(Speech delivered at the Opening Ceremony of the Party School on February 1, 1942)
The Party School opens today, and I congratulate the school on its achievements.
I would like to say something about the problem of our Party’s work style.
Why must there be a revolutionary party? There must be a revolutionary party because our enemies still exist in the world.2 Moreover, what is required is not just an ordinary revolutionary party but a revolutionary party with the nature of a Communist Party.3 For without a revolutionary party with the nature of a Communist Party, it is impossible to overthrow the enemy completely.4 We want to overthrow the enemy.5 So we must keep our ranks in good order, we must march in step, our troops must be picked troops, and our weapons must be good weapons. Without these conditions the enemy cannot be overthrown.
What is the problem now facing our Party? Our Party’s general line is correct, there is no doubt about that, and our Party’s work has achieved success. We have6 several hundred thousand members who are working side by side with the people7 in waging extremely hard and bitter struggles against the national enemy. Such a heroic spirit of sacrifice, such achievements in the service of the people, can be seen by all and are not subject to doubt.
After all, then, does our Party still have problems or not? Does it still have shortcomings or not? I say there are still problems, there are still shortcomings, and, in a certain sense, these problems are rather serious.
What are these problems? They result from the fact that there are certain things in the brains of some of our comrades that are not quite correct, not quite proper.
What are these various things? There is the question of thought, the question of the relationship between people within the Party and people outside the Party, and the question of speech and 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 study style, Party style, and writing style. By something wrong with our study style, we mean subjectivism.8 By something wrong with our Party style, we mean sectarianism.9 By something wrong with our writing style, we mean Party formalism.10 These styles are wrong, but they are not like the wintry north winds that sweep across the whole sky. Subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party formalism are no longer the dominant styles, but merely gusts of contrary wind, ill winds from the air-raid tunnels (laughter). It is not good, however, that such winds should still be blowing in our 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 Party formalism, have their historical origins. Although at present they are no longer dominant in the whole Party, they still constantly create trouble and assail us. Consequently, it is necessary to engage in rectification, to resist them, and to analyze and elucidate them and study them.
Oppose subjectivism in order to rectify our study style, oppose sectarianism in order to rectify our Party style, and oppose Party formalism in order to rectify our writing style—such is the task before us.
If we want to accomplish the task of vanquishing11 the enemy, we must accomplish this task of rectifying these styles within the Party. The study style is also the Party’s study style. The writing style is also the Party’s writing style. Therefore, they are both part and parcel of the Party’s work style. Once our Party’s work style is put completely right, people throughout the country will learn from our example. Those outside the Party who indulge in the same kind of bad practices 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, cannot but be overthrown.
Let me speak now about subjectivism.
Subjectivism is an improper style of study; it is anti–Marxist-Leninist, and it cannot coexist with the Communist Party. What we want is the Marxist-Leninist study style. What we call study style means a study style not just in the schools but in the whole Party. It is a question of the method of thinking by comrades in our leading bodies and by all cadres and Party members. It is a question of our attitude toward Marxism-Leninism, of the attitude of all Party comrades toward their work. Since it is a question of this kind, the question of study style is an extremely important question and indeed a question of primary importance.
At present, certain muddled ideas find currency among many people. This is the case, for example, for ideas about what is a theorist, what is an intellectual, and what is meant by linking theory and practice, and so on.
