Now on the problem of the people’s communes: what should they be called? They may be called people’s communes, or they may not. My inclination is to call them people’s communes. This [name] is still socialist in nature, not at all overemphasizing communism. They’re called people’s communes, first [because] they’re big and second [because] they’re public. Lots of people, a vast area of land, large scale of production, [and] all [their] undertakings are [done] in a big way. [They] integrate government [administration] with commune [management] to establish public mess halls, and private plots are eliminated. But chickens, ducks, and the young trees in front and behind a house are still private. These, of course, won’t exist in the future. [If we] have more grain, [we] can practice the supply system; [for the present] it’s still reward according to one’s work. Wages will be given to individuals according to their ability and won’t be given to the head of the family, which makes the youth and women happy. This will be very beneficial for the liberation of the individual. In establishing the people’s communes, as I see it, once again it has been the countryside that has taken the lead; the cities haven’t started yet, [because] the workers’ wage scales are a complicated matter. Whether in urban or rural areas, [the aim] should be the socialist system plus communist ideology. The Soviet Union practices the use of high rewards and heavy punishments, emphasizing [only] material incentives. We now practice socialism and have the sprouts of communism. Schools, factories, and neighborhoods can all establish people’s communes. In a few years big communes will be organized to include everyone. . . .
The people’s communes have been set up as a result of the masses’ initiative; it wasn’t we who advocated it. We advocated uninterrupted revolution, eradicating superstition, liberating thought, and daring to think, daring to speak, daring to act; [and] the masses have risen [to the occasion]. [We] did not anticipate this at the Nanning conference, the Chengdu conference, or the second session of the Eighth Party Congress. The spontaneity of the masses has always been an element inherent in communism. First there was utopian socialism, classical materialism, and dialetics; then came the summation [of these theories] by Marx and others. Our people’s communes have been developed on the basis of the agricultural producers’ cooperatives; they’ve not come into being from nowhere. We need to understand this clearly in order to systematize this question. The characteristics of the people’s communes are (1) big and (2) public. [They have] vast areas of land and abundant resources [as well as] a large population; [they can] combine industry, agriculture, commerce, education, and military affairs, as well as farming, forestry, animal husbandry, sideline production, and fisheries—being “big” is terrific. [With] many people, there’s lots of power. [We say] public because they contain more socialism than do the cooperatives, [and] they will gradually eradicate the vestiges of capitalism—for example, the eradication of private plots and private livestock rearing and the running of public mess halls, nurseries, and tailoring groups so that all working women can be liberated. They will implement a wage system and agricultural factories [in which] every single man, woman, old person, and youth receives his own wage, in contrast to the former [system of] distribution to the head of the household. Direct payment of wages is much welcomed by the youth and by women. This eradicates the patriarchal system and the system of bourgeois rights. Another advantage of [communes’] being public is that labor efficiency can be raised higher than in cooperatives.
[From MacFarquhar, Cheek, and Wu, The Secret Speeches of Chairman Mao, pp. 397–441]
PENG DEHUAI: “LETTER OF OPINION” TO MAO ZEDONG ON THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD, JULY 1959
At a party meeting in the summer of 1959, the defense minister, Peng Dehuai, delivered a letter to Mao. While carefully reaffirming the general correctness of Mao’s policies, Peng, writing on the basis of personal investigations, diplomatically pointed out the shortcomings of the Great Leap. This kind of frank exchange of opinion had been accepted practice at gatherings of the top leadership, but now Mao viciously lashed out at Peng and eventually purged him. Before this, Mao had already begun to realize the mistakes of the movement and had begun to modify it. Stung by Peng’s criticism, however, Mao decided to press the movement forward, creating massive starvation in the countryside and causing the deaths of tens of millions of peasants. Peng, hounded, persecuted, and imprisoned for years, died a painful death, still insisting that he had always been loyal to Mao.
In the past, a lot of problems were exposed in our way of thinking and our style of work. These problems are worthy of our attention. The principal ones are as follows:
1. The habit of exaggeration bred and spread rather universally. Last year, at the time of the Beidaihe meeting, a higher estimate of grain output was made than was warranted. This created a false phenomenon. Everybody felt that the problem of food had been solved and that our hands could be freed to engage in industry. There was serious superficiality in our understanding of the development of the iron and steel industry. . . .
The habit of exaggeration spread to various areas and departments, and some unbelievable miracles were also reported in the press. This has surely done tremendous harm to the prestige of the Party.
At that time, from reports sent in from various quarters, it would seem that communism was around the corner. This caused not a few comrades to become dizzy. In the wake of the [claimed] wave of high grain and cotton output and the doubling of iron and steel production, extravagance and waste developed. . . .
2. Petty bourgeois fanaticism renders us liable to commit “left” mistakes. In the course of the Great Leap Forward of 1958, like many comrades I was bewitched by the achievements of the Great Leap Forward and the passion of the mass movement. Some “left” tendencies developed to quite an extent; we always wanted to enter into communism at one step. Our minds swayed by the idea of taking the lead, we forgot the mass line and the style of seeking truth from facts that the party had formed over a long time. . . .
