Rectify the Party's Style of Work

#PUBLICATION NOTE

This edition of Rectify the Party's Style of Work 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:

• Rectify the Party's Style of Work, in the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, First English Edition, Vol. 3, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1965.
• Rectify Our Study Style, Party Style, and Writing Style, in Mao's Road to Power, First English Edition, Vol. 8, Routledge, New York and London, 2015.

#INTRODUCTION NOTE

This is a speech delivered by Comrade Mao Zedong at the inaugural meeting of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Yan'an, Shaanxi, China on the 1st of February, 1942. It was first published in the Jiefang Ribao (27th of April, 1942).

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#RECTIFY THE PARTY'S STYLE OF WORK

#SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE PARTY SCHOOL OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA

#Mao Zedong

#1st of February, 1942

#★

The Party School opens today, and I wish it every success.

I would like to say something about the problem of our Party's style of work.

Why must there be a revolutionary political party? There must be a revolutionary political party, because the world contains enemies who oppress the people, and the people want to throw off enemy oppression. In the era of capitalism and imperialism, just such a revolutionary political party as the Communist Party is needed. Without such a political party, the nature of which is a Communist Party, it is simply impossible for the people to throw off enemy oppression. We are Communists, we want to lead the people in overthrowing the enemy, and, so, we must keep our ranks in good order, we must march in step, our troops must be picked troops, and our weapons good weapons. Without these conditions, the enemy cannot be overthrown.

What is the problem now facing our Party? The general line of the Party is correct and presents no problem, and the Party's work has been fruitful. The Party has several hundred thousand members who are leading the people in extremely hard and bitter struggles against the enemy. This heroic spirit of sacrifice and these achievements in the service of the people are plain to everybody and beyond all doubt.

Then, is there or is there not any problem still facing our Party? I say there is and, in a certain sense, the problem is quite serious.

What is the problem? It is the fact that there is something in the minds of a number of our comrades which strikes one as not quite right, not quite proper.

What is this something? There is the question of study, the question of Party relations, and the question of writing. On these three questions, some of our comrades have yet to discard their somewhat improper style. In other words, there is still something wrong with our style of study, with our style in the Party's internal and external relations, and with our style of writing. By something wrong with the style of study, we mean the malady of subjectivism. By something wrong with our style in Party relations, we mean the malady of sectarianism. By something wrong with the style of writing, we mean the malady of stereotyped Party writing.¹ All these are wrong, they are ill winds, but they are not like the wintry north winds that sweep across the whole sky. Subjectivism, sectarianism, and stereotyped Party writing are no longer the dominant styles, but merely gusts of contrary wind, ill winds from the air-raid tunnels. [Laughter.] It is bad, however, that such winds should still be blowing in the Party. We must seal off the passages which produce them. Our whole Party should undertake the job of sealing off these passages, and so should the Party School. These three ill winds, subjectivism, sectarianism and stereotyped Party writing, have their historical origins. Although no longer dominant in the whole Party, they still constantly create trouble and assail us. Therefore, it is necessary to resist them, to rectify them, and to study, analyse, and elucidate them.

Fight subjectivism in order to rectify the style of study, fight sectarianism in order to rectify the style in Party relations, and fight Party stereotypes in order to rectify the style of writing — such is the task before us.

To accomplish the task of overthrowing the enemy, we must accomplish the task of rectifying these styles within the Party. The style of study and the style of writing are also the Party's style of work. Once our Party's style of work is put completely right, the people all over the country will learn from our example. Those outside the Party who have the same kind of bad style will, if they are good and honest people, learn from our example and correct their mistakes, and thus the whole nation will be influenced. So long as our Communist ranks are in good order and march in step, so long as our troops are picked troops and our weapons are good weapons, any enemy, however powerful, can be overthrown.

Let me speak now about subjectivism.

Subjectivism is an improper style of study; it is opposed to Marxism-Leninism and is incompatible with the Communist Party. What we want is the Marxist-Leninist style of study. What we call style of study means not just style of study in the schools, but in the whole Party. It is a question of the method of thinking of Party directors, cadres, and militants, a question of our attitude toward Marxism-Leninism, of the attitude of all Party comrades in their work. As such, it is a question of extraordinary, indeed of primary, importance.