Let us first of all ask: Is the theoretical level of our Party actually 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 in comparison with the rich content of the Chinese revolutionary movement, the theoretical front lags behind. A comparison of the two shows that the theoretical side is at a very low level and lags 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 practice to the necessary theoretical level. We have not yet investigated all the problems of revolutionary practice—or even the important ones—and raised them to a theoretical level. Just think, how many of us have created theories worthy of the name regarding China’s economy, 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 that 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? In reality, we cannot say this. For Marxism-Leninism is the theory created by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the basis of practice; it consists of general conclusions drawn from historical and revolutionary practice. If we merely read this,12 but do not proceed to study the realities of China’s history and revolution in the light of this,13 or make any effort to think through China’s revolutionary practice carefully in terms of theory, if we have not created a theory in accordance with China’s real necessities, a theory that is our own and of a specific nature,14 we should not be so presumptuous as to call ourselves Marxist theorists. If we who are Communist Party members are so accustomed to looking at Chinese problems that we cannot see them, if we look every day and see nothing, put on glasses and still see nothing, if we see only the complete works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the shelf, then our achievements on the theoretical front will be very poor indeed. If a person can only commit Marxist economics or philosophy to memory, reciting glibly from Chapter I to Chapter X, (laughter) but is utterly unable to apply them, can such a person be considered a Marxist theorist? Hardly. Indeed, the fewer such “theorists” we have the better. If there was someone who had read ten thousand works by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, had read every work a thousand times, and could recite every sentence, he still could not be counted as a theorist. What kind of theorists do we need? We need theorists who, basing themselves on the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, are able to explain correctly the actual 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. This is the type of theorists we need. 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, viewpoint, and method, and of the theories of Lenin and Stalin on the colonial revolution and the Chinese Revolution, and he 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 Committee15 has now made a decision calling upon our comrades to learn how to apply the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, viewpoint, and method of thinking in the serious study of China’s history, and of China’s economics, politics, military affairs, and culture and to investigate and study16 every problem on the basis of detailed material and only then to create theories.17 This is the responsibility that we must shoulder.
Our Party School18 should not read the Marxist-Leninist tenets in a lifeless manner.19 Instead, they must be able first of all to master them and then to apply them, master them for the sole purpose of applying them. Now it is fashionable to measure performance in terms of percentages. Then, what grade shall we give to this person who has read 10,000 books, has read each one 1,000 times, and is completely unable to apply them? I say zero (laughter). But if you can apply the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint to elucidate 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. At present, our Party School should also lay down the rule to grade students as superior or inferior, good or bad, according to how they look at China’s problems after they have studied Marxism-Leninism,20 according to whether they see the problems clearly and whether they see them at all.
What about the problem of the so-called intellectuals? Because this China of ours is a semicolonial, semifeudal country and its culture is underdeveloped, intellectuals are of particular value. The Central Committee has, moreover, made the decision21 that we must strive to attract a broad stratum of intellectuals.22 Insofar as they are revolutionary and willing to take part in the War of Resistance,23 welcome them one and all. This is very correct, but as a result, intellectuals are glorified and country bumpkins have a difficult time. It is entirely right for us to esteem intellectuals, for without revolutionary intellectuals the revolution cannot triumph. But we all know that there are many intellectuals who fancy themselves very learned and assume airs of erudition, not 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? From ancient times to the present,24 there have been only two kinds of knowledge in the world: 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 crystallization of these two kinds of knowledge, and philosophy is the generalization and summation of natural science and social science. Aside from these, there is no other knowledge.25 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 school26 all the way to a university,27 graduates, and is considered learned. 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.28 Can such persons be regarded as complete intellectuals? Hardly, in my opinion. At most they can be considered half-intellectuals, 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 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 the 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 the wrong way around, reversed, and one-sided knowledge, something that has been verified by others but not yet by themselves.29 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 Northwest 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 knowledge? 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 him to slaughter a pig. He has to catch the pig, [but] the pig can run; (laughter) he slaughters it, [so] the pig squeals (laughter). A book placed on a desk cannot run 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 of you who have only book learning and as yet no contact with reality, and those who have little practical experience, to recognize your own shortcomings and become a bit more humble.
How can those half-baked intellectuals30 be turned into intellectuals worthy of the name? There is only one way: to make all those people who have only book knowledge turn to practical tasks, so that they become real workers and see that those engaged in theoretical work turn to practical research.31 In this way we can reach our goal.
