, the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete realities of China's socialist construction and with those of the world revolution now and in the future, and, through practice, gradually get to know the objective laws of struggle. We must be prepared to suffer many failures and setbacks resulting from our blindness, and thereby gain experience and win final victory. When we see things in this light, there are many advantages in envisaging a longer period of time, whereas harm might result from envisaging a shorter period.
In socialist construction, we are still acting blindly to a very large extent. For us, the socialist economy is, in many respects, a still unknown realm of necessity. Take me by way of example. There are many problems in the work of economic construction which I still don't understand. I know very little about industry and commerce, for instance. I know something about agriculture, but this is only relatively speaking — I still don't know much. To know more about agriculture, one should understand soils, botany, crop cultivation, agro-chemistry, farm machinery, and so on. One should also understand the different branches of agriculture, such as grain, cotton, edible oil, hemp, silk, tea, sugar, vegetables, tobacco, fruit, medicinal herbs, and miscellaneous products. There are animal husbandry and forestry, too. I myself am a believer in the theory of the Soviet agronomist V.R. Williams. In his work on soil, Williams advocated combining farming, forestry, and animal husbandry. I think we must have this «three-in-one» combination, or agriculture will suffer. I would advise comrades to make a serious study of all these problems of agricultural production when you have some respite from your work. I, too, would like to study them a little more. Up to know, however, my knowledge of these matters has been very scanty. I have paid rather more attention to problems relating to the relations of production, to the system. When it comes to the productive forces, I know very little. As for our Party as a whole, our knowledge of socialist construction is very inadequate. In the upcoming period, we should accumulate experience and study hard, and, in the course of practice, gradually deepen our understanding and become clearer on the laws of socialist construction. We must put in a lot of hard work and research it in earnest. We must go down to selected spots at the grassroots, to the production brigades and production teams, and to the factories and shops. We used to do rather well in doing research, but, after we entered the cities, we didn't do it seriously. In 1961, we pushed it once again, and now, the situation has changes somewhat. But it has not yet become common practice among the directors — especially senior directors — in some places, departments, and enterprises. Some provincial Party secretaries have still not gone down to stay at selected spots. If the provincial Party secretaries don't go, how can they ask prefectural Party secretaries and county Party secretaries to do so? This is bad and must be changed.
12 years have passed since the founding of the People's Republic of China. These 12 years can be divided into a first period of eight years and a second period of four years. 1950 to the end of '57 constitute the first eight years, '58 to the present is the second four years. At this Conference of ours, we have made a first attempt at summing up the experience of our past work, mainly that of the last four years. This summary is reflected in the report to the Conference. We have already formulated, are formulating, or shall formulate specific policies in various fields. Already formulated are such draft regulations as the 60-point document on rural people's communes, the 70-point document on industrial enterprises, the 60-point document on higher education, and the 14-point document on scientific research, all of which have already come into force or are being carried out on a trial basis. They will be revised in the future, some perhaps drastically. Among those which are already in the process of formulation are the regulations on commercial work. Among those which will be formulated in the future are the regulations on middle-school and primary-school education. We should also formulate some regulations on the work of our Party and government bodies and mass organizations. The army has already formulated some regulations. In short, we should do a good job in summing up our experience in industry, agriculture, commerce, and culture and education, and in the army, the government, and the Party, and work out a complete set of principles, policies, and measures, so that our work in these seven sectors will progress along the correct path.