Certain muddled ideas find currency among many people. There are, for instance, muddled ideas about what is a theorist, what is an intellectual, and what is meant by linking theory and practice.

Let us first ask, is the theoretical level of our Party high or low? Recently, more Marxist-Leninist works have been translated and more people have been reading them. That is a very good thing. But can we therefore say that the theoretical level of our Party has been greatly raised? True, the level is now somewhat higher than before. But our theoretical front is very much out of harmony with the rich content of the Chinese revolutionary movement, and a comparison of the two shows that the theoretical side is lagging far behind. Generally speaking, our theory cannot as yet keep pace with our revolutionary practice, let alone lead the way as it should. We have not yet raised our rich and varied practice to the proper theoretical plane. We have not yet examined all the problems of revolutionary practice — or even the important ones — and raised them to a theoretical plane. Just think, how many of us have created theories worthy of the name on China's economics, politics, military affairs, or culture, theories which can be regarded as scientific and comprehensive, and not crude and sketchy? Especially in the field of economic theory: Chinese capitalism has had a century of development since the Opium War, and yet not a single theoretical work has been produced which accords with the realities of China's economic development and is genuinely scientific. Can we say that in the study of China's economic problems, for instance, the theoretical level is already high? Can we say that our Party already has economic theorists worthy of the name? Certainly not. We have read a great many Marxist-Leninist books, but can we claim, then, that we have theorists? We cannot. For Marxism-Leninism is the theory created by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the basis of practice, their general conclusion drawn from historical and revolutionary reality. If we merely read their works, but do not proceed to study the realities of China's history and revolution in the light of their theory or do not make any effort to think through China's revolutionary practice carefully in terms of theory, we should not be so presumptuous as to call ourselves Marxist theorists. Our achievements on the theoretical front will be very poor indeed if, as members of the Communist Party of China, we close our eyes to China's problems and can only memorize isolated conclusions or principles from Marxist writings, if we just put on glasses every day and see nothing but the Collected Works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the shelf. If all a person can do is to commit Marxist economics or philosophy to memory, reciting glibly from Chapter 1 to Chapter 10, but is utterly unable to apply them, can they be considered a Marxist theorist? No! They cannot. Indeed, the fewer such «theorists» we have, the better. If someone has read 10'000 works by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, has read every work 1'000 times, and can recite every sentence, then we cannot consider them a theorist. What kind of theorists do we want? We want theorists who can, in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, worldview, and methodology, correctly interpret the practical problems arising in the course of history and revolution and give scientific explanations and theoretical elucidations of China's economic, political, military, cultural, and other problems. Such are the theorists we want. To be a theorist of this kind, a person must have a true grasp of the essence of Marxism-Leninism, of the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, worldview, and methodology and of the theories of Lenin and Stalin on the colonial revolution and the Chinese revolution, and they must be able to apply them in a penetrating and scientific analysis of China's practical problems and discover the laws of development of these problems. Such are the theorists we really need.

The Central Committee of our Party has now made a decision calling upon our comrades to learn how to apply the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, worldview, and methodology in the serious study of China's history, and of China's economics, politics, military affairs, and culture, and to analyse every problem concretely on the basis of detailed material and then draw theoretical conclusions. This is the responsibility we must shoulder.

Our comrades in the Party School should not regard Marxist theory as lifeless dogma. It is necessary to master Marxist theory and apply it, master it for the sole purpose of applying it. Now, it is fashionable to measure things in term of percentages. Then, what grade shall we give to this person who has read 10'000 books 1'000 times, yet is completely unable to apply them? I say 0%. [Laughter.] If you can apply the Marxist-Leninist worldview in elucidating one or two practical problems, you should be commended and credited with some achievement. The more problems you elucidate and the more comprehensively and profoundly you do so, the greater will be your achievement. Our Party School should also lay down the rule to grade students good or poor according to how they look at China's problems after they have studied Marxism-Leninism, according to whether or not they see the problems clearly and whether or not they see them at all.