What I have said can hardly fail to make some people angry. They will say, “According to your interpretation, even Marx would be regarded as no more than a half-baked intellectual.”32 I say, it is true33 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 revolutionary movement.34 He also studied commodities.35 Millions of people see and use commodities every day, but are so used to them that they take no notice. Marx alone studied commodities.36 He considered commodities, looking at them this way and that way, unlike the casual way in which we read the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He carried out analytical work into their actual development and derived a theory37 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 should be regarded as a complete intellectual.38 He differed from those half-baked intellectuals39 in that he participated in the actual revolutionary movement, he returned to reality and undertook investigations and research.40 He formed generalizations regarding various things.41 Such generalized knowledge is called theory.42 Our Party needs a large number of comrades to do43 such work. In our Party at present there are many comrades who can engage in44 this kind of theoretical research. Most of them are intelligent and promising; we should treasure these comrades, we should value them. But their orientation must be correct, and they must not repeat the mistakes of the past. They must discard dogmatism and not confine themselves to ready-made books.45
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 can measure up to the theory of which we speak. Stalin has said that theory divorced from reality is empty theory. Empty theory is useless, incorrect, and must be rejected. We should point the finger of scorn at those who are fond of such aimless theorizing. Marxism-Leninism is the most correct, scientific, and revolutionary truth, derived from objective reality and verified by objective reality, but many who study Marxism-Leninism regard 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 fall into error if they misuse their experience. True, these people are rich in46 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. Yet 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 and has not yet evolved into something rational and universal. Both are one-sided. Only linking the two together can produce something47 which is relatively good and complete.
In order to study theory, however, our cadres of working-class and peasant origin must first learn to read and write. Without this, they cannot learn Marxist-Leninist theory. Having learned this, they can study Marxism-Leninism at any time. In my childhood I never attended something called a “Marxist-Leninist school” and was taught only such things as, “The Master said: ‘Is it not pleasant to learn with constant perseverance and application?’”48 (laughter) From this, I learned to read.49 For example, the word “study” is there. I could use this word to study Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, nowadays we no longer study Confucius; we study such new topics as modern Chinese, history, geography, and elementary natural science. Once these basic subjects are mastered, they are useful everywhere. The Central Committee of our Party now emphasizes50 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, although these worker and peasant cadres have rich experience, they will never be able to raise themselves to the level of theory.51
It follows that to combat subjectivism we must succeed in developing people of each of these two types in whichever direction they are deficient and linking the two together. Only when those with book learning develop in the direction of practice can they avoid being stuck in books. Only then can they avoid committing dogmatist errors. Those with work experience 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, and 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 improve,52 they are liable to go astray.
Of these two kinds of subjectivism, however, the principal danger to our Party at the present time is dogmatism. For dogmatism can easily assume the guise of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.53 This intimidates cadres of working-class and peasant origin and forces country bumpkins to be its servant, and cadres of working-class and peasant origin cannot easily see through this disguise. This can also intimidate naive young people and capture them. 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. Thus we can create many54 good workers who combine theory with experience, as well as some real theorists. 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 to avoid empiricist errors.
Apart from the confusion prevailing about the concepts of “theorist” and “intellectual,” there is a phrase about “linking theory and practice” which we read every day, about which many of our comrades also have confused ideas. Every day they speak of “linking,” but in reality they are talking about “separating,” because they make no effort at linking. How can Marxist-Leninist theory and the practice of the Chinese Revolution be linked? To use a common expression, it is by “shooting the arrow at the target.” When shooting an arrow, one should aim at the target. The relation between Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese Revolution is the same as that between the arrow and the target. Some comrades, however, “shoot without a target,” shoot 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 are never willing to shoot it. Such people are merely connoisseurs of curios and have virtually nothing to do with the revolution. The arrow of Marxism-Leninism must be used to hit 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 question is clarified, the theoretical level of our Party can never be raised and the Chinese Revolution can never be victorious.
Our comrades must understand that we do not study Marxism-Leninism because it is pleasing to the eye or because there is anything mysterious about it,55 like the Daoist priests who ascend Maoshan to learn how to subdue demons and evil spirits. Marxism-Leninism has no beauty, nor is there anything mysterious about it. It is only extremely useful. Even now, it seems that there are still a fair number of people who regard Marxism-Leninism56 as a ready-made panacea that, once acquired, can easily cure all maladies. This is a type of childish blindness, and we must still carry out a movement to enlighten them. It is precisely those who regard Marxism-Leninism as a religious dogma who show this type of blind ignorance. To them we should say frankly, “Your dogma is useless,” or to put it more impolitely, “In fact, your dogma is even more useless than shit.” We see that dogshit can fertilize the fields, and human shit can feed the dog. What about dogmas? They cannot fertilize the fields, nor can they feed the dog. Of what use are they? (laughter) Comrades! You know that my object 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 doctrine is not a dogma, but a guide to action. Of all things, such people forget this most important sentence. Only if the Chinese Communists take57 the standpoint, viewpoint, and methods of Marxism-Leninism, apply them to China,58 and59 create a theory60 from the conscientious study of the realities of Chinese history and of the Chinese Revolution, can it be said that theory and practice have been combined. 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 subjectivity and one-sidedness.
