Criticize and Repudiate Those Party Members in Power Who Are Taking the Capitalist Road
#PUBLICATION NOTE
This edition of Criticize and Repudiate Those Party Members in Power Who Are Taking the Capitalist Road 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:
- Circular of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, in Important Documents on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, First English Edition, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1970.
- Comments on and Revisions of the Draft Circular, in the Collected Writings of Mao Zedong Since the Founding of the People's Republic of China, First Chinese Edition, Vol. 12, Central Party Literature Publishing House, Beijing.
#INTRODUCTION NOTE
This is an inner-Party circular drafted by Comrade Mao Zedong, Chen Boda, Comrade Kang Sheng, and others for the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in April-May 1966. It was addressed to all regional bureaus of the Party's Central Committee, to all provincial, municipal, and autonomous region Party committees, to all departments and commissions under the Party's Central Committee, to all leading Party members' groups and Party committees in Government departments and people's organizations, and to the General Political Department of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. It was adopted by the Enlarged Meeting of the Political Bureau of the Party's Central Committee in Beijing, China on the 16th of May, 1966, and was first published in the Renmin Ribao (17th of May, 1967).
The publication of this historic circular, also known as the 16th of May Circular, represented the second milestone in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, following the publication of Yao Wenyuan's polemic, On the New Historical Play «Hai Rui Dismissed From Office», in the winter of 1965. The Circular criticized and repudiated the Outline Report on the Current Academic Discussion delivered to the Party's Central Committee on the 12th of February, 1966 by Peng Zhen in the name of the «Group of Five in Charge of the Cultural Revolution», which consisted of Peng Zhen, Lu Dingyi, Zhou Yang, Kang Sheng, and Wu Lengxi — all revisionists except for Comrade Kang Sheng.
The Cultural Revolution Group set up by decision of the Circular initially consisted of Chen Boda, Kang Sheng, Jiang Qing, Wang Renzhong, Liu Zhijian, Zhang Chunqiao, Xie Borzhong, Yin Da, Wang Li, Guan Feng, Qi Benyu, Mu Xin, and Yao Wenyuan.
Comrade Mao Zedong's comments on the draft were written in Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China on the 14th of April, 1966.
Passages written by Comrade Mao Zedong are marked in bold.
#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!
#COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT
#Mao Zedong
#14th of April, 1966
#★
#1
#To Jiang Qing
I have sent you two copies of the letter from Beijing. Please study and revise it. I have invited Comrades Kang Sheng and Chen Boda to go to Shanghai today or tomorrow to discuss it with you. In the evening of the 16th, I will finalize the draft together with Comrades Kang Sheng and Chen Boda after a discussion.
#Mao Zedong
#08:30 on the 14th of April
#2
#To Comrades Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, and Peng Zhen
I have received and read the letter dated the 12th of April and its appendices. Please invite Comrades Kang Sheng, Chen Boda, and other comrades in the drafting group to come to Shanghai today (the 14th) or tomorrow to discuss the document with the Shanghai comrades. I will discuss this question with Comrades Kang Sheng and Chen Boda in the evening of the 16th or on the 17th. I came here in the morning. You can come here on the 16th. It is up to you to decide whether to invite the bureaus of the Central Committee to come.
#Mao Zedong
#09:00 on the 14th of April, 1966
#3
I have made some revisions. Please consider them, and send me Comrades Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Peng Zhen, and Kang Sheng.
#Mao Zedong
#Morning of the 14th of April
#4
This document has been read.
#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!
#CRITICIZE AND REPUDIATE THOSE PARTY MEMBERS IN POWER WHO ARE TAKING THE CAPITALIST ROAD
#CIRCULAR OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA
#Mao Zedong and Others
#April-May 1966
#★
#To All Regional Bureaus of the Central Committee, All Provincial, Municipal, and Autonomous Region Party Committees, All Departments and Commissions Under the Central Committee, All Leading Party Members' Groups and Party Committees in Government Departments and People's Organizations, and the General Political Department of the People's Liberation Army
#INTRODUCTION
The Central Committee has decided to revoke the Outline Report on the Current Academic Discussion Delivered by the «Group of Five in Charge of the Cultural Revolution», which was approved for distribution on the 12th of February, 1966, to dissolve the «Group of Five in Charge of the Cultural Revolution» and its offices, and to set up a new Cultural Revolution Group directly under the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau. The so-called Outline Report by the «Group of Five» is fundamentally wrong. It runs counter to the line for the Socialist Cultural Revolution put forward by the Central Committee and Comrade Mao Zedong and to the guiding principles formulated at the Tenth Plenary Session of the Party's Eighth Central Committee in 1962 on the question of classes and the class struggle in socialist society. While feigning compliance, the Report actually opposes and stubbornly resists the Great Cultural Revolution personally launched and led by Comrade Mao Zedong, as well as the directives regarding the criticism of Wu Han, which he gave at the Work Conference of the Central Committee in September-October 1965 (that is, at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, which was also attended by the leading comrades of all the regional bureaus of the Central Committee).