Next, let us talk about the question of the «intellectuals». Since China is a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country and its culture is not well developed, intellectuals are particularly treasured. On this question of the intellectuals, the Central Committee of the Party made the decision² over two years ago that we should win over the great numbers of intellectuals and, insofar as they are revolutionary and willing to take part in the resistance to Japan, welcome them one and all. This is very correct, but as a result, intellectuals a glorified while country bumpkins have a hard time. It is entirely right for us to esteem intellectuals, for without revolutionary intellectuals, the revolution cannot triumph. But we all know there are many intellectuals who fancy themselves very learned and assume airs of erudition without realizing that such airs are bad and harmful and hinder their own progress. They ought to be aware of the truth that actually many so-called intellectuals are, relatively speaking, most ignorant and the workers and peasants sometimes know more than they do. Here, some will say: «Ha! You are turning things upside down and talking nonsense.» [Laughter] But, comrades, don't get excited; there is some sense in what I am saying.

What is knowledge? Ever since class society came into being, the world has had only two kinds of knowledge, knowledge of the struggle for production and knowledge of the class struggle. (Knowledge of the national struggle is also included in the latter category.) What knowledge is there aside from this? There is none. Natural science and social science are the crystallizations of these two kinds of knowledge, and philosophy is the generalization and summation of the knowledge of nature and the knowledge of society. Is there any other kind of knowledge? No. Now, let us take a look at certain students, those brought up in schools that are completely cut off from the practical activities of society. What about them? A person goes from a primary school of this kind all the way through to a university of the same kind, graduates, and is reckoned to have a stock of learning. But, first of all, such people don't know how to till the land; second, they don't know how to work in factories; third, they don't know how to fight battles; and, fourth, they don't know how to handle a job. They have done none of these things. They have absolutely no practical knowledge of this kind. All they have is book-learning; they have not yet taken part in any practical activities or applied what they have learned to any field of life. Can such a person be regarded as a completely developed intellectual? Hardly so, in my opinion; at most they can be considered a half-baked intellectual, because their knowledge is still incomplete. What, then, is relatively complete knowledge? All relatively complete knowledge is formed in two stages: the first stage is perceptual knowledge, the second is rational knowledge, the latter being the further development of the former to a higher stage. What sort of knowledge is the students' book-learning? Even supposing all their knowledge is truth, it is still not knowledge acquired through their own personal experience, but consists of theories set down by their predecessors in summarizing experience of the struggle for production and of the class struggle. It is entirely necessary that students should acquire this kind of knowledge, but it must be understood that, as far as they are concerned, such knowledge is, in a sense, still the wrong away around, reversed, and one-sided, something which has been verified by others, but not yet by themselves. What is most important is to be good at applying this knowledge in life and in practice. They should know that it is not at all difficult to learn this kind of knowledge, it may even be said that it is extremely easy. In contrast, the cook's task in preparing a meal is difficult. Combining firewood, rice, oil, salt, sauce, vinegar, and so on, to create something edible is no easy matter, and it is even harder to make something tasty. If we compare the tasks of the cooks at the North-West Restaurant to those of the cooks in our homes, we find a great difference. If the fire is too big, the food will burn; if there is too much salt, it will taste bitter. [Laughter.] Cooking and preparing food is truly an art. What about book-learning? If you only read lifeless books, then you need only to know 3'000 to 5'000 characters, learn how to thumb through a dictionary, and hold some book in your hand, and the government will give you millet to eat. Then you nod your head contentedly and start to read. Books cannot walk, and you can open and close a book at will. This is the easiest thing in the world to do, a great deal easier than for a cook to prepare a meal and far easier than it is for them to slaughter a pig. They have to catch the pig, but the pig can run. [Laughter.] They slaughter it, so the pig squeals. [Laughter.] A book placed on a desk cannot run away, nor can it squeal. [Laughter.] You can dispose of it in any manner you wish. Is there anything easier to do? Therefore, I advise those who have only book-learning but as yet no contact with reality, and also those with little practical experience, to realize their own shortcomings and become a little more modest.

How can those who have only book-learning be turned into intellectuals in the true sense? The only way is to get them to take part in practical work and become practical workers, to get those engaged in theoretical work to study important practical problems. In this way, our aim can be attained.