So much for today about combating subjectivism in order to rectify the style of study throughout the Party.
Let us now talk about the problem of sectarianism.
Because it has been steeled for twenty years, our Party is no longer dominated by sectarianism, but remnants of sectarianism still exist. They are to be 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 Party61 unity and solidarity. Sectarian tendencies in external relations lead to exclusionism toward people outside the Party and hinder the Party in its task of uniting the people of the whole country. Only by uprooting this source of misfortune 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 of the following types:
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 know 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, and the part to the whole and the entire membership to the Central Committee. Zhang Guotao asserted his independence from the Central Committee and as a result asserted himself into betraying the Party and became a Guomindang agent. Li Lisan also asserted independence from the Communist International, and as a result committed the mistakes of the 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 into account the interests of the whole. 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)62 What are these people after? They are after fame and position 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 that 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, and men of science are honest. Which are the dishonest people? Trotsky, Bukharin, Chen Duxiu, and Zhang Guotao are extremely dishonest. Li Lisan is also dishonest. And those who assert independence out of personal or sectional 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 end. Students in our Party School must pay attention to this problem. We must definitely 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.
The relationship between cadres from the outside and those from the locality must be one of unity, and they must combat sectarian tendencies. Very careful attention must be given 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. In these conditions, our comrades must understand that 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 as familiar as the local cadres with local conditions and in 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 others63 in understanding local conditions and in links with the people here. No matter how I investigate and study, 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, so they 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 for 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,” thus avoiding 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 vice versa. If there is friction between them, each should make allowances for the other and carry out proper self-criticism. Generally speaking, in places where army cadres are actually in positions of leadership, it is they who should bear the main responsibility if their relations with the local cadres are not good. This question is also very important. 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 toward 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,64 or sends only the inferior ones, using the neighbor’s field as an outlet for his 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 that of 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 Eighteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), 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.”65 Here he was discussing the cadre situation as well as 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 yet 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 petty-bourgeois liberalism.66 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 that some of the old cadres lack. Cadres, new and old, should respect one another, learn from one another, and overcome their own shortcomings by learning from one another’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 those things discussed 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 work style. If we want to get rid of subjectivism67 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 sectional 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. This is also something that must be resolved in rectifying the Party’s work style. We cannot defeat the enemy68 by merely uniting the comrades throughout the Party. We can defeat the enemy only by uniting the people throughout the country. For twenty years we have69 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 style70 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 learning a few Marxist-Leninist sentences,71 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 compared with non-Party people. Suppose that one out of every hundred persons was 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 percent of the entire population, while 99 percent 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 reject, 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 for this? No, 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 Party72 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 begin with our cadres and make them really understand how serious the problem is and how utterly impossible it is to overthrow the enemy and attain the goal of the revolution unless Party members unite with non-Party cadres and non-Party people.
All sectarian ideas are subjectivist and are incompatible with the real needs of the revolution; hence, while waging the struggle against sectarianism, we should also wage a struggle against subjectivism.73
Concerning the question of Party formalism, it will be discussed at another meeting.74 Party formalism 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 sitting. I will do it next time.