It is not enough to have a general line. In addition, under its guidance, we must have a complete set of specific principles, policies, and measures which are suited to our conditions in industry, agriculture, commerce, culture and education, the army, the government, and the Party. Only then can we persuade the masses and the cadres, using these as teachings materials to educate them, so that they can have unity of understanding and of action. And only then can we achieve victory in revolution and construction. Otherwise, it is impossible. On this point, we had a deep understanding even as far back as the War of Resistance Against Japan. At that time, we did function in this way, so the cadres and the masses achieved unity in their understanding of the complete set of specific principles, policies, and measures for the period of democratic revolution, and therefore achieved unity in action, which led to victory in that revolution. This is something we all know. During the period of socialist revolution and socialist construction, our revolutionary tasks in the first eight years were: in the countryside, to complete the reform of the feudal land system and then to achieve the cooperative transformation of agriculture; and, in the cities, to achieve the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce. In economic construction, our tasks were to rehabilitate the economy and carry out the First Five-Year Plan. Both in revolution and in construction, we had a general line which was suited to the objective conditions and which was wholly convincing, as well as a complete set of principles, policies, and measures under the guidance of the general line. Hence, we could educate the cadres and the masses and unify their understanding, and the tasks were performed fairly well. This is also something we all know. But, as things stood in those days, we had to copy the Council Union, since we had no experience of our own in economic construction. In the field of heavy industry especially, we copied almost everything from the Council Union with very little creativity on our part. It was absolutely necessary to do so at that time, and yet it was also a weakness — a lack of creativity and of ability to stand on our own feet. Certainly, this could not be our long-term policy. Beginning from 1958, we established the clear-cut policy of relying mainly on our own efforts while seeking foreign aid by way of support. At the Second Session of the Party's Eighth National Congress in 1958, we adopted the general line of «going all out, aiming high, and achieving greater, faster, better, and more economical results in building socialism».[Source: Mao Zedong: On the Ten Great Relationships (...)] In the same year, the people's communes were established and the slogan of the Great Leap Forward was raised. For a certain period after the general line for socialist construction was proclaimed, we hadn't the time to work out a complete set of specific principles, policies, and measures suited to our conditions, nor did the possibility exist for us to do so, because our experience was still insufficient. Under these circumstances, a complete set of teaching materials wasn't available to the cadres and the masses, who couldn't get any systematic education on policy and therefore couldn't conceivably have genuine unity in understanding and action. This possibility came into being only after a period of time, after we had suffered some setbacks and acquired both positive and negative experience. Now, matters are better. We do have these things or are working them out. Thus, we can better carry on socialist revolution and socialist construction. In order to work out a complete set of specific principles, policies, and measures under the guidance of the general line, we must employ the methods of drawing on the masses and of conducting systematic, thorough research. And we must examine the successful and unsuccessful experience in our work historically. Only thus can we discover laws which are inherent in objective things and which are not subjectively concocted out of people's imaginations, and only thus can we formulate regulations which are suited to our conditions. This is a very important matter, and I ask the comrades here to please pay attention to it.
Of the seven sectors — industry, agriculture, commerce, culture and education, the army, the government, and the Party — it is the Party that exercises overall leadership. The Party must give leadership to industry, agriculture, commerce, culture and education, the army, and the government. Generally speaking, our Party is good. Our Party is mainly composed of workers and poor peasants. The great majority of our cadres are good, and they are all working hard. But we must also realize that there are still some problems and we mustn't imagine that everything is just fine with our Party. At present, we have over 17'000'000 Party members, nearly 80% of whom joined the Party after the founding of the People's Republic, that is, in the 1950s. Those who joined the Party before our People's Republic was founded constitute only 20%. Of this 20%, those who joined before 1930, that is, in the 1920s, totaled 800-odd people according to an estimate several years ago. Some have died in the last couple of years, so perhaps there are only 700-odd left. Among both old and new Party members — especially among the new members — there are some who are impure in character or style of work. They are individualists, bureaucrats, subjectivists, or even immoral elements. There are also some people who are Communists in name, but do not represent the working class; on the contrary, they represent the bourgeoisie. All is not pure inside the Party. We must be aware of this fact, or we shall suffer.
This is my fourth point. In short, our understanding of the objective world necessarily involves a process. In the beginning, we do not understand, or do not completely understand, and it is only through repeated practice, which leads to achievements and victories, tumbles and setbacks, and through the comparison of successes and failures, that it is possible to have gradually developed complete or relatively complete understanding. When that point is reached, we shall have more initiative, enjoy greater freedom, and become somewhat wiser. Freedom is the recognition of necessity and the transformation of the objective world. Only on the basis of the recognition of necessity can people have freedom of action. This is the dialectics of freedom and necessity. Necessity as such is objectively existing law. Before we recognize it, our action can never be conscious, it partakes of blindness. Under these conditions, we are foolish people. Haven't we done many foolish things during the last few years?