The so-called Outline Report by the «Group of Five» is actually the report of Peng Zhen alone. He concocted it according to his own ideas behind the backs of Comrade Kang Sheng, a member of the «Group of Five», and other comrades. In handling a document of this kind regarding important questions which affect the overall situation in the socialist revolution, Peng Zhen held no discussion or exchange of views at all within the «Group of Five». He did not ask any local Party committee for its opinion, nor did he make it clear that the Outline Report would be sent to the Central Committee for examination as an official document, and still less did he get the approval of Comrade Mao Zedong, Chairperson of the Central Committee. Employing the most dishonest methods, he acted arbitrarily, abused his powers, and, usurping the name of the Central Committee, hurriedly issued the Outline Report to the whole Party.
The main errors of the Outline Report are as follows:
#1
Proceeding from a bourgeois standpoint and the bourgeois worldview, the Report completely transposes the enemy and ourselves, putting the one into the position of the other, in its appraisal of the situation and the character of the present academic criticism. Our country is now in an upsurge of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which is pounding at all the decadent ideological and cultural positions still held by the bourgeoisie and the remnants of feudalism. Instead of encouraging the entire Party boldly to mobilize the broad masses of workers, peasants, and soldiers, and the fighters for proletarian culture, so that they can continue to charge ahead, the Report does its best to turn the movement to the Right. Using muddled, self-contradictory, and hypocritical language, it obscures the sharp class struggle that is taking place on the cultural and ideological front. In particular, it obscures the aim of this great struggle, which is to criticize and repudiate Wu Han and the considerable number of other anti-Party and anti-socialist representatives of the bourgeoisie (there are a number of them in the Central Committee and in Party, Government, and other departments at the central as well as at the provincial, municipal, and autonomous region levels). By avoiding any mention of the fact repeatedly pointed out by Chairman Mao, namely, that the heart of Wu Han's drama, Hai Rui Dismissed From Office, is the question of dismissal from office, the Report covers up the serious political nature of the struggle.
#2
The Report violates the fundamental Marxist thesis that all class struggles are political struggles. When the press began to touch on the political issues involved in Wu Han's Hai Rui Dismissed From Office, the authors of the Report went so far as to say:
The discussion in the press should not be confined to political questions, but should go fully into the various academic and theoretical questions involved.
Regarding the criticism of Wu Han, they declared on various occasions that it was impermissible to deal with the heart of the matter, namely, the dismissal of the Right-wing opportunists at the Mount Lu Meeting in 1959 and the opposition of Wu Han and others to the Party and socialism. Comrade Mao Zedong has often told us that the ideological struggle against the bourgeoisie is a protracted class struggle, which cannot be resolved by drawing hasty political conclusions. However, Peng Zhen deliberately spread rumours, telling many people that Chairman Mao believed that political conclusions on the criticism of Wu Han could be drawn after two months. Peng Zhen also said that the political issues could be discussed two months later. His purpose was to channel the political struggle in the cultural sphere into so-called pure academic discussion, as frequently advocated by the bourgeoisie. Clearly, this means putting bourgeois politics in command, while opposing putting proletarian politics in command.
#3
The Report lays special emphasis on what it calls «opening wide». But, playing a sly trick, it grossly distorts the policy of «opening wide» expounded by Comrade Mao Zedong at the Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work in March 1957 and negates the class content of «opening wide». It was in dealing with this question that Comrade Mao Zedong pointed out:
We still have to wage a protracted struggle against bourgeois and small-bourgeois ideology. It is wrong not to understand this and to give up ideological struggle. All erroneous ideas, all poisonous weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be subjected to criticism; in no circumstance should they be allowed to spread unchecked.1
Comrade Mao Zedong also said:
To «open wide» means to let all people express their opinions freely, so that they dare to speak, dare to criticize, and dare to debate [...].1
This Report, however, poses «opening wide» against the proletariat's exposure of the bourgeoisie's reactionary standpoint. What it means by «opening wide» is bourgeois liberalization, which would allow only the bourgeoisie to «open wide», but would not allow the proletariat to «open wide» and hit back at the bourgeoisie; in other words, it is a shield for such reactionary representatives of the bourgeoisie as Wu Han. The «opening wide» of this Report is opposed to Mao Zedong's Thought and caters to the needs of the bourgeoisie.