What I have said will probably make some people angry. They will say: «According to your explanation, even Marx would not be regarded as an intellectual.» I say it is true that, in the first place, Marx did not know how to slaughter a pig, and, second, he could not till the land. But he took part in the practice of the revolutionary movement and also created revolutionary theory. Beginning with the commodity, the simplest element of capitalism, he made a thorough study of the economic basis of capitalist society. This study was thorough, examining commodities in this way and that way, unlike the casual way in which we read the Communist Party of the Council Union (Majority), Short Course. Millions of people saw and handled commodities every day, but were so used to them that they took no notice. Marx alone studied commodities scientifically. He carried out a tremendous work of research into their actual development and derived a thorough]y scientific theory from what existed universally. He studied nature, history, and proletarian revolution and created dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and the theory of proletarian revolution. Thus, Marx became a most completely developed intellectual, representing the peak of human wisdom; he was fundamentally different from those who have only book-learning in that he participated in the actual revolutionary movement. Marx conducted detailed research in the course of practical struggles, formed generalizations, and then verified his conclusions by testing them in practical struggles — this is what we call theoretical work. Our Party needs a large number of comrades who will learn how to do such work. In our Party, there are many comrades who can learn to do this kind of theoretical research; most of them are intelligent and promising, and we should value them. But they must follow correct principles and not repeat the mistake of the past. They must discard dogmatism and not confine themselves to ready-made phrases in books.

There is only one kind of true theory in this world, theory that is drawn from objective reality and then verified by objective reality; nothing else is worthy of the name of theory in our sense. Stalin said that theory becomes aimless when it is not connected with practice.³ Aimless theory is useless and false and should be discarded. We should point the finger of scorn at those who are fond of aimless theorizing. Marxism-Leninism is the most correct, scientific, and revolutionary truth, born out of and verified by objective reality, but many who study Marxism-Leninism take it as lifeless dogma, thus impeding the development of theory and harming themselves as well as other comrades.

On the other hand, our comrades who are engaged in practical work will also come to grief if they misuse their experience. True, these people are often rich in experience, which is very valuable, but it is very dangerous if they rest content with their own experience. They must realize that their knowledge is mostly perceptual and partial and that they lack rational and comprehensive knowledge in other words, they lack theory and their knowledge, too, is relatively incomplete. Without comparatively complete knowledge it is impossible to do revolutionary work well.

Thus, there are two kinds of incomplete knowledge. One is ready-made knowledge found in books. I fear that this can turn even Marxism-Leninism into something hollow. The other is knowledge that is mostly perceptual and partial, which has not yet evolved into something rational and universal. Both are one-sided. Only an integration of the two can yield knowledge that is sound and relatively complete.

In order to study theory, however, our cadres of working-class and peasant origin must first acquire an elementary education. Without it, they cannot learn Marxist-Leninist theory. Having acquired it, they can study Marxism-Leninism at any time. In my childhood, I never attended a Marxist-Leninist school and was taught only such things as: «The Master said: ‹How pleasant it is to learn and constantly review what one has learned.›»⁴ Though this teaching material was antiquated, it did me some good, because from it, I learned to read. For example, I learned the word «study», which I used to study Marxism-Leninism. Nowadays, we no longer study the Confucian classics, but such new subjects as modern Chinese, history, geography, and elementary natural science, which, once learned, are useful everywhere. The Central Committee of our Party now emphatically requires that our cadres of working-class and peasant origin should obtain an elementary education, because they can then take up any branch of study — politics, military science, or economics. Otherwise, for all their rich experience, they will never be able to study theory.

It follows that, to combat subjectivism, we must enable people of each of these two types to develop in whichever direction they are deficient and to merge with the other type. Those with book-learning must develop in the direction of practice; it is only in this way that they will stop being content with books and avoid committing dogmatist errors. Those experienced in work must take up the study of theory and must read seriously; only then will they be able to systematize and synthesize their experience and raise it to the level of theory, only then will they not mistake their partial experience for universal truth and not commit empiricist errors. Dogmatism and empiricism alike are subjectivism, each originating from an opposite pole.

Hence, there are two kinds of subjectivism in our Party: dogmatism and empiricism. Each sees only a part and not the whole. If people are not on guard, do not realize that such one-sidedness is a shortcoming, and do not strive to overcome it, they are liable to go astray.

However, of the two kinds of subjectivism, dogmatism is still the greater danger in our Party. For dogmatists can easily assume a Marxist guise to bluff, capture, and make servitors of cadres of working-class and peasant origin who cannot easily see through them; they can also bluff and ensnare the naive youth. If we overcome dogmatism, cadres with book-learning will readily join with those who have experience and will take to the study of practical things, and then many good cadres who integrate theory with experience, as well as some real theorists, will emerge. If we overcome dogmatism, the comrades with practical experience will have good teachers to help them raise their experience to the level of theory and so avoid empiricist errors.

