Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 2

by Wm. Theodore de Bary

  Recently young people here in Yan’an seem to have lost some of their enthusiasm and to have become inwardly ill at ease.

  Why is this? What is lacking in our lives? Some would answer that it is because we are badly nourished and short of vitamins. Others that it is because the ratio of men to women is eighteen to one and many young men are unable to find girlfriends. Or because life in Yan’an is dreary and lacks amusements.

  There is some truth in all these answers. It is true that there is need for better food, for partners of the opposite sex, and for more interest in life. That is only natural. But one must also recognize that young people here in Yan’an came with a spirit of sacrifice to make revolution, and not for food, sex, and an enjoyable life. I cannot agree with those who say that their lack of enthusiasm, their inward disquiet even, are a result of our inability to resolve these problems. . . .

  Young people should be treasured for their purity, their perceptiveness, their ardor, their courage, and their energy. They experience the darkness before others experience it, they see the filth before others see it; what others do not dare to say, they say. Because of this they are more critical, but this is by no means “grumbling.” What they say is not always well balanced, but it is by no means “bawling.” We should inquire into problems that give rise to “grumbling,” “bawling,” and “disquiet” and set about removing their causes in a rational way. (Yes, rational! It is completely untrue that young people are always engaged in “thoughtless clamor.”) To say that Yan’an is superior to the “outside world,” to tell young people not to “grumble,” to describe Yan’an’s dark side as some “slight disappointment” will solve no problems. Yes, Yan’an is superior to the “outside world,” but it should and can be better still.

  Of course young people are often hotheaded and impatient. . . . But if all young people were to be mature before their time, how desolate this world would be! In reality young people in Yan’an have already seen a great deal of the world. . . . So far from resenting “grumbling” of this sort, we should use it as a mirror in which to inspect ourselves. To say that youth “of student origin” are “coddled into adulthood, whispered to about life with love and warmth, and taught to imitate pure and beautiful emotions” is very subjectivist. Even though most Yan’an youth come from “a student background” or are “inexperienced” and have not “seen more than enough of life’s hardships,” most arrived in Yan’an after a whole series of struggles, and it is not true to say that they experienced nothing but “love and warmth”; on the contrary, it was precisely because they knew all about “hatred and cold” that they joined the revolutionary camp in the first place. From what the author of “Running Into Difficulties” says, all the young people in Yan’an were brought up pampered and only “grumble” because they miss their candied fruit. But it was because of “evil and coldness” that they came to Yan’an in search of “beauty and warmth,” that they identified the “evil and coldness” here in Yan’an and insisted on “grumbling” about it in the hope of alerting people’s attention and reducing it to a minimum.

  [wang shiwei: “wild lily”]

  LIU SHAOQI: “ON INNER-PARTY STRUGGLE”

  This essay, delivered by Liu Shaoqi as a series of lectures to a party school in July 1941, is a kind of sequel to How to Be a Good Communist in the series of basic indoctrination texts used for tightening party organization and morale during the reform campaigns of the early forties. Where the earlier work focused upon the individual party member and his self-discipline, attention here is more on the relations among party members and their conduct within the organization. It is a question, then, of inner struggle for self-purification of the party, not of outward struggle for supremacy over others.

  The dynamism of Chinese Communism in this early period owes no less to its concept of struggle both within and without the party than to its messianic promises for the future. As a means of keeping party members in a constant state of alertness, sensitive to the larger interests of the party rather than to their own, and as a method for overcoming the traditional weakness of hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations—factionalism and favoritism—this kind of ceaseless internal struggle was highly effective for a time, even if it exacted a heavy toll in the longer run. An essential Leninist feature was the insistence upon differences in principle as the only valid issues for such struggles. Actually, principled struggle proved far from peaceful, and serious factional infighting ensued.

  Introductory Remarks

  Right from the day of its birth, our Party has never for a single moment lived in any environment but that of serious struggle. . . .

  From the very day of its inception, our Party has struggled not only against enemies outside the Party but also against all kinds of hostile and nonproletarian influences inside the Party. These two kinds of struggle are different, but both are necessary and have a common class substance. If our Party did not carry on the latter type of struggle, if it did not struggle constantly within the Party against all undesirable tendencies, if it did not constantly purge the Party of every type of nonproletarian ideology and overcome both “left” and “right” opportunism, then such nonproletarian ideology and such “left” and “right” opportunism might gain ground in the Party and influence or even dominate our Party. . . . For example, it was in this manner that the Social-Democratic parties in Europe were corrupted by bourgeois ideology and transformed into political parties of a bourgeois type, thus becoming the main social pillars of the bourgeoisie.

  Inner-party struggles consist principally of ideological struggles. The divergences and antagonisms among our comrades on matters of ideology and principle can develop into political splits within the Party,. . . but, in character and content, such divergences and antagonisms are basically ideological struggles.