#5. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT
On this question, I am only going to say a few words.
Whether in China or in other countries of the world, when all is said and done, over 90% of the population will eventually support Marxism-Leninism. There are still many people in the world who have not awakened, because of the deceptions of the Social-Democrats, revisionists, imperialists, and reactionaries. But, sooner or later, they will gradually awaken and support Marxism-Leninism. The truth of Marxism-Leninism is irresistible. Sooner or later, the masses of the people will rise up in revolution. Sooner or later, the world revolution will triumph. Sooner or later, those who forbid others to make revolution, such as the characters in Lu Xun's book — Squire Zhao, Squire Qian, and the bogus foreign devil, who bar Ah Q from revolution — will be defeated.
The Council Union was the first socialist State, and the Communist Party of the Council Union was created by Lenin. Although the leadership of the Soviet Party and State has now been usurped by revisionists, I would advise comrades to remain firm in the conviction that the masses of the Soviet people and of Soviet Party members and cadres are good, that they desire revolution, and that revisionist rule will not last long. Whatever the time — now or in the future, in our generation or in the generations to come — we should learn from the Council Union and study its experience. If we don't learn from the Council Union, we'll make mistakes. People may ask, since the Council Union is under the rule of the revisionists, should we still learn from it? What we should study is the good people and good things of the Council Union, the good experience of the Soviet Party, the good experience of Soviet workers and peasants, and of those intellectuals who have close ties with the working people. As for the bad people and bad things of the Council Union and the Soviet revisionists, we should treat them as teachers by negative example and draw lessons from them.
We should always uphold the principle of proletarian-internationalist unity. We always maintain that the socialist countries and the international Communist movement must unite firmly on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.
The revisionists of the world never stop insulting us. Our attitude is, let them do as they wish. We will duly reply when necessary. Our Party has become accustomed to being insulted. Leaving aside those who attacked us in the past, what about the present? Abroad, the imperialists insult us, the reactionary nationalists insult us, the reactionaries of various countries insult us, and the revisionists insult us; at home, Jiang Jieshi insults us, and, likewise, the feudal lords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and Right-wingers. This has been the case for a long time, and we're already used to it. But are we isolated? I, for one, don't feel isolated. Over 7'000 people are present here. How can more than 7'000 people be isolated? [Laughter.] Our country has over 600'000'000 people. Our people are united. How can more than 600'000'000 people be isolated? The masses of the people of all countries are already standing, or are going to stand, together with us. Is it possible for us to be isolated?
#6. WE MUST UNITE THE WHOLE PARTY AND THE WHOLE PEOPLE
We must unite the advanced elements and the activists inside and outside the Party, and unite the middle elements in order to bring along those who lag behind. In this way, we can unite the whole Party and the whole people. Only by relying on such unity can we do our work well, overcome difficulties, and build up China. To unite the whole Party and the whole people does not mean that we do not have our own standpoint. Some people say that the Communist Party is a «political party of the entire people», but we do not view things in this way. Our Party is the political party of the proletariat, its vanguard, a fighting force armed with Marxism-Leninism. We are on the side of the masses, who comprise over 95% of the total population. In no case do we stand on the side of the feudal lords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and Right-wingers, who make up 4 to 5% of the population. The same is true in the international sphere; we advocate unity with all Marxist-Leninists, with all revolutionary people, with the people in general. In no case do we want unity with the anti-Communist and anti-popular imperialists and reactionaries. Whenever possible, we'll establish diplomatic relations with them, too, and strive for peaceful coexistence with them on the basis of the «Five Principles». But this is in a category different from our unity with the people of all countries.