Besides muddled ideas about the «theorist» and the «intellectual», there is a muddled idea among many comrades about «linking theory and practice», a phrase they have on their lips every day. They talk constantly about «linking», but actually they mean «separating», because they make no effort at linking. How is Marxist-Leninist theory to be linked with the practice of the Chinese revolution? To use a common expression, it is by «shooting the arrow at the target». As the arrow is to the target, so is Marxism-Leninism to the Chinese revolution. Some comrades, however, are «shooting without a target», shooting at random, and such people are liable to harm the revolution. Others merely stroke the arrow fondly, exclaiming, «What a fine arrow! What a fine arrow!», but never want to shoot it. These people are only connoisseurs of curios and have virtually nothing to do with the revolution. The arrow of Marxism-Leninism must be used to shoot at the target of the Chinese revolution. Otherwise, why would we bother studying Marxism-Leninism? Is it because we are suffering from indigestion eating millet and need to chant the digestion sutra? Why is it absolutely necessary for our Party School to study Marxism-Leninism? Unless this point is made clear, the theoretical level of our Party can never be raised and the Chinese revolution can never be victorious.

Our comrades must understand that we study Marxism-Leninism not for display, nor because there is any mystery about it, like the Daoist priests who ascend Mount Mao to learn how to subdue daemons and evil spirits. Marxism-Leninism has no beauty to display, nor is there anything mysterious about it. We study it solely because it is the science which leads the revolutionary cause of the proletariat to victory. Even now, there are not a few people who still regard odd quotations from Marxist-Leninist works as a ready made panacea, which, once acquired, can easily cure all maladies. These people show childish ignorance, and we should enlighten them. It is precisely such ignorant people who take Marxism-Leninism as a religious dogma. To them, we should say bluntly, «Your dogma is worthless», or, to put it more impolitely: «In fact, your dogma is worth less than shit.» As we can see, dog shit can be used to fertilize fields, and human shit can feed dogs. But what about dogma? It cannot fertilize nor feed anything. Of what use is it? [Laughter.] Comrades! You know that my purpose in putting it this way is deliberately to be sarcastic toward those who treat Marxism-Leninism as dogma, to give them a big shock, so as to wake them up and make them take a correct attitude toward Marxism-Leninism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin have repeatedly stated that our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action. But such people prefer to forget this statement, which is of the greatest, indeed the utmost, importance. Chinese Communists can be regarded as linking theory with practice only when they become good at applying the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, worldview, and methodology and the teachings of Lenin and Stalin concerning the Chinese revolution and when, furthermore, through serious research into the realities of China's history and revolution, they do creative theoretical work to meet China's needs in different spheres. Merely talking about linking theory and practice without actually doing anything about it is of no use, even if one goes on talking for a hundred years. To oppose the subjectivist, one-sided approach to problems, we must demolish dogmatist subjectiveness and one-sidedness.

So much for today about combating subjectivism in order to rectify the style of study throughout the Party.

Let me now speak about the question of sectarianism.

Having been tempered for 20 years, our Party is no longer dominated by sectarianism. Remnants of sectarianism, however, are still found both in the Party's internal relations and in its external relations. Sectarian tendencies in internal relations lead to exclusiveness toward comrades inside the Party and hinder inner-Party unity and solidarity, while sectarian tendencies in external relations lead to exclusiveness toward people outside the Party and hinder the Party in its task of uniting the whole people. Only by uprooting this evil in both its aspects can the Party advance unimpeded in its great task of achieving unity among all Party comrades and among all the people of our country.

What are the remnants of inner-Party sectarianism? They are mainly as follows:

First, the assertion of «independence». Some comrades see only the interests of the part and not the whole; they always put undue stress on that part of the work for which they themselves are responsible and always wish to subordinate the interests of the whole to the interests of their own part. They do not understand the Party's system of democratic centralism; they do not realize that the Communist Party not only needs democracy, but needs centralization even more. They forget the system of democratic centralism, in which the minority is subordinate to the majority, the lower level to the higher level, the part to the whole, and the entire membership to the Central Committee. Zhang Guotao⁵ asserted his «independence» of the Party's Central Committee, and, as a result, «asserted» himself into betraying the Party and became a Nationalist agent. Li Lisan also asserted «independence» from the Communist International, and, as a result, committed the mistakes of the Li Lisan line. Although the sectarianism we are now discussing is not of the extremely serious kind of Zhang Guotao and Li Lisan, it must still be guarded against, and we must do away completely with all manifestations of disunity. We should encourage comrades to take the interests of the whole into account. Every Party member, every branch of work, every statement, and every action must proceed from the interests of the whole Party; it is absolutely impermissible to violate this principle.