  Consequently, any inner-party struggle not involving divergences in matters of ideology and principle, and any conflict among party members not based on divergences in matters of principle, is a type of unprincipled struggle, a struggle without content. . . . It is detrimental and not beneficial to the Party. Every party member should strictly avoid such struggles. [pp. 2–4] Comrade Stalin said:

  The question here is that contradictions can be overcome only by means of struggle for this or that principle, for defining the goal of this or that struggle, for choosing this or that method of struggle that may lead to the goal. We can and we must come to agreement with those within the Party who differ with us on questions of current policy, on questions of a purely practical character. But if these questions involve difference over principle, then no agreement, no “middle” line can save the cause. There is and there can be no “middle” line on questions of principle. The work of the Party must be based on either these or those principles. The “middle” line on questions of principle is a “line” that muddles up one’s head, a “line” that covers up differences, a “line” of ideological degeneration of the Party, a “line” of ideological death of the Party. It is not our policy to pursue such a “middle” line. It is the policy of a party that is declining and degenerating from day to day. Such a policy cannot but transform the Party into an empty bureaucratic organ, standing isolated from the working people and becoming a puppet unable to do anything. Such a road cannot be our road.

  He added:

  Our Party has been strengthened on the basis of overcoming the contradictions within the Party. This explains the essential nature of inner-party struggle. [p.5]

  Many comrades did not understand that our inner-party struggle is a struggle over principle . . . for choosing this or that method of struggle that may lead to the goal.

  These comrades did not understand that on questions of current policy, on questions of purely practical character, we can and must come to agreement with those within the Party who differ with us. They did not know or understand that on issues involving principle, on questions of defining the goal of our struggles and of choosing the methods of struggle needed to reach
such goal they should wage an uncompromising struggle against those in the Party who hold divergent opinions; but on questions of current policy, on questions of a purely practical character, they should come to agreement with those within the Party who hold divergent opinions . . . so long as such questions do not involve any difference over principle. [p. 17]

  How to Conduct Inner-Party Struggle

  Comrades! Now the question is very clear. It is how to conduct inner-party struggle correctly and appropriately.

  On this question, the Communist Parties of the USSR and many other countries have much experience and so has the Chinese Party. Lenin and Stalin have issued many instructions and so has the Central Committee of our Party. . . .

  In carrying out inner-party struggle we must first fully adopt the correct stand of the party, the unselfish stand of serving the interest of the party, of doing better work, and of helping other comrades to correct their mistakes and to gain a better understanding of the problems. . . .

  Comrades must understand that only by first taking the correct stand oneself can one rectify the incorrect stand of others. Only by behaving properly oneself can one correct the misbehavior of others. The old saying has it: “One must first correct oneself before one can correct others.” [pp. 55–56]

  Second . . . in conducting inner-party struggle comrades must try their best to assume a sincere, frank, and positive educational attitude in order to achieve unity in ideology and principle. Only in cases where we have no alternative, when it is deemed imperative, may we adopt militant forms of struggle and apply organizational measures. All party organizations, within appropriate limits, have full right to draw organizational conclusions in regard to any party member who persists in his errors. . . . When we are eventually fully clear regarding ideology and principle, it is very easy for us to draw organizational conclusions if necessary. It does not take us a minute to expel party members or announce voluntary withdrawal from the party. [pp. 58–59]

  Third, criticisms directed against party organizations or against comrades and their work must be appropriate and well regulated. Bolshevik self-criticism is conducted according to the Bolshevik yardstick. Excessive criticism, the exaggeration of others’ errors, and indiscriminate name-calling are all incorrect . . . [p. 60]

  Fourth, the holding of struggle meetings, either inside or outside the party, should in general be stopped. The various defects and errors should be pointed out in the course of summing up and reviewing work. We should first deal with “the case” and then with “the person.” We must first make clear the facts, the points at issue, the nature, the seriousness, and the cause of the errors and defects, and only then point out who is responsible for these defects and errors and whose is the major responsibility and whose is the minor responsibility. [p. 61]

  Fifth, every opportunity to appeal must be given to comrades who have been criticized or punished. . . . [p. 62]

  On questions of ideology or principle, if agreement cannot be finally reached within the party organization after discussion, the matter may be settled by a majority decision. After that, the minority who still hold different opinions may have the right to reserve their opinions on condition that they absolutely abide by the decision of the majority in respect to organizational matters and in their activities. . . . [p. 63]

  All in all, inner-party struggle is fundamentally a form of struggle and controversy over ideology and principles. Inside the Party everything must submit to reason, everything must be reasoned out, and everything must have some reason for it, otherwise it will not do. We can do anything without difficulty if we have reasoned it out.

