The Theory of Scientific Socialism Should Be Developed in Practice

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

great progress. As I mentioned before, someone at a propaganda work conference said that a hundred schools referred to only two schools, which was however changed in the "May 16 Circular." Originally we were told that various erroneous thinkings among the people should be criticized and corrected through persuasion and reasoning, not by coercion. Problems in the ideological sphere cannot be solved by holding one or two meetings; they should be solved by presenting the facts and reasoning things out. Later, the "May 16 Circular" criticized the view that everybody is equal before the truth. In other words, the bourgeoisie could not enjoy equality and they had to be suppressed. It demanded that the proletariat exercise dictatorship over the bourgeoisie in the sphere of superstructure including the ideological sphere. Such a dictatorship made it impossible for a hundred schools to contend. Therefore, a hundred schools contending became two schools contending, which later became one school singing solo. What was the last school? Was it Marxism? No, it was the school of Lin Biao and the "Gang of Four."

The movement of combating and preventing revisionism originally was to oppose changing the basic tenets of Marxism. Later, it turned into a movement to establish absolute authority for a leader and ensuring that China will never change its political color also became a means to establish a leader's absolute authority. Every word this authority said was absolutely correct and did not need to be tested through practice. Whoever criticized or violated some of his words before or after he died would be likened to Khruschev, accused of opposing Mao Zedong Thought, and considered a bad guy to be punished by the whole party and nation. As a result, in the process of combating and preventing revisionism, a personality cult gained ground. In 1956, we drew lessons from Soviet experiences and wrote an article, "On the Historical Experience of Proletarian Dictatorship," to criticize Stalin's personality cult, which was the right thing to do. In the report to the Eighth National People's Congress on the amendment of the Party Constitution, Comrade Deng Xiaoping said there was a reflection of a personality cult inside our party. Later, this view was changed. On the issue of Stalin, the second criticism of the "Nine Criticisms," which was adapted from the speech of a certain "adviser," never even mentioned the mistakes of his personality cult. Instead, it said criticizing personality cult was completely wrong for it violated Lenin's theories on the masses, class, political parties, and leaders, thus paving the way for the development of a personality cult and resulting in serious and disastrous consequences. These views all violated the criterion of truth. Lenin's teachings on the masses, class, political parties, and leaders is that the masses are of different classes, the party represents classes, and leaders represent the party. It is true that leaders represent the party, classes, and the masses, but we cannot say that everything a leader does must represent the masses, that believing in leaders means believing in the masses, and that the personality cult does not exist. Leaders can also depart from the people; therefore, not every word and

deed of leaders absolutely, undoubtedly conform to the people's interests. Leaders sometimes can make mistakes. Chairman Mao himself once said: "No party or person can avoid making mistakes." Lin Biao advocated that "everything Chairman Mao said is the truth." I'd like to ask him: Isn't this remark of Chairman Mao also the truth? Chairman Mao said no one, including himself of course, can avoid committing mistakes. This remark must also be the truth if whatever Chairman Mao said is the truth as Lin Biao advocated. However, if this remark is the truth, "whatever he said is the truth" would become impossible. Due to many years of propaganda, this view has been ingrained; therefore, trying to set things right, solving these problems, and emancipating our thinking has become a very arduous task. This requires a certain process. Of course, we should also realize and notice that some people oppose our efforts to set things right because they are on the side of the "Gang of Four." But a large number of masses have no bad intention. They are against the "Gang of Four," but since they have had too much of this propaganda and have not paid much attention to their political study, they resent what we are trying to do now. Our RENMIN RIBAO has received many letters, especially from PLA soldiers, protesting: Don't attack people here and there by innuendo and stop doing such things. These comrades are good comrades. They do not necessarily think that Chairman Mao had made no mistakes. It is just that they can not accept this psychologically. We need to carry out propaganda steadily. Propaganda needs discipline, but what kind? It is very hard to say. It is a process. We cannot say certain things during a certain period; but after a while, it will be all right. Maybe we cannot say this today, but we will be able to say it after a certain period. Therefore, we need to advance steadily and help some people by working with them to change their thinking, but never hurt their feelings.

We should advance steadily not only in propaganda but also in all fields including democratic and reform issues. Old bad practices die hard. We now have so many problems which are forming not a pile but a mountain. So, when we sort out these problems, we can only work at a steady pace. We should not vacillate. Vacillation is no good. Don't vacillate, advance steadily. This is why we cannot discuss certain things now but we will be able to after a while. Take the issue of sham leftist and real rightist, for example. Some people say that this still has not been corrected, and I agree. When an article on this issue was first published, it was risky to talk about an issue which was considered a forbidden zone. Chairman Mao said himself that Lin Biao was an extreme rightist. The only way to indicate sham leftist, real rightist was by placing quotation marks around the word "leftist." You now say he was an extreme leftist, so now an unquoted leftist has come to mean sham, and a quoted "leftist" means real. Later after the situation developed, it was all right to talk about the extreme leftist line. Therefore, things are developing and ideological liberation requires a process. Eliminating the forbidden zone also requires a process. For instance, the Liu Shaoqi forbidden zone has