#4
Just when we began the counter-offensive against the wild attacks of the bourgeoisie, the authors of the Report raised the slogan: «Everyone is equal before the truth.» This is a bourgeois slogan. Completely negating the class nature of truth, they use this slogan to protect the bourgeoisie and to oppose the proletariat and Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong's Thought. In the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the truth of Marxism and the fallacies of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes, either the East Wind prevails over the West Wind or the West Wind prevails over the East Wind, and there is absolutely no such thing as equality. Can equality be permitted on such fundamental questions as the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the superstructure, including all the various spheres of culture, and the continued efforts of the proletariat to weed out those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Communist Party, and who wave «red flags» to oppose the Red Flag? For decades, the old-style Social-Democrats, and for over ten years, the modern revisionists, have never allowed the proletariat equality with the bourgeoisie. They completely deny that the several thousand years of human history are a history of class struggle. They completely deny the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie, and the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, they are faithful lackeys of the bourgeoisie and the imperialists. Together with the bourgeoisie and the imperialists, they cling to the bourgeois ideology of oppression and exploitation of the proletariat and to the capitalist system, and they oppose Marxist-Leninist ideology and the socialist system. They are a bunch of counter-revolutionaries opposing the Communist Party and the people. Their struggle against us is one of life and death, and there is no question of equality. Therefore, our struggle against them, too, can be nothing but a life-and-death struggle, and our relationship with them can in no way be one of equality. On the contrary, it is a relationship in which one class oppresses another, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. There can be no other type of relationship, such as a so-called relationship of equality or of peaceful coexistence between exploiting and exploited classes, or of kindness or magnanimity.
#5
The Report states:
It is necessary, not only to beat the other side politically, but also truly to surpass and beat it by a wide margin by academic and professional standards.
This concept, which makes no class distinction on academic matters, is also very wrong. The truth on academic questions, the truth of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong's Thought — which the proletariat has grasped — has already far surpassed and beaten the bourgeoisie. The formulation in the Report shows that its authors laud the bourgeois academic so-called authorities and try to boost their prestige, and that they hate and repress the militant new forces representative of the proletariat in academic circles.
#6
Chairman Mao often says: There is no construction without destruction. Destruction means criticism and repudiation, it means revolution. It involves reasoning things out, which is construction. Put destruction first, and in the process, you have construction. Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong's Thought was founded and has constantly developed in the course of the struggle to destroy bourgeois ideology. But this Report emphasizes that, «without construction, there can be no real and thorough destruction». This amounts to prohibiting the destruction of bourgeois ideology and prohibiting the construction of proletarian ideology. It is diametrically opposed to Mao Zedong's Thought. It runs counter to the revolutionary struggle we have been waging on the cultural front for the large-scale destruction of bourgeois ideology. And it amounts to prohibiting the proletariat from making any revolution.
#7
The Report states that «we must not behave like scholar-tyrants, who always act arbitrarily and try to overwhelm people with their power», and that «we should guard against any tendency by academic workers of the Left wing to take the road of bourgeois experts and scholar-tyrants». What is really meant by «scholar-tyrants»? Who are the «scholar-tyrants»? Should the proletariat not exercise dictatorship and overwhelm the bourgeoisie? And if proletarian academic work overwhelms and eradicates bourgeois academic work, can this be regarded as an act of «scholar-tyrants»? The Report directs its spearhead against the proletarian Left wing. Obviously, its aim is to label the Marxist-Leninists «scholar-tyrants» and thus to support the real, bourgeois scholar-tyrants and prop up their tottering monopoly position in academic circles. As a matter of fact, those Party members in power who are taking the capitalist road and who support the bourgeois scholar-tyrants, and those bourgeois representatives who have sneaked into the Party and protect the bourgeois scholar-tyrants, are big Party tyrants, who have usurped the Party's name. They do not read books, do not read the daily press, have no contact with the masses, have no learning at all, and rely solely on «acting arbitrarily and trying to overwhelm people with their power».
#8
For their own ulterior purposes, the authors of the Report demand a «rectification movement» against the staunch Left wing, in a deliberate effort to create confusion, blur class alignments, and divert people from the target of struggle. Their main purpose in dishing up the Report in such a hurry was to attack the proletarian Left wing. They have gone out of their way to build up dossiers about the Left wing, tried to find all sorts of pretexts for attacking it, and intended to launch further attacks on it by means of a «rectification movement», in the vain hope of disintegrating its ranks. They openly resist the policy explicitly put forward by Chairman Mao of protecting and supporting the Left wing and giving serious attention to building it up and expanding its ranks. On the other hand, they have conferred the title of «staunch Left wing» on those bourgeois representatives, revisionists, and renegades who have sneaked into the Party, so as to shield them. In these ways, they are trying to inflate the arrogance of the bourgeois Right-wingers and to dampen the spirits of the proletarian Left-wingers. They are filled with hatred for the proletariat and love for the bourgeoisie. Such is the bourgeois conception of fraternity held by the authors of the Report.