For instance, the slogans raised by the chairman, such as “Grow less, produce more and reap more” and “Catch up with Britain in fifteen years,” were strategic and long-range policies. But we did not study them well; we failed to give attention to and study the current concrete conditions, and we failed to arrange work on a positive, steady, and reliable basis. . . . As a result, divorced from reality, we failed to gain the support of the masses. For instance, the law of exchange of equal values was negated prematurely, and the free supply of meals was effected too early. . . .
In the view of some comrades, putting politics in command could be a substitute for everything. They forgot that putting politics in command was aimed at raising the consciousness of labor, ensuring improvement of products in both quantity and quality, and giving full play to the enthusiasm and creativeness of the masses in order to speed our economic construction. Putting politics in command is no substitute for economic principles, still less for concrete measures in economic work.
[Peng, “Letter of Opinion,” July 14, 1959, Selections from People’s Republic of China Press 4032; trans. adapted from Selden, The People’s Republic of China, pp. 476–485]
WU HAN: “HAI RUI SCOLDS THE EMPEROR,” JUNE 19, 1959
Wu Han was a prominent historian and the author of a noted biography of the founder of the Ming dynasty, as well as a high official in the Beijing municipal government. Although Mao had originally encouraged Wu to write on the Ming official Hai Rui, these writings came to be seen as the latest manifestations of an age-old Chinese tradition—writing about the past to indict the present. Wu later developed the essay below into a play, Hai Rui Dismissed from Office, wherein some saw the courageous Ming official as Peng Dehuai and the autocratic emperor as Mao. A 1965 article condemning this play served as the opening salvo of the Cultural Revolution, a major onslaught on supposedly traditional values obstructing the revolutionary transformation.
In feudal times, the emperor was so inviolable that even his name was not to be used or mentione
d in any manner. Violation of this taboo was regarded as a serious crime. It was not unusual for the violator to lose his arms or legs, even though he was otherwise innocent.
As to the scolding of an emperor, it was almost unheard of in history. However, it was a different matter entirely when Wu Wang of Zhou scolded the Emperor Zhou of the Shang dynasty after the latter had been defeated in 1122 B.C., or when the rebel Li Zicheng scolded the Chongzhen emperor of the Ming dynasty after [the] Ming was overthrown in 1644. In both cases it was the victor who scolded the defeated monarch.
Because it was impossible to scold an emperor in the old days, it is very gratifying to learn from history that someone really did scold an emperor. Perhaps for this reason did many people enjoy seeing the play Empress He Scolds the Emperor. If the people were not permitted to scold the emperor when they wanted to, they might do it on the stage and get tremendous satisfaction out of it. . . .
In any event, there was a man who really did scold an emperor. This man was the famous Ming dynasty statesman Hai Rui. According to the Ming History, volume 226, some of the bitter words used by Hai Rui to scold the Jiajing emperor were: “You have been increasing taxes, bankrupting the state treasury, and neglecting state affairs for more than ten years, and now the matter becomes even worse. People are now using your imperial title ‘Jiajing’ to signify ‘Every house is empty’ [a pun, because both phrases have the same pronunciation in Chinese]. . . .”
The Jiajing emperor of the Ming dynasty became so lazy toward the end of his reign that he lived in the Western Park doing nothing but worshiping and writing Daoist charms. A charm is a letter to God, and it must be well written. Both Grand Secretaries Yan Gao and Xu Jie had written beautiful charms and because of this talent only, they had each become prime minister. During their premiership the government was extremely corrupt. Anyone who dared to speak out in the royal court would be arrested, imprisoned, exiled, or even executed. For these reasons all court officials were afraid of speaking out.
But courageous Hai Rui sent a petition to the emperor in February 1566 proposing a drastic reform. The petition stated:
How would you compare yourself with Emperor Wen Di of the Han dynasty?2 You did a fairly good job in your early years, but what has happened to you now? For nearly twenty years you have not appeared in the imperial court, and you have appointed many fools to the government. By refusing to see your own sons, you are mean to your own blood; by suspecting court officials, you are mean to your subordinates; and by living in the Western Park refusing to come home, you are mean to your wife. Now the country is filled with corrupt officials and weak generals; peasants begin to revolt everywhere. Although such things happened when you were enthroned, they were not as serious as they are today. Now Yan Gao has resigned [as Grand Minister], but there is still no sign of social reform. In my judgment you are much inferior to Emperor Wen Di.
The Jiajing emperor always compared himself with Emperor Yao, but Hai Rui said that he was even worse than Wen Di. No wonder he became angry with Hai Rui.
Hai Rui’s petition continued:
The dynasty’s officials know that the people have been dissatisfied with you for some time. By engaging in occultism and searching for immortality, you have confused yourself. Your shortcomings are numerous: rudeness, short-temperedness, self-righteousness, and deafness to honest criticism. But worst of all is your search for immortality. . . .
You should realize the impossibility of achieving immortality and repent past mistakes. You should attend the imperial court regularly and discuss national affairs with your court officials. This is the only way to redeem yourself. By doing so you may still be able to make yourself useful to the country during your remaining years.
