The Theory of Scientific Socialism Should Be Developed in Practice

Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.

struggle against opportunism according to existing principles; after Engels died, Lenin followed Marx' and Engels' existing principles; later Stalin followed Lenin's existing principles; and Chairman Mao too followed existing principles. As a result, our current principles are still Marx' principles. This is absolutely absurd metaphysics.

All I mean is that socialism still needs to be shaped and there is a vast world where much can be accomplished by our theoretical and other workers in this field. To do so, we must emancipate our thinking. Therefore, I say there is no scientific basis for the argument that Chairman Mao had a complete set of theories on socialist revolution. How can there be a complete theory of socialism before socialist construction is completed? It is of course possible for theory to precede practice, but theory could not be completed before practice is completed. Do we have a complete understanding of capitalism? No, we do not. After "Das Kapital" we had to study "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism." After "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" we had to study other aspects of capitalism. When will we be able to complete our understanding of capitalism? After the death of capitalism. Only then can we study the whole process of birth, development, and death and thereby complete our understanding of capitalism. We cannot even complete our understanding of capitalism not to mention socialism. Therefore, we must emancipate our thinking to develop Marxism. People used to think in the past that theoretical issue was only a leader's responsibility. This idea came from the Soviet Union and Chinese tradition. Each dynasty had a sage such as Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, Zhougong, Confucius, and Mencius. Only their words can be used for criterion or the 'so-called "Confucian Orthodoxy" and other people's words are worthless. A theory should be developed by the collective including the masses of people and theoretical workers, and everybody can make a contribution and help develop it. We are all fools, but even a fool can occasionally hit on a good idea. By adding such ideas together, we would be able to improve our theory. For many years we were not used to thinking for ourselves; we used to wait for the central government and Chairman Mao to say something and then we would do whatever Chairman Mao told us to do. Now we cannot rely on them anymore. We need to study many teachings of Chairman Mao, but there are no ready-made answers to many new questions. This forces us to think for ourselves, thus bringing life and hope back to our theoretical work. There still may be great development in China's theoretical undertaking.

## Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought Permit Inquiries and Criticisms

I'd like to address another issue: how to treat Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought. When we bring up the issue of the four upholds, we should not set it against the

liberation of our thinking because we need to emancipate our thinking to uphold Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought; otherwise, we cannot uphold Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought.

I think that after years of practice, Chairman Mao's 1957 speech on correctly handling contradictions among the people has been proved basically correct. Restoring some of the theses in this speech which have been forgotten and abandoned is exactly what we need to do now. For instance, the phrase that the class struggle has been basically completed is a long-forgotten sentence and we have started to mention it again. There are also some problems. During the same socialist period, first he said that the class struggle was basically completed and later he said that it should be discussed yearly, monthly, and daily. These two sentences contradict. If one of them is the truth, the other would not be. So it is impossible for every sentence to be the truth; neither is it possible for us to follow every instruction. Since the tenets of a complete system usually are consistent, the inconsistency of its tenets explains that our understanding of socialist construction and revolution has not been completed. Chairman Mao urged us in 1962 to understand the realm of necessity—the socialist construction of China and we have not been able to accomplish it. When did we complete our understanding of democratic revolution? As far as the theoretical system was concerned, we did not set forth the general line for the new democratic revolution—namely, a revolution led by the proletariat and the masses of people to oppose imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism—until 1948 right before the victory of the democratic revolution. Later in the article "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship," he was still reviewing this experience, but by that time the theory was complete because the practice of democratic revolution was completed and the theory was tested to be correct. Now we have this problem: Some instructions contradict others and we cannot follow every one of them. What do we do? There is only one thing we can do—we resolutely follow those instructions which have been proved correct in practice in accordance with the criterion of practice. So, quoting a sentence from Chairman Mao's 1957 speech—the large-scale, violent mass class struggle has been basically completed—at the 3rd Plenary Session of the 11th Party Central Committee does not mean that we stick to each and every instruction. Instead, it means that this instruction has been proved correct after over 20 years of practice. Why did we not quote other words? We did not quote other words because they have not been tested in practice. These questions not only concern our attitude toward our leaders and political stand but also concern the success and failure and the life and death of socialism in our country. Some people still cannot get over the lingering fear. They say, you are probably right now, but what happens if there is another "cultural revolution." I say, if there is another "cultural revolution," whether or not you will be criticized would not constitute an issue because the issue would be whether or not the nation and the party will survive.