#9
At a time when the new and fierce struggle of the proletariat against the representatives of the bourgeoisie on the ideological front has only just begin — in many spheres and places, it has not even started, or, if it has started, most Party committees concerned have a very poor understanding of the task of leadership in this great struggle, and their leadership is far from conscientious and effective — the Report stresses again and again that the struggle must be conducted «under leadership», «with prudence», «with caution», and «with the approval of the leading bodies concerned». All this serves to place restrictions on the proletarian Left wing, to impose taboos and commandments in order to tie its hands, and to place all sorts of obstacles in the way of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution. In a word, the authors of the Report are rushing to apply the brakes and launch a vindictive counter-attack. As for the articles written by the proletarian Left wing in refuting the reactionary bourgeois «authorities», they nurse bitter hatred against those already published and are suppressing those not yet published. On the other hand, they give free rein to all the ghosts and monsters, who for many years have abounded in our press, radio, magazines, books, textbooks, platforms, works of literature, cinema, drama, ballads, stories, fine arts, music, dance, and so on, and in doing so, they never advocate proletarian leadership or stress any need for approval. The contrast here shows where the authors of the Report really stand.
#10
The present struggle centres around the issue of implementation of or resistance to Comrade Mao Zedong's line for the Cultural Revolution. Yet the Report states:
Through this struggle, and under the guidance of Mao Zedong's Thought, we shall open up the way for the solution of this problem [of the thorough liquidation of bourgeois ideas in the realm of academic work].
Comrade Mao Zedong opened up the way for the proletariat on the cultural and ideological front long ago, in his On New Democracy, On Literature and Art, Letter to the Yan'an Beijing Opera Theatre After Seeing «Driven to Join the Liang Mountain Rebels», On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, and On the Question of Propaganda Work. Yet the Report maintains that Mao Zedong's Thought has not yet opened up the way for us and that it has to be opened up anew. Using the banner of «under the guidance of Mao Zedong's Thought» as a cover, the Report actually attempts to open up a way opposed to Mao Zedong's Thought, that is, the way of modern revisionism, the way to the restoration of capitalism.
#CONCLUSION
In short, the Report opposes carrying the socialist revolution through to the end, opposes the line for the Cultural Revolution pursued by the Party's Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong, attacks the proletarian Left wing, and shields the bourgeois Right wing, thereby preparing public opinion for the restoration of capitalism. It is a reflection of bourgeois ideology in the Party; it is out-and-out revisionism. Far from being a minor issue, the struggle against this revisionist line is an issue of prime importance having a vital bearing on the destiny and future of our Party and State, on the future complexion of our Party and State, and on the world revolution.
Party committees at all levels must immediately stop carrying out the Outline Report on the Current Academic Discussion Delivered by the «Group of Five in Charge of the Cultural Revolution». The whole Party must follow Comrade Mao Zedong's directives, uphold the great banner of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution, thoroughly expose the reactionary bourgeois standpoint of those so-called academic authorities who oppose the Party and socialism, thoroughly criticize and repudiate reactionary, bourgeois ideas in the spheres of academic work, education, journalism, literature, art, and publishing, and seize the leadership in these cultural spheres. To achieve this, it is at the same time necessary to criticize and repudiate those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Party, the Government, the Army, and all spheres of culture, and to clear them out or transfer some of them to other posts. Above all, we must not entrust these people with the work of leading the Cultural Revolution. In fact, many of them have done and are still doing such work, and this is extremely dangerous.
Those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Party, the Government, the Army, and various spheres of culture are a bunch of counter-revolutionary revisionists. Once conditions are ripe, they will seize political power and turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Some of them we have already seen through, others we have not. Some are still trusted by us and are being trained as our successors, people like Hrusev, for example, who are still nestling beside us. Party committees at all levels must pay full attention to this matter.
This Circular, together with the erroneous document issued by the Central Committee on the 12th of February, 1966, is to be sent down to the level of county Party committees, Party committees in the cultural organizations, and Party committees at regimental level in the Army. These committees are asked to discuss which of the two documents is wrong and which is correct, their understanding of these documents, and their achievements and mistakes.