The most urgent problems today are the absurdity of imperial policies and the lack of clarity of official responsibilities. If you do not tackle these problems now, nothing will be accomplished.
After having finished reading Hai Rui’s petition, the emperor threw it angrily on the floor and ordered the palace guard to arrest Hai Rui. Eunuch Huang Jin told the emperor: “It is said that Hai Rui already expects death, has bade farewell to his wife, prepared his funeral arrangements, and dispersed all his servants. Therefore he will not run away, and the arrest is quite unnecessary. He is very simple and straightforward in his nature and has a good reputation among the people. He is an honest official and never steals anything from the public.”
When the emperor learned from the eunuch that Hai Rui was not afraid of death, the emperor began to wonder and picked up the petition from the floor and read it over again. However, he could not make up his mind what to do with Hai Rui. . . . One day he became so angry that he beat the imperial concubines. Some concubines complained, “He was scolded by Hai Rui and he tries to take it out on us.”
The emperor then sent an investigator to find out who else had been conspiring with Hai Rui. Many colleagues tried not to get involved and avoided Hai Rui. Hai Rui stayed at home waiting to be arrested. . . .
Soon [however] the emperor became ill. He discussed with Grand Secretary Xu Jie the possibility of letting the crown prince succeed him and said, “What he [Hai Rui] said about me was right, but how could I go to court every day with this illness.” He continued, “It was my own fault in getting this sickness, otherwise I could go to court every day to attend to state affairs. Then I would never have been scolded by him.” Finally the emperor ordered the arrest of Hai Rui. Although Hai Rui was sentenced to death by the Ministry of Justice, the emperor never ratified the execution. Two months later the emperor died. The new emperor pardoned Hai Rui and restored him to his previous position as the director of census.
Many people supported Hai Rui’s scolding of the emperor and sympathized with him. Hai Rui became very famous in his time. However, he was impeached again in 1586. This time many young scholars who had passed the civil service examination . . . courageously defended Hai Rui in court and said, “We have heard the name of Hai Rui since we were ten. Hai Rui is the greatest statesman of our time; he will be respected for thousands of years to come. His noble character is as high as the sky, very few people can compare with him.” These were some of the typical praises he received from the young people of his day. When Hai Rui died, the people in Nanjing closed shops. When his body reached the Yangzi River, people, in white dress to mourn his death, filled both banks for more than a hundred miles. These actions manifested how great Hai Rui was and how he was respected by his fellow men.
[People’s Daily, June 19, 1959; trans. adapted from Fan, The Chinese Cultural Revolution, pp. 72–78]
THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION
Despite its name, the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” emerged not from the “proletariat” but from a power struggle at the top in which certain leaders, including Mao, sought to enlist the “masses” (especially students) in a campaign against moderate leaders then in control of the Party and state administration. The initial battle cry “To rebel is justified” was taken from an early speech by Mao (see p. 453), but “rebellion” came to mean almost anything, depending on whatever group was activated to engage in generalized “class struggle,” and before long the movement deteriorated into an anarchy of cross-purposes and violent infighting.
The Sixteen Points, briefly excerpted here, are taken from a decision of the Party Central Committee, engineered by Mao, Lin Biao, and their cohorts in 1966. They are perhaps the closest thing to a coherent statement of Mao’s original purposes in attacking “those in authority taking the capitalist road.”
THE SIXTEEN POINTS: GUIDELINES FOR THE GREAT PROLETARIAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION
1. A New Stage in the Socialist Revolution
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution now unfolding is a great revolution that touches people to their very soul and constitutes a new stage in the development of the socialist revolution in our country, a deeper and more extensive stage. . . .
Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, it is still trying to
use the old ideas, culture and customs, and habits of the exploiting classes to corrupt the masses, capture their minds, and endeavor to stage a comeback. The proletariat must do just the opposite: it must meet head-on every challenge of the bourgeoisie in the ideological field and use the new ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the proletariat to change the mental outlook of the whole of society. At present our objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic “authorities” and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes, and transform education, literature, and art and all other parts of the superstructure that do not correspond to the socialist economic base, so as to facilitate the consolidation and development of the socialist system.
2. The Main Current and the Zigzags
The masses of the workers, peasants, soldiers, revolutionary intellectuals, and revolutionary cadres form the main force in this Great Cultural Revolution. Large numbers of revolutionary young people, previously unknown, have become courageous and daring pathbreakers. They are vigorous in action and intelligent. Through the media of big character posters and great debates, they argue things out, expose and criticize thoroughly, and launch resolute attacks on the open and hidden representatives of the bourgeoisie. . . .
Since the Cultural Revolution is a revolution, it inevitably meets with resistance. This resistance comes chiefly from those in authority who have wormed their way into the party and are taking the capitalist road. It also comes from the old force of habit in society. At present, this resistance is still fairly strong and stubborn. However, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is, after all, an irresistible general trend. There is abundant evidence that such resistance will crumble fast once the masses become fully aroused. . . .
Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 2 Page 71