  Inside the Party we must cultivate the practice of submitting to reason. The yardstick for determining whether this or that reason is sound is [this]: the interests of the Party and the interests of the proletarian struggle; the subordination of the interests of the Party to those of the whole; and the subordination of the immediate interest to long-range interests. . . . [pp. 67–68]

  Everything must submit to reason! It would not do if it didn’t! It would not do either if we reason incorrectly! It would be even more undesirable if we indulge in empty talk! Of course, this is a rather difficult job. But only in this way can we become qualified as Bolsheviks. [p. 69]

  [Liu Shaoqi, On Inner-Party Struggle, pp. 2–5, 17, 55–69]

  MAO ZEDONG: “COMBAT LIBERALISM”

  If to Liu Shaoqi the essence of Marxism-Leninism lay in “principled struggle,” to Mao Zedong the essence of liberalism was laxity in matters of principle. Liberalism he saw not as a political philosophy but as the want of one, a moral infection that arose from bourgeois individualism and produced selfishness, self-indulgence, slackness, a noncommittal attitude, avoidance of struggle, and a desire for peace at any price. In this respect Mao’s views resemble those of Chiang Kai-shek in China’s Destiny (see chapter 32) (Mao’s piece was actually written earlier, in September 1937), but they represent a much more severe and sweeping critique. Missing is Chiang’s recognition that not all of Western liberalism conformed to this caricature of its weakness.

  Ironically, Mao’s position was enunciated during the early phase of the second United Front period. No doubt one of his purposes was to ensure that party members would not be contaminated and corrupted in the midst of collaboration with Westernized “liberals.”

  We advocate an active ideological struggle, because it is the weapon for achieving solidarity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations and making them fit to fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

  But liberalism negates ideological struggle and advocates unprincipled peace, with the result that a decadent, philistine style in work has appeared and certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations have begun to degenerate politically.

  Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

  Although the person concerned is clearly known to be in the wrong, yet because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a school friend, a bosom companion, a loved one, an old colleague, or a former subordinate, one does not argue with him on the basis of principle but lets things slide in order to maintain peace and friendship. Or one touches lightly upon the matter without finding a thorough solution, so as to maintain harmony all around. As a result, harm is done to the organization as well as to the individual concerned. This is the first type of liberalism.

  To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private, without making positive suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people’s faces but to gossip behind their backs; or to say nothing at a meeting but gossip after it. Not to care for the principle of collective life but only for unrestrained self-indulgence. This is the second type.

  Things of no personal concern are put on the shelf; the less said the better about things that are clearly known to be wrong; to be cautious in order to save one’s own skin, and anxious only to avoid reprimands. This is the third type.

  To disobey orders and place personal opinions above everything. To demand special dispensation from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is the fourth type.

  To engage in struggles and disputes against incorrect views, not for the sake of solidarity, progress, or improving the work but for personal attacks, letting off steam, venting personal grievances, or seeking revenge. This is the fifth type.

  Not to dispute incorrect opinions on hearing them, and not even to report counterrevolutionary opinions on hearing them, but to tolerate them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is the sixth type.

  Not to engage in propaganda and agitation, to make speeches or carry on investigations and inquiries among the masses, but to leave the masses alone, without any concern for their weal and woe; to forget that one is a Communist and to behave as if a Communist were merely an ordinary person. This is the seventh type.

  Not to feel indignant at actions detrimental to the interests of the masses, not to dissuade or to stop the person responsible for them o
r to explain things to him, but to allow him to continue. This is the eighth type.

  To work halfheartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and let things drift. “So long as I remain a [Buddhist] monk, I go on tolling the bell.” This is the ninth type.

  To regard oneself as having performed meritorious service in the revolution and to put on the airs of a veteran; to be incapable of doing great things, yet to disdain minor tasks; to be careless in work and slack in study. This is the tenth type.

  To be aware of one’s own mistakes yet make no attempt to rectify them, and to adopt a liberal attitude toward oneself. This is the eleventh type.

  We can name several more. But these eleven are the principal types.

  All these are manifestations of liberalism.

  In revolutionary organizations liberalism is extremely harmful. It is a corrosive that disrupts unity, undermines solidarity, induces inactivity, and creates dissension. It deprives the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being thoroughly carried out, and divorces the organizations of the Party from the masses under their leadership. It is an extremely bad tendency.

  Liberalism stems from the selfishness of the petty bourgeoisie, which puts personal interest foremost and the interests of the revolution in the second place, thus giving rise to ideological, political, and organizational liberalism. . . .

  Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It has a passive character and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; thus the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the revolutionary ranks.

  We must use the active spirit of Marxism to overcome liberalism with its passivity. A Communist should be frank, faithful, and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interest to those of the revolution; he should, always and everywhere, adhere to correct principles and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses.