On the Question of Ideological Trends

#PUBLICATION NOTE

This edition of On the Question of Ideological Trends 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:

• Talks at a Conference of Secretaries of Provincial, Municipal, and Autonomous Region Party Committees, in the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, First English Edition, Vol. 5, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1977.
• Speech at Conference of Provincial, Municipal, and Autonomous Region Party Secretaries, Version 2, in The Writings of Mao Zedong, 1949-76, First English Edition, Vol. 2, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk and London, 1992.

#INTRODUCTION NOTE

This is a talk given by Comrade Mao Zedong at the opening of a conference of secretaries of provincial, municipal, and autonomous region committees of the Communist Party of China on the 18th of January, 1957. It was first published in the Red Guard collection Long Live Mao Zedong's Thought! in 1968.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#ON THE QUESTION OF IDEOLOGICAL TRENDS

#TALK AT THE OPENING OF A CONFERENCE OF SECRETARIES OF PROVINCIAL, MUNICIPAL, AND AUTONOMOUS REGION COMMITTEES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA

#Mao Zedong

#18th of January, 1957

#★

The present conference will chiefly discuss three questions: the question of ideological trends, the rural question, and the economic question. Today, I shall speak on the question of ideological trends. We will study some other questions as well, such as the questions of increasing production and practising economy, the legal system (including the suppression of counter-revolutionaries), organizational structure (mainly streamlining), the central and local authorities, taxation, the united front, the national minorities, areas struck by natural disasters, students (including college and university students, middle-school students, and primary-school students), thinking up every possible method to resolve the difficulties of the current year, food grains, the mountainous areas, the rectification of our style of work, and so on.

We should keep tabs on ideological trends, which I am taking up here as the first question. At present, certain problems concerning them inside the Party and in society at large have cropped up and demand our close attention.

One kind of problem arises among our own ranks. For example, some cadres now scramble for fame and fortune and are interested only in personal gain. In the discussion of the ranking of cadres, there were instances where a cadre would not be satisfied with a rise of one rank, even a rise of two ranks still left them weeping in bed, and perhaps only a three-rank promotion could get them out of bed. The fuss they kicked up has settled the question. This business of ranking cadres, have done with it! Let wages be roughly evened out, with slight differences here and there. In the old days, the government of the Northern Warlords had a prime minister by the name of Tang Shaoyi. Years later, he was magistrate of Zhongshan County, Guangdong Province. If a prime minister in the old society could serve as a county magistrate, why on Earth can't our government ministers do likewise? So far, not a single Communist departmental head has ever been demoted to a county magistrate. In this regard, those who fuss over their rank and can be promoted, but not demoted, compare poorly, in my opinion, with this old mandarin. They vie with each other, not in plain living, doing more work, and having fewer comforts, but for luxuries, rank, and status. At present, this kind of thinking has grown considerably in the Party, and the matter demands our attention.

Is agricultural cooperation promising, or is it unpromising? Which is better, the cooperative, or the individual economy? This question has been raised again. Last year, it did not come up in places reaping a rich harvest or in areas stricken by serious natural adversities, but only in those cooperatives which had suffered natural adversities, but not of a serious kind, or reaped a harvest, but not a rich one. The cash value of labour-points in these cooperatives turned out to be less than had been promised, and there was no increase, but actually a decrease in the income of the members. This gave rise to such talk as: «Is the cooperative still good and worth preserving?» And this kind of talk has found an echo among certain Party cadres. The cooperatives, some say, are in no way superior. Some government ministers made a brief visit to the countryside, and on their return to Beijing, they spread alarmist views, saying that the peasants were listless and not keen on farming, as if the cooperatives were on the verge of collapse and extinction. Some cooperative directors cannot hold their heads up, because they are being attacked right and left and have to endure criticisms from above and from the press. Some heads of the propaganda departments of Party committees shy away from making propaganda about the superiority of the cooperatives. Minister of Agriculture Liao Luyan, who is concurrently Deputy Director of the Rural Work Department of the Party's Central Committee, says in effect that he himself feels discouraged and so do the responsible cadres under him, and that the cooperatives won't work anyway and the 40-article Programme for Agricultural Development is no longer valid. What are we to do with a person who feels discouraged? That's simple. If someone is losing courage, we just pump a little into them. The newspapers have now taken on a different tone in their propaganda, dwelling on the superiority of the cooperatives and speaking well rather than ill of them. Keep this up for several months to generate a little courage.