To combat subjectivism, we must propagate materialism and dialectics. There are, however, 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 they make no effort to propagate materialism and do not give it a thought or express any opinion when they hear or read subjectivist stuff. Such an attitude is not the attitude of a Communist. For this reason, many of our comrades are poisoned by subjectivist ideas, which numb their sensitivity. We should therefore launch a campaign of enlightenment within the Party to free the minds of our comrades from the fog of subjectivism and dogmatism and we should call upon them to resist subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party formalism. Such things are like Japanese goods, for only our enemy wishes us to preserve such evils and continue to befuddle ourselves with them; so we should advocate a boycott against them, just as we boycott Japanese goods. We should boycott all the subjectivist, sectarian, and Party formalist stuff,75 make their sale difficult, and not allow their purveyors to ply their trade by exploiting the low theoretical level in the Party. We should make it difficult to sell any subjectivist, sectarian, or Party formalist stuff in the market. 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 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 Party formalism, 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 analyze and criticize what was bad in the past with a scientific attitude so that work in the future will be done more carefully and 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 him to death. A person with appendicitis is saved when the surgeon removes his appendix. No matter how big his mistake is, so long as the person who has made mistakes does not hide his sickness for fear of treatment or persist in his mistakes until he is beyond cure, so long as he honestly and sincerely wishes to be cured and to mend his ways, we should welcome him and cure his sickness so that he can become a good comrade. We can never succeed if we just let ourselves go and lash out at him. In treating an ideological or 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).
This speech was first published in Jiefang ribao, April 27, 1942. Our source is Mao Zedong ji, Vol. 8, pp. 63–85, which reproduces the text as it appeared in Vol. 5 of the 1944 edition of Mao Zedong xuanji (Selected Works of Mao Zedong). Text in italics, below, reflects the original text, which was removed in the revised version published in Xuanji in the 1950s; for more details, see “Variants” in “Note on Sources and Conventions,” above, pp. lxi–lxvi.
1. Rectify Our Study Style, Party Style, and Writing Style → Rectify the Party’s Work Style
2. Because our enemies still exist in the world → Because enemies who oppress the people exist, and the people want to throw off the oppression of these enemies
3. Not just an ordinary revolutionary party, but a revolutionary party with the nature of a Communist Party → In the era of capitalism and imperialism, a revolutionary party just such as the Communist Party is needed
4. It is impossible to overthrow the enemy completely → If the people want to overthrow enemy oppression, it will be simply impossible for them to do so
5. We want to overthrow the enemy → We are Communists, we want to lead the people in overthrowing the enemy
6. We have → The Party has
7. Who are working side by side with the people → Who are leading the people
8. We mean subjectivism → We mean the malady of subjectivism
9. We mean sectarianism → We mean the malady of sectarianism
10. We mean Party formalism → We mean the malady of Party formalism
[Note: The expression here translated as “Party formalism” is dang bagu, literally “Party eight-legged essays.” This was a rigid style that candidates were required to employ in their answers to questions modeled after the imperial examinations used from the fifteenth to the end of the nineteenth century. The examination system was abolished in 1902 as irrelevant to the modern world in which China found itself, and thereafter the term was often used to signify the use of outmoded stereotypes. Compton translates it as “Party formalism”; in the Selected Works it is rendered as “stereotyped Party writing.” We prefer “formalism” because, like Mao’s reference to “eight-legged essays,” it evokes adherence to traditional forms rather than simply following current fads.—Eds.]
11. Vanquishing → Overthrowing
12. This → Their works
13. This → Their theories
14. If we have not created a theory in accordance with China’s real necessities, a theory that is our own and of a specific nature → If we have not tried to reflect theoretically on China’s revolutionary experience
15. The Central Committee → The Central Committee of our Party
16. Investigate and study → Make a concrete analysis of
17. Create theories → Draw out conclusions of a theoretical character
18. Our Party School → Our comrades in the Party School
19. Should not read the Marxist-Leninist tenets in a lifeless manner → Should not regard Marxist theory as lifeless dogma
20. After they have studied Marxism-Leninism → When a student has studied Marxism-Leninism
21. The Central Committee has, moreover, made the decision → The Central Committee of the Party made the decision over two years ago
22. The reference is to the decision on recruiting intellectuals adopted by the Central Committee in December 1939, which appears in Vol. VII, pp. 262–64.
23. War of resistance → Resistance to Japan
24. From ancient times to the present → Since the emergence of class society
25. Aside from these, there is no other knowledge → What other knowledge is there?
26. A primary school → A primary school of this kind
27. A university → A university of the same kind
28. All they have is book learning → 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
29. Here the revised text inserts the following sentence: Thus, what is most important is to be good at applying this knowledge in life and in practice.
30. How can those half-baked intellectuals → How can those who have only book learning
31. Turn to practical research → Study important practical problems
32. Even Marx would be regarded as no more than a half-baked intellectual → Even Marx would not be regarded as an intellectual
33. I say, it is true → I say this is not the case
34. He took part in the revolutionary movement → He took part in the practice of the revolutionary movement
35. He also studied commodities → Moreover, he created revolutionary theory. Beginning with the commodity, the simplest element of capitalism, he made a thorough study of the economic structure of capitalist society
36. Studied commodities → Studied commodities scientifically
37. A theory → A thoroughly scientific theory
38. Thus Marx should be regarded as a complete intellectual → Thus Marx became a most completely developed intellectual, representing the acme of human wisdom
39. He differed from those half-baked intellectuals → He was fundamentally different from those who have only book learning
40. Research → Research in the course of practical struggles
41. Here the revised version adds: “and then verified his conclusions by testing them in practical struggles.”
42. Such generalized knowledge is called theory → Such work is called theoretical work
43. Do → Learn how to do
44. Who can engage in → Who can learn to engage in
45. Ready-made books → Ready-made phrases in books
46. Are rich in → Are frequently rich in
47. Something → Knowledge
48. This is the opening sentence of the Confucian Analects.
49. From this, I learned to read → Though this teaching material was antiquated, it did me some good because from it I learned to read
50. Emphasizes → Emphatically requires
51. To raise themselves to the level of theory → To study theory
52. Strive to improve → Strive to overcome it
53. The guise of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin → A Marxist guise
54. Many → Some
55. Here the Selected Works text adds: “but solely because it is the science that leads the revolutionary cause of the proletariat to victory.”
56. Marxism-Leninism → A few odd quotations from Marxist-Leninist works
57. Take → Are good at using
58. Apply them to China → Are good at applying the doctrine of Lenin and Stalin regarding the Chinese Revolution
59. And → And, taking a step forward
60. Create a theory → In every domain, produce theoretical creations adapted to China’s needs
61. Party → Inner-Party
62. These two sentences were removed from the Selected Works only in 1967 in the context of the Cultural Revolution; they were restored in the 1991 second edition.
63. Comrade Gao Gang and others → Some comrades from North Shaanxi
[The reference to Gao Gang appeared only in the first Chinese edition of 1953; it was removed in 1954 and was not restored in the 1991 second edition. Gao Gang (1905–1954) was an established Communist partisan in Shaanxi when Mao and the Long Marchers arrived. Gao helped Mao take control and was rewarded with leadership of the Chinese Communist Party’s Northwestern Bureau.—Eds.]
64. Whoever is indifferent to the difficulties of others, refuses to transfer cadres to other units → Whoever is indifferent to the difficulties of others, and refuses to transfer cadres when they request them
65. Here the translators of the Selected Works have replaced what Mao actually said, “they are becoming decrepit and dying out,” by the official English translation of Stalin’s words, which accurately renders the original Russian. See Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1976), p. 92, and for the original, Stalin, Voprosy Leninizma, 11th ed. (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1952), p. 636.
66. Liberalism → Individualism
67. If we want to get rid of subjectivism → Sectarianism is an expression of subjectivism in organizational relations; if we want to get rid of subjectivism
68. We cannot defeat the enemy → The reason is this: we cannot defeat the enemy
69. We have → The Chinese Communist Party has
70. Have a correct style → Have a correct style in dealing with the masses
71. After learning a few Marxist-Leninist sentences → After reading a few Marxist books
72. Communist Party → Chinese Communist Party
73. Hence, while waging the struggle against sectarianism, we should also wage a struggle against subjectivism → Hence the struggle against sectarianism and the struggle against subjectivism should go on simultaneously
74. Concerning the question of Party formalism, it will be discussed at another meeting → I cannot talk about the question of stereotyped Party writing today; I shall discuss it at another meeting
75. Stuff → Wares