Those who assert this kind of «independence» are usually wedded to the doctrine of «me first» and are generally wrong on the question of the relationship between the individual and the Party. Although in words they profess respect for the Party, in practice they put themselves first and the Party second. Comrade Liu Shaoqi once said that there was one kind of people who had very long hands and were very good at looking after their own interests, but paid little heed to the interests of others and of the Party as a whole. «What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too.» [Loud laughter.] What are these people after? They are after pelf and place and want to be in the limelight. Whenever they are put in charge of a branch of work, they assert their «independence». With this aim, they draw some people in, push others out, and resort to boasting, flattery, and touting among the comrades, thus importing the vulgar style of the bourgeois political parties into the Communist Party. It is their dishonesty that causes them to come to grief. I believe we should do things honestly, for without an honest attitude, it is absolutely impossible to accomplish anything in this world. Which are the honest people? Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin are honest, scientists are honest. Which are the dishonest people? Trotskij, Buharin, Chen Duxiu, Li Lisan, and Zhang Guotao are extremely dishonest; and those who assert «independence» out of personal or factional interest are dishonest too. All sly people, all those who do not have a scientific attitude in their work, fancy themselves resourceful and clever, but in fact, they are most stupid and will come to no good. Students in our Party School must pay attention to this problem. We must build a centralized, unified Party and make a clean sweep of all unprincipled factional struggles. We must combat individualism and sectarianism, so as to enable our whole Party to march in step and fight for one common goal.

Cadres from the outside and those from the locality must unite and combat sectarian tendencies. Very careful attention must be paid to the relations between outside and local cadres, because many anti-Japanese base areas were established only after the arrival of the Eighth Route Army or the New Fourth Army, and much of the local work developed only after the arrival of outside cadres. Our comrades must understand that, in these conditions, it is possible for our base areas to be consolidated and for our Party to take root there only when the two kinds of cadres unite as one and when a large number of local cadres develop and are promoted; otherwise, it is impossible. Both the outside and the local cadres have their strong and weak points, and to make any progress, they must overcome their own weak points by learning from each other's strong points. The outside cadres are generally not up to the local cadres in familiarity with local conditions and links with the masses. Take me, for instance. Although I have been in northern Shaanxi five or six years, I am far behind Comrade Gao Gang and other local comrades in understanding local conditions and in links with the people here. No matter how much research I conduct, I still fall somewhat short in comparison with the cadres of northern Shaanxi. Our comrades going to the anti-Japanese base areas in Shanxi, Hebei, Shandong, and other provinces must pay attention to this. Moreover, even within the same base area, owing to the fact that some districts develop earlier and others later, there is a difference between the local cadres of a district and those from outside it. Cadres who come from a more developed to a less developed district are also outside cadres in relation to that locality, and they, too, should pay great attention to fostering and helping local cadres. Generally speaking, in places where outside cadres are in charge, it is they who should bear the main responsibility if their relations with the local cadres are not good. And the chief comrades in charge should bear greater responsibility. The attention paid to this problem in some places is still very inadequate. Some people look down on the local cadres and ridicule them, saying: «What do these locals know? Clodhoppers!» Such people utterly fail to understand the importance of local cadres; they know neither the latter's strong points nor their own weaknesses, and adopt an incorrect, sectarian attitude. All outside cadres must cherish the local cadres and give them constant help, and must not be permitted to ridicule or attack them. Of course, the local cadres, on their part, must learn from the strong points of the outside cadres and rid themselves of inappropriate, narrow views, so that they and the outside cadres become as one, with no distinction between «them» and «us», and thus avoid sectarian tendencies.

The same applies to the relationship between cadres in army service and other cadres working in the locality. They must be completely united and must oppose sectarian tendencies. The army cadres must help the local cadres, and the other way around. If there is friction between them, each should make allowance for the other and carry out proper self-criticism. Generally speaking, in places where army cadres are actually in leading posts, it is they who should bear the main responsibility if their relations with the local cadres are not good. Only when the army cadres understand their own responsibility and are modest in their attitude toward the local cadres can the conditions be created for the smooth progress of our war effort and our work of construction in the base areas.

The same applies to the relationship among different army units, different localities, and different departments. We must oppose the tendency towards selfish departmentalism, by which the interests of one's own unit are looked after to the exclusion of those of others. Whoever is indifferent to the difficulties of others, refuses to transfer cadres to other units on request, or releases only the inferior ones, «using the neighbour's field as an outlet for their overflow», and does not give the slightest consideration to other departments, localities, or people — such a person is a selfish departmentalist, who has entirely lost the spirit of Communism. Lack of consideration for the whole and complete indifference to other departments, localities, and people are characteristics of a selfish departmentalist. We must intensify our efforts to educate such persons and to make them understand that selfish departmentalism is a sectarian tendency, which will become very dangerous, if allowed to develop.

Another problem is the relationship between old and new cadres. Since the beginning of the War of Resistance, our Party has grown enormously, and large numbers of new cadres have emerged; that is a very good thing. In his report to the 18th All-Union Congress of the Communist Party of the Council Union (Majority), Comrade Stalin said: « [...] there are never enough old cadres, there are far less than required, and they are already partly going out of commission owing to the operation of the laws of nature.»⁶ Here, he was discussing the cadre situation and not only the laws of nature. If our Party does not have a great many new cadres working in unity and cooperation with the old cadres, our cause will come to a stop. All old cadres, therefore, should welcome the new ones with the utmost enthusiasm and show them the warmest solicitude. True, new cadres have their shortcomings. They have not been long in the revolution and lack experience, and unavoidably some have brought with them vestiges of the unwholesome ideology of the old society, remnants of the ideology of small-bourgeois individualism. But such shortcomings can be gradually eliminated through education and tempering in the revolution. The strong point of the new cadres, as Stalin has said, is that they are acutely sensitive to what is new and are therefore enthusiastic and active to a high degree — the very qualities which some of the old cadres lack. Cadres, new and old, should respect each other, learn from each other and overcome their own shortcomings by learning from each other's strong points, so as to unite as one in the common cause and guard against sectarian tendencies. Generally speaking, in places where the old cadres are mainly in charge, it is they who should bear the chief responsibility if relations with the new cadres are not good.

All the above — relations between the part and the whole, relations between the individual and the Party, relations between outside and local cadres, relations between army cadres and other cadres working in the locality, relations between this and that army unit, between this and that locality, between this and that department, and relations between old and new cadres — are relations within the Party. In all these relations, it is necessary to enhance the spirit of Communism and guard against sectarian tendencies, so that the ranks of our Party will be in good order, march in step, and therefore fight well. This is a very important problem, which we must solve thoroughly in rectifying the Party's style of work. Sectarianism is an expression of subjectivism in organizational relations; if we want to get rid of subjectivism and promote the Marxist-Leninist spirit of seeking truth from facts, we must sweep the remnants of sectarianism out of the Party and proceed from the principle that the Party's interests are above personal or factional interests, so that the Party can attain complete solidarity and unity.