If unity is to prevail throughout the Party and the nation, we must give full play to democracy and let people speak up. This holds both inside and outside the Party. Comrades from the provincial, prefectural, and county Party committees, when you return, you must let people speak out. All comrades, absent or present, must act in this way. All leading members of the Party must promote inner-Party democracy and let people speak out. What are the limits? One is that Party discipline must be observed, the minority being subordinate to the majority and the entire membership to the Central Committee. Another limit is that no secret faction must be organized. We are not afraid of open opponents, we are only afraid of secret opponents. Such people do not speak the truth to your face, what they say is only lies and deceit. They don't express their real intention. As long as a person doesn't violate discipline and doesn't engage in secret factional activities, we should allow them to speak out and shouldn't punish them if they say wrong things. If people say wrong things, they can be criticized, but we should convince them with reason. What if they are still not convinced? They can be allowed to reserve their opinions. As long as they abide by the resolutions and the decisions taken by the majority, the minority can reserve their opinions. It is advantageous to allow the minority both inside and outside the Party to do so. If they are allowed to reserve their incorrect opinions for the time being, they can correct them in the future. Quite often, the ideas of the minority turn out to be correct. Such cases are common in history. In the beginning, truth is not in the hands of the majority of people, but in those of a minority. Marx and Engels held the truth in their hands, but, in the beginning, they were in the minority. For a long period, Lenin was also in the minority. We've had similar experience in our own Party. When our Party was ruled by Chen Duxiu, and also when the «Left»-opportunist lines prevailed, truth was not in the hands of the majority in the leading bodies, but, on the contrary, in the hands of the minority. Historically, the doctrines of natural scientists, such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin, were not recognized by the majority of people for a very long time, but, on the contrary, were considered incorrect. In their time, they were in the minority. When our Party was founded in 1921, we only had a few dozen members; we were also in the minority, but those few dozen people represented the truth and represented China's destiny.
There is also the question of arrests and executions, on which I want to say something. At present, only a dozen or so years after victory in the revolution, as long as elements of the overthrown reactionary classes have not been reformed, and, what is more, as long as some of them are still plotting restoration, a few must be arrested and executed; otherwise, the people's anger cannot be placated and the people's dictatorship consolidated. But we must not arrest people lightly, and, especially, we must not execute people lightly. Some bad people, bad elements, and debased elements, who have infiltrated into our ranks, ride on the backs of the people, piss and shit on them, behaving in a vicious and unrestrained way, and seriously violate laws and discipline. They are little Jiang Jieshis. We must have a way of dealing with this type of people. The worst among them who have committed heinous crimes have to be arrested and some executed. For, if we don't arrest or execute any of them, we won't be able to placate the people's anger. This is what we mean when we say: «We can't avoid arrests, and we can't avoid executions.» But we absolutely must not arrest too many or execute too many. As for those whose arrest is optional or whose execution is optional, we must definitely not arrest or execute them. There was a fellow called Pan Hannian, who once served as Deputy Mayor of Shanghai. Previously, he had secretly capitulated to the Nationalist Party and had become a member of the Central Club Clique. He is now in jail, and we haven't executed him. If we kill one person like Pan Hannian, thereby relaxing the restraints on execution, then all those like him would have to be executed. There was another fellow called Wang Shiwei, who was a secret Nationalist agent. While in Yan'an, he wrote an article entitled The White Lily, in which he attacked the revolution and vilified the Communist Party. He was later arrested and killed. The execution was carried out by the security bodies themselves while they were on the march; the decision was not made by the Central Committee. We have often made criticisms on this incident, and we hold that he shouldn't have been killed. True, he was a secret agent, he wrote articles to attack us, and he simply refused to mend his ways. Still, we could have just spared him and let him do labour. It wasn't good to kill him. We should arrest and execute as few people as possible. If we arrest and execute people at will, everybody will fear for themself, and nobody will dare to speak. In such an atmosphere, there can't be much democracy.
Neither should we put labels on people indiscriminately. Some comrades are addicted to using labels to put pressure on people. The moment they start speaking, labels start flying around everywhere, and people are so frightened they dare not speak. Of course, labels there will always be. Aren't there many labels in Comrade Liu Shaoqi's report to the Conference? Isn't «decentralism» a label? But we mustn't put labels on people at will, calling this one a decentralist and that one a decentralist until everybody is a decentralist. It would be better for the people concerned to put on the labels themselves — and, moreover, the right labels — rather than have them put on by others. If people put on labels themselves and wear them for a while, they should be removed when everybody agrees that they no longer fit. This will create a good democratic atmosphere. We advocate not seizing on other's faults, not putting labels on people, and not wielding the big stick, so that people will be free from fear and will dare to speak out.
Good will and a helpful attitude should be shown toward those who have made mistakes and those who not allow people to speak out. We mustn't create the kind of atmosphere in which people feel that they can't afford to make any mistakes or that, once they have made mistakes, the consequences will be terrible and they will never be able to raise their heads again. As long as a person who has made mistakes really wants to mend their ways and has made a genuine self-criticism, we should express our welcome. We must not make too high demands on a person when they make a self-criticism the first or second time. It doesn't matter if their self-criticism is not thorough yet. We should let them think again and give them well-intentioned help. A person needs help from others. We must help an erring comrade to realize their mistakes. If people sincerely make self-criticism and are willing to correct mistakes, we should forgive them and adopt a lenient policy toward them. As long as their achievements are still primary and they are reasonably competent, let them continue in their posts.
#CONCLUSION
In my speech, I have criticized certain phenomena and criticized certain comrades, but I haven't named them, I haven't pointed out who this one or that one actually is. You know what I mean. [Laughter.] For shortcomings and mistakes in our work in the last few years, the responsibility rests first with the Central Committee and, in the Central Committee, primarily with me; second, the responsibility rests with the Party committees of the provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions; third, with the prefectural Party committees; fourth, with the county Party committees; and, fifth, with the Party committees of enterprises and people's communes. In short, everyone has their share of responsibility.
Comrades, when you return, you must revitalize democratic centralism. The comrades of the county Party committees should lead the commune Party committees in revitalizing democratic centralism. First of all, collective leadership must be built or strengthened. You must no longer practise the method of leadership which prolongs the fixed «division of spheres of work and exclusive responsibility». Under that method, the secretaries and members of Party committees each work on their own, and there can be no real collective discussion or real collective leadership. It is necessary to promote democracy, encourage others to make criticisms, and listen to their criticisms. We must be able to face criticism. We must take the initiative and carry out self-criticism first. We must examine whatever needs examining for one or at most two hours, getting it all out lock, stock, and barrel — that'll be the lot. If others consider it insufficient, let them go on. And, if what they say is right, we'll accept their criticism. In the matter of letting people speak out, should we be active or passive? Of course, it's better to be active. But, what if we're already in a passive position? If we were undemocratic in the past, and so find ourselves in this passive position now, it doesn't matter. Let everybody criticize us. Let them pour out their grievances all day, and instead of going to the theatre in the evening, too. Please come and criticize me day and night. [Laughter.] Then I'll sit down and think about it coolly, forgoing sleep for two or three nights. After thinking it through and understanding it, I'll write a sincere self-criticism. Isn't that the way? In short, if you let others speak out, Heaven won't fall, and you won't be toppled. And if you don't? Then the day will inevitably come when you are toppled.
So much for my speech today. The central point I have discussed is the question of how to realize democratic centralism and how to promote democracy inside and outside the Party. I recommend that comrades consider this question carefully. Some comrades still lack the democratic-centralist way of thinking. Now is the time they should begin to acquire this way of thinking and begin to understand this question. If we give full play to democracy, we can mobilize the enthusiasm of the broad masses inside and outside the Party, and unite the broad masses, who comprise more than 95% of the whole population. When we have achieved this, we will be able to do our work better and better, and overcome the difficulties we meet all the more quickly. Our cause will then develop much more smoothly.
[Enthusiastic applause.]