The year before last, there was a struggle against a Right-wing deviation, and last year a struggle against «rash advance», which resulted in another Right-wing deviation. By this, I mean the Right-wing deviation on the question of socialist revolution, primarily that of socialist transformation in the rural areas — I have not yet studied the situation in the urban areas. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that a gust of wind with the force of a typhoon has been blowing among our cadres. A considerable number of our ministers, vice-ministers, heads of departments or bureaus, as well as cadres at the provincial level are from landlord, rich peasant, or upper-middle peasant families, and in some cases, their parents are landlords who to this day are deprived of the right to vote. When these cadres go home for a visit, they hear from their folks nothing but adverse comments, such as that the cooperatives are no good and won't last. The upper-middle peasants are a wavering social stratum, the go-it-alone tendency among them is rising again, and some want to withdraw from the cooperatives. The wind blowing among our cadres indicates what is in the minds of these classes and strata.

Agricultural cooperation is sure to be a success, but it cannot achieve complete success in a year or two. This must be made clear to comrades in the Party, the government, the army, and the people's organizations. The cooperatives have only a short history, mostly of a year or a year and a half, and are lacking in experience. People who have been working for the revolution most of their lives still make mistakes, so how can you expect those who have been at the job for only a year to a year and a half to make no mistakes at all? To say that cooperation won't work when there is a little wind and rain is itself a big mistake. In point of fact, most cooperatives are doing well or fairly well. Cite just one cooperative that is being managed successfully, and you will be able to explode all the absurd arguments against cooperation. If this cooperative can be run well, why can't others? If this cooperative displays superiority, why can't others? Publicize the experience of this cooperative wherever you go. Each province should be able to find at least one such example. Choose a cooperative with the worst conditions including an unfavourable terrain, which previously had very low yields and was very poor. Do not choose one where the conditions were good to start with. Of course, it is fine if you have scores of examples, but if you can make just one cooperative work well, that spells success.

There is also trouble in the schools and colleges, and in a number of places, students have rioted. In Zhengding County, Shijiazhuang Special District, jobs were temporarily not available for some students of the graduating class in a geological school under the geology department, and they had to stay on another year. This awakened their discontent. A handful of counter-revolutionaries seized the opportunity to agitate, organize a demonstration, and threaten to occupy the Shijiazhuang radio station and proclaim a «Hungary». They put up many posters, the most striking of which carried these three slogans: «Down with Fascism!» «We want war, not peace!» «Socialism is in no way superior!» According to them, the Communist Party was Fascist, and people like us had to be overthrown. The slogans they put up were so reactionary that they estranged the workers, peasants, and people in all walks of life. In Beijing, a student of Qinghua University openly declared: «The day will come when I will have thousands and tens of thousands of people shot!» With the introduction of the policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend, even this «school» has come into the open. Comrade Deng Xiaoping went to the university and made a speech. If you want to have thousands and tens of thousands of people shot, he said, then we will have to enforce dictatorship.

According to a survey made in Beijing, most college students are children of landlords, rich peasants, the bourgeoisie, and upper-middle peasants, while students from working-class and poor and lower-middle peasant families account for less than 20%. Probably this is roughly the case too in the rest of the country. This situation should change, but it will take time. Gomulka used to be an opponent of dogmatism, and he has been very popular with a number of our college students. However, now that he has turned around to oppose Right-wing deviations, it's not working so well for him. The speeches of Tito and Kardelj are also welcomed by some people. On the other hand, at the time of the riots in Poland and Hungary, most of the landlords and rich peasants in the countryside and the capitalists and members of the democratic political parties in the cities behaved better and made no attempt to stir up trouble or come out with threats to kill thousands and tens of thousands of people. But one should be analytical about their behaviour. For they no longer have any political capital, the workers and the poor and lower-middle peasants won't listen to them, and they have no ground to stand on. Should something happen like atomic bombs blowing up Beijing and Shanghai, wouldn't these people change? You can't be too sure they wouldn't. In that eventuality, there would be a process of realignment of the landlords, the rich peasants, the bourgeoisie, and the members of the democratic political parties. They have worldly wisdom, and many of them are lying low. Their offspring — those school kids — are inexperienced, and it is they who expose such wares as «I will have thousands and tens of thousands of people shot» and «Socialism is in no way superior».

There is strange talk among some professors, too, such as that the Communist Party should be done away with, the Communist Party cannot lead them, socialism is no good, and so on and so forth. Before, they kept these ideas to themselves, but since the policy of letting a hundred schools of thought contend gave them an opportunity to speak up, these remarks have come tumbling out. Have you seen the film The Life of Wu Xun? There is one shot of a writing brush, dozens of feet long, symbolizing the «people of learning». A sweep of that brush could be terrific. Now they are coming out, probably with the intention of sweeping us away. Aren't they in fact attempting a restoration?

During the past year, several storms raged on the world scene. At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Council Union, they went for Stalin in a big way. Subsequently, the imperialists stirred up two storms against Communism, and there were two stormy debates in the international Communist movement. Amidst these storms, the impact and losses were quite big in the case of some Communist Parties in Europe and the Americas, but smaller for the Communist Parties in Asia. The British Party lost 25% of its membership, the Swiss Party lost 50%, and the United States made chaos throughout the world. With the convocation of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Council Union, some people who had been most enthusiastic for Stalin became most vehement against him. In my view, these people do not adhere to Marxism-Leninism, they do not take an analytical approach to things, and they lack revolutionary morality. Marxism-Leninism embraces the revolutionary morality of the proletariat. Since formerly you were all for Stalin, you should at least give some reason for making such a sharp turn. But you offer no reason at all for this sudden about-face, as if you had never in your life supported Stalin, though in fact you had fully supported him before. The question of Stalin concerns the entire international Communist movement and involves the Communist Parties of all countries.

Most cadres in our Party are dissatisfied with the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Council Union and think it went too far in attacking Stalin. That is a normal feeling and a normal reaction. But a few cadres started to vacillate. Before it rains in a typhoon, ants come out of their holes, they have very sensitive «noses», and they know their meteorology. No sooner had the typhoon of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Council Union struck than a few such ants in China came out of their holes. They are wavering elements in the Party who vacillate whenever something is astir. When they heard of the sweeping denunciation of Stalin, they felt good and swung to the other side, cheering and saying that Hrusev was right in everything and that they themselves had been of the same opinion all along. Later, when the imperialists struck a few blows and a few more came from inside the international Communist movement, even Hrusev had to change his tune somewhat, and so they swung back to this side again. In the face of an irresistible trend, they had no choice but to swing back. A tuft of grass atop the wall sways right and left in the wind. The waverers' real intention was not to swing to our side, but to the other. It's a good thing that some people inside and outside the Party sang the praises of the Polish and Hungarian incidents. They could not open their mouths without talking about Poznan and Hungary. In so doing, they gave themselves away. Ants came out of their holes, and turtles, tortoises, and all the scum of the Earth left their hiding places. They danced to Gomulka's baton. When Gomulka talked about great democracy, they echoed him. Now, the situation has changed, and they are keeping their mouths shut. But that's not what they really want to do. Their real desire is to speak out.

When a typhoon strikes, the wavering elements who cannot withstand it begin to vacillate. That's a law. I would like to call your attention to it. Some people, having vacillated a few times, gain experience and stop wavering. But there is a type of person who will go on wavering forever. They are like some crops, rice for example, which sway at a whiff of wind because of their slender stalks. Sorghum and maize with their stouter stalks do better. Only big trees stand upright and rock-firm. Typhoons occur every year. So do ideological and political typhoons at home and abroad. This is a natural phenomenon in society. A political party is a kind of society, a political kind of society. The primary category in political society consists of political parties and political groups. A political party is a class organization. Our Communist Party of China is a proletarian political party composed chiefly of people of working-class and semi-proletarian poor-peasant origin. But there are also a number of Party members who hail from landlord, rich-peasant, and capitalist families, or have an upper-middle peasant or urban small-bourgeois origin. Though more or less tempered in long years of arduous struggle, quite a number have not acquired much Marxism, and thus ideologically or mentally, they are apt to sway in the wind like rice stalks.

Some Party members who have come through many tests now find it difficult to pass the test of socialism. Xue Xun is a typical example. She was formerly a deputy secretary of the Hebei Provincial Party Committee and a vice-governor of the province. When did she begin to vacillate? At the time when the State monopoly of the purchase and marketing of grain was first instituted. It was an important measure for implementing socialism. But she was dead against it and opposed it at all costs. Another example is Meng Yongqian, deputy director of the National Federation of Supply and Marketing Cooperatives. In a letter of petition, he, too, firmly opposed this State monopoly. When agricultural cooperation was being carried out, again some people in the Party opposed it. In short, there are high-ranking Party cadres who have vacillated and cannot pass the test of socialism. Has this state of affairs come to an end? No, it hasn't. Will these people become firm and really believe in socialism ten years from now? Well, not necessarily. Ten years from now, when something crops up, they may say again, I predicted that long ago.

Here is some material to be distributed among the comrades present which shows the ideological trends among certain cadres in the army. Although there is something valid in their opinions, for instance, when they say the wages of some cadres are too high and the peasants don't like it, the general tenor is not quite right and the fundamental line they follow is wrong. They criticize our Party's policies as being «Left-wing» in the countryside and Right-wing in the cities. For all its 9'600'000 square kilometres, China is made up of but two constituents, city and countryside. According to them, we are wrong in both.

When they say our rural policy has deviated to the «Left», they mean that the income of the peasants is meagre, less than that of the workers. Here, one should make an analysis and not judge by income alone. It is true that the income of the workers is generally higher than that of the peasants, but the value they produce is bigger, and besides, they have to pay more for daily necessities. The improvement of the peasants' livelihood depends mainly on their own efforts to increase production. The government is also doing much to help them, building water-conservancy projects, granting them agricultural credits, and so on. Our tax on agricultural products, sideline products included, forms about 8% of the total value of the peasants' output, and no tax is levied on many sidelines. The State purchases grain at standard prices. Moreover, the State gets only a very small profit from the exchange of industrial products for the peasants' agricultural products. We do not adopt the system of obligatory sales enforced in the Council Union. In the exchange of industrial products for agricultural products, we try to narrow the price scissors instead of widening them as in the Council Union. There is a world of difference between our policy and that of the Council Union. Therefore, our rural policy cannot be said to have deviated to the «Left».

Some of the high-ranking cadres in our army make complaints on behalf of the peasants, because they are affected by the remarks of upper-middle peasants, rich peasants, or landlords, which they may have heard on visits to their home town or from relatives invited to stay with them. In the first half of 1955, a good many Party members made such complaints, chiming in with Liang Shuming and his ilk, as if only people from these two quarters spoke for the peasants and understood their sufferings. In their eyes, our Central Committee does not represent the peasants, nor do the provincial Party committees and the majority of Party members. A survey in Jiangsu Province shows that, in some places, 30% of the cadres at the county, district, and township levels made complaints on behalf of the peasants. It further reveals that most of them belong to rather well-to-do families which have surplus grain for sale. What they call «sufferings» turns out to be having surplus grain. And when they say «help the peasants» and «show concern for the peasants», they mean withholding sales of surplus grain to the State. Who on earth do these grumblers represent? Not the peasant masses, but a small number of well-to-do peasants.