The remnants of sectarianism must be eliminated from the Party's external as well as its internal relations. The reason is this: we cannot defeat the enemy by merely uniting the comrades throughout the Party; we can defeat the enemy only by uniting the people throughout the country. For 20 years, the Communist Party of China has done great and arduous work in the cause of uniting the people of the whole country, and the achievements in this work since the outbreak of the War of Resistance are even greater than in the past. This does not mean, however, that all our comrades already have a correct style in dealing with the masses and are free from sectarian tendencies. No. In fact, sectarian tendencies still exist among a number of comrades, and in some cases to a very serious degree. Many of our comrades tend to be overbearing in their relations with non-Party people, look down upon them, despise or refuse to respect them or appreciate their strong points. This is indeed a sectarian tendency. After reading a few Marxist books, such comrades become more arrogant instead of more modest, and invariably dismiss others as no good without realizing that in fact their own knowledge is only half-baked. Our comrades must realize the truth that Communist Party members are at all times a minority as compared with non-Party people. Supposing 1 out of every 100 persons were a Communist, then there would be 4'500'000 Communists among China's population of 450'000'000. Yet, even if our membership reached this huge figure, Communists would still form only 1% of the whole population, while 99% would be non-Party people. What reason can we then have for not cooperating with non-Party people? As regards all those who wish to cooperate with us or might cooperate with us, we have only the duty of cooperating and absolutely no right to shut them out. But some Party members do not understand this and look down upon, or even shut out, those who wish to cooperate with us. There are no grounds whatsoever for doing so. Have Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin given us any grounds? They have not. On the contrary, they have always earnestly enjoined us to form close ties with the masses and not divorce ourselves from them. Or has the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China given us any grounds? No. Among all its resolutions, there is not a single one that says we may divorce ourselves from the masses and so isolate ourselves. On the contrary, the Central Committee has always told us to form close ties with the masses and not to divorce ourselves from them. Thus, any action divorcing us from the masses has no justification at all and is simply the mischievous result of the sectarian ideas some of our comrades have themselves concocted. As such, sectarianism remains very serious among some of our comrades and still obstructs the application of the Party line; we should carry out extensive education within the Party to meet this problem. Above all, we should make our cadres really understand how serious the problem is and how utterly impossible it is to over throw the enemy and attain the goal of the revolution unless Party members unite with the non-Party cadres and with non-Party people.

All sectarian ideas are subjectivist and are incompatible with the real needs of the revolution; hence, the struggle against sectarianism and the struggle against subjectivism should go on simultaneously.

There is no time today to talk about the question of stereotyped Party writing; I shall discuss it at another meeting. Stereotyped Party writing is a vehicle for filth, a form of expression for subjectivism and sectarianism. It does people harm and damages the revolution, and we must get rid of it completely. I cannot finish talking about these things today all at one meeting. I will do it next time.⁷

To combat subjectivism, we must propagate materialism and dialectics. However, there are many comrades in our Party who lay no stress on the propaganda either of materialism or of dialectics. Some tolerate subjectivist propaganda and regard it with equanimity. They think they believe in Marxism, but make no effort to propagate materialism and do not give it a thought or express any opinion when they hear or read subjectivist stuff. This is not the attitude of a Communist. It allows many of our comrades to be poisoned by subjectivist ideas, which numb their sensitivity. We should therefore launch a movement of enlightenment within the Party to free the minds of our comrades from the fog of subjectivism and dogmatism and should call upon them to boycott subjectivism, sectarianism, and stereotyped Party writing. Such evils are like Japanese commodities, for only our enemy wishes us to preserve them and continue to befuddle ourselves with them; so, we should advocate a boycott against them, just as we boycott Japanese commodities.⁸ We should boycott all the commodities of subjectivism, sectarianism, and stereotyped Party writing, make their sale difficult, and not allow their purveyors to ply their trade by exploiting the low theoretical level in the Party. Our comrades must develop a good nose for this purpose; they should take a sniff at everything and distinguish the good from the bad before they decide whether to welcome it or boycott it. Communists must always go into the whys and wherefores of anything, use their own heads, and carefully think over whether or not it corresponds to reality and is really well founded; on no account should they follow blindly and encourage slavishness.

Finally, in opposing subjectivism, sectarianism, and stereotyped Party writing we must have in mind two purposes: first, «learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones», and, second, «cure the sickness to save the patient». The mistakes of the past must be exposed without sparing anyone's sensibilities; it is necessary to analyse and criticize what was bad in the past with a scientific attitude, so that work in the future will be done more carefully and done better. This is what is meant by «learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones». But our aim in exposing errors and criticizing shortcomings, like that of a doctor curing a sickness, is solely to save the patient and not to doctor them to death. A person with appendicitis is saved when the surgeon removes their appendix. So long as a person who has made mistakes, no matter how big those mistakes are, does not hide their sickness for fear of treatment or persist in their mistakes until they are beyond cure, so long as they honestly and sincerely wish to be cured and to mend their ways, we should welcome them and cure their sickness so that they can become a good comrade. We can never succeed if we just let ourselves go, and lash out at them. In treating an ideological or a political malady, one must never be rough and rash, but must adopt the approach of «curing the sickness to save the patient», which is the only correct and effective method.

I have taken this occasion of the opening of the Party School to speak at length, and I hope comrades will think over what I have said. [Enthusiastic applause.]