Mao Zedong
ON THE CORRECT HANDLING OF CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE PEOPLE[*]
February 27, 1957
"What should our policy be towards non-Marxist ideas? As far as
unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist
cause are concerned, the matter is easy, we simply deprive them of their
freedom of speech. But incorrect ideas among the people are quite a
different matter. Will it do to ban such ideas and deny them any
opportunity for expression?
Certainly not. It is not only futile but
page 411
very harmful to use crude methods in dealing with ideological
questions among the people, with questions about man's mental world. You
may ban the expression of wrong ideas, but the ideas will still be
there. On the other hand, if correct ideas are pampered in hothouses and
never exposed to the elements and immunized against disease, they will
not win out against erroneous ones.
Therefore, it is only by employing the method of discussion,
criticism and reasoning that we can really foster correct ideas and
overcome wrong ones, and that we can really settle issues.
It is inevitable that the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will
give expression to their own ideologies. It is inevitable that they will
stubbornly assert themselves on political and ideological questions by
every possible means. You cannot expect them to do otherwise. We should
not use the method of suppression and prevent them from expressing
themselves, but should allow them to do so and at the same time argue
with them and direct appropriate criticism at them. Undoubtedly, we must
criticize wrong ideas of every description. It certainly would not be
right to refrain from criticism, look on while wrong ideas spread
unchecked and allow them to dominate the field.
Mistakes must be criticized and poisonous weeds fought wherever they
crop up. However, such criticism should not be dogmatic, and the
metaphysical method should not be used, but instead the
effort should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is
needed is scientific analysis and convincing argument. Dogmatic
criticism settles nothing. We are against poisonous weeds of
whatever kind, but we must carefully distinguish between what is
really a poisonous weed and what is really a fragrant flower. Together
with the masses of the people, we must learn to differentiate carefully
between the two and use correct methods to fight the poisonous weeds.
At the same time as we criticize dogmatism, we must direct our
attention to criticizing revisionism. Revisionism, or Right opportunism,
is a bourgeois trend of thought that is even more dangerous than
dogmatism. The revisionists, the Right opportunists, pay lip-service to
Marxism; they too attack "dogmatism". But what they are really attacking
is the quintessence of Marxism.
They oppose or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try to
weaken the people's democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the
Communist Party, and oppose or try to weaken socialist transformation
and socialist construction. Even after the basic victory of our
socialist revolution, there will still be a number of people in our
society who vainly hope
page 412
to restore the capitalist system and are sure to fight the working
class on every front, including the ideological one. And their
right-hand men in this struggle are the revisionists.
Literally the two slogans -- let a hundred flowers blossom and
let a hundred schools of thought contend -- have no class character; the
proletariat can turn them to account, and so can the bourgeoisie or
others. Different classes, strata and social groups each have their own
views on what are fragrant flowers and what are poisonous weeds. Then,
from the point of view of the masses, what should be the criteria today
for distinguishing fragrant flowers from poisonous weeds? In their
political activities, how should our people judge whether a person's
words and deeds are right or wrong? On the basis of the principles of
our Constitution, the will of the overwhelming majority of our people
and the common political positions which have been proclaimed on various
occasions by our political parties, we consider that, broadly speaking,
the criteria should be as follows:
(1) Words and deeds should help to unite, and not divide,
the people of all our nationalities.
(2) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to socialist
transformation and socialist construction.
(3) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or
weaken, the people's democratic dictatorship.
(4) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or
weaken, democratic centralism.
(5) They should help to strengthen, and not shake off or
weaken, the leadership of the Communist Party.
(6) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to
international socialist unity and the unity of the peace-loving people
of the world.
Of these six criteria, the most important are the two about the
socialist path and the leadership of the Party. These criteria are put
forward not to hinder but to foster the free discussion of questions
among the people. Those who disapprove these criteria can still state
their own views and argue their case. However, so long as the majoriq of
the people have clear-cut criteria to go by, criticism and
self-criticism can be conducted along proper lines, and these criteria
can be applied to people's words and deeds to determine whether they are
right or wrong, whether they are fragrant flowers or poisonous weeds.
These are political criteria. Naturally, to judge the validity of
scientific
page 413
theories or assess the aesthetic value of works of art, other
relevant criteria are needed. But these six political criteria are
applicable to all activities in the arts and sciences. In a socialist
country like ours, can there possibly be any useful scientific or
artistic activity which runs counter to these political criteria?
The views set out above are based on China's specific historical
conditions. Conditions vary in different socialist countries and with
different Communist Parties. Therefore, we do not maintain that they
should or must adopt the Chinese way."