The argument that our rural policy has deviated to the «Left» is fundamentally wrong. Let's take an example. Say a peasant has an income of RMB 60 a year, and a worker has an income of RMB 60 a month, but a worker feeds four people, an average of RMB 15 per person. If we go by household, a working-class household earns RMB 720 a year, and the peasant household earns RMB 240 a year. However, the expenses in the urban areas are great while the expenses in the rural areas are small.

As for the charge that our urban policy has deviated to the Right, this seems to be the case, as we have undertaken to provide for the capitalists and pay them a fixed rate of interest for a period of seven years.¹ In these years, the capitalists have taken RMB 150'000'000 each year. They will still get another RMB 800'000'000, making a total of RMB 1'700'000'000 for all seven years. What is to be done after the seven years? That is to be decided according to the circumstances prevailing then. It is better to leave the matter open, that is, to go on giving them a certain amount in fixed interest. At this small cost, we are buying over this class. The Central Committee has given this policy very careful consideration. On the whole, the capitalists plus the democrats and intellectuals associated with them have a higher level of cultural and technical knowledge. By buying over this class, we have deprived them of their political capital and kept their mouths shut. The way to deprive them is to buy them over and make arrangements to give them jobs. Thus, political capital will not be in their hands, but in ours. We must deprive them of every bit of their political capital and continue to do so until not one jot is left to them. Therefore, neither can our urban policy be said to have deviated to the Right.

Our rural policy is correct, and so is our urban policy. That is why a nationwide riot, such as the Hungarian Incident, cannot take place here. At most, a small number of people may create trouble here and there and clamour for so-called great democracy. There is nothing terrifying about great democracy. On this score, I do not see eye to eye with some comrades among you, who seem scared of it. In my view, should great democracy come about, first, you should not be scared of it, and, second, you should make an analysis of the words and deeds of its advocates. In pushing their so-called great democracy, those bad types are bound to say or do something wrong, which will only expose and isolate them. To «have thousands and tens of thousands of people shot» — is this the way to resolve contradictions among the people? Can this win any sympathy from the majority of people? «Down with Fascism» and «Socialism is in no way superior» — doesn't this flagrantly violate the Constitution? The Communist Party and the State power under its leadership are revolutionary and socialism is superior; this is all stated in the Constitution and acknowledged by the whole nation. «We want war, not peace» — well, that's fine! So you are calling for war, and yet what you can muster is only a small band, an insufficient number of soldiers without trained officers. These kids have really gone mad! That school in Shijiazhuang had a discussion on the three slogans mentioned above, and out of 70 representatives, only a dozen spoke in favour, while 50-odd said no. Then the slogans were discussed among 4'000 students. Not a single one approved, so the dozen were isolated. The Far Right reactionaries who put up and stuck to these slogans were only a handful. If they had not taken up great democracy and splashed those posters everywhere, we would have been in the dark as to what they were up to. Once they pressed for great democracy, they got caught. One good thing about the Hungarian Incident was that these ants in China were thus lured out of their holes.

In Hungary, great democracy toppled the Party, the government, and the army once it was set in motion. This will not happen in China. If a handful of school kids can topple our Party, government, and army by a show of force, we must all be fatheads. Therefore, don't be afraid of great democracy. If there is a disturbance, it will help get the festering sore cured, and that's a good thing. We were not afraid of imperialism in the past nor are we now. And we have never been afraid of Jiang Jieshi. Are we now to be afraid of great democracy? I say we ought not to be. How would that look for the Communist Party? We would be worse than Duan Qirui! If anyone resorts to what they call great democracy to oppose the socialist system and try to overthrow the leadership of the Communist Party, we shall exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat over them.

In short, we have had an eventful year in 1956. Internationally, it was a year in which Hrusev and Gomulka stirred up storms, and internally, it was a year of very intense socialist transformation. It is still eventful now, and all kinds of ideas will go on obtruding themselves. I hope you comrades here will keep your eyes open.

I have only spoken about the question of ideological trends. As for other questions, there is already a document on increasing production and practising economy. As to the suppression of counter-revolutionaries, it must be resolutely upheld. Wherever counter-revolutionaries show up, they must be suppressed. It won't do for us to hesitate, but the legal system must be obeyed.

We must promote the streamlining of government bodies resolutely. First, reduce the number of personnel; second, make proper arrangements for jobs and posts. We have to give people jobs and posts before firing them.

As to the central and local authorities, the local authorities are not very happy. They lack both money and authority. We need to discuss this and should let them speak up.

As to the united front, there is a tendency toward emphasizing assigning posts to the democratic political parties rather than remoulding them. The same is the case with the intellectuals, there is a tendency today to stress arranging jobs for them to the neglect of remoulding them, there is too much of the former and too little of the latter. With the introduction of the policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend, there has been some timidity about remoulding intellectuals. Since we have not been timid about remoulding capitalists, why should we be timid about remoulding intellectuals and democratic figures?

Let a hundred flowers blossom — I think we should go on doing that. Some comrades hold that only fragrant flowers should be allowed to blossom and that poisonous weeds should not be allowed to grow. This is the same approach as in the Council Union. This approach shows little understanding of the policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend. In general, counter-revolutionary statements will naturally be prohibited. However, if they are made, not in a counter-revolutionary form, but in a revolutionary guise, you will have to allow them. That will help us see these statements for what they are and wage struggles against them. Two kinds of plants grow in the fields, grain and weeds. Weeding must be done every year, indeed several times a year. If you say you will allow only fragrant flowers to blossom and no poisonous weeds to grow, that is tantamount to saying that you will allow only grain and not a single weed to grow in the fields. You may very well say so, but whoever has been to the fields knows that if weeding is not done, there will be weeds galore. Weeds are useful in a way — when ploughed under, they can be turned into manure. You say they are of no use? Well, uselessness can be turned into usefulness. The peasants must wage struggles against weeds in the fields year in year out, and so must the writers, artists, critics, and professors of our Party against weeds in the ideological held. If weeds grow, we uproot them. This opposite in the contradiction shows itself continually. Weeds will grow even ten thousand years from now, and so we must be prepared to wage struggles for that long. Without the Nationalist Party, we cannot prove the superiority of the Communist Party. Without idealism, we cannot prove the superiority of materialism. Everything has to go through a struggle and get tempered. To say something is tempered means that it has been through a struggle. Contradictions occur constantly; there must be continuous struggle and continuous resolution of contradictions. This will even be the case a billion years from now. In order to learn about positive things, one must also learn about negative things. If we only talked about materialism and didn't talk about idealism, or if we only talked about dialectics and didn't talk about metaphysics, then we wouldn't know the negative aspect, which would prevent the consolidation of the positive aspect. Therefore, not only should we publish the Collected Works of Sun Yixian, we also have to publish the Collected Works of Jiang Jieshi. We'll talk about Hegel, Kant, Confucius, Mencius, Laozi, Cheng Hao, Cheng Yi, Zhu Xi, and Wang Yangming; we'll talk about all of them. If you've never read anything written by Jiang Jieshi, you won't know how to oppose him. Someone said that literary standards have declined since we proposed the policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom. Comrade Lu Dingyi's report has only been out for five months, yet literary standards have somehow declined. How can that happen so fast? A major work takes a long time to prepare; it cannot be written in such a short period of time. Writers have to work; if they don't work, we don't give them rice to eat. If the writers sat at home without going down to the lower levels, they would have nothing in their bellies; how could they write good things then?

We should study the question of abolishing cadre ranks and of reducing their salaries.

As to the question of students, there are two problems: the problem of entering university, and the problem of employment after graduation.

The question of the national minorities is rather serious.

I am very much in agreement on the question of thinking up every possible method to resolve the difficulties of the current year. Ke Qingshi made a great invention on this point.