Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom, and a Hundred Schools Contend

Posted on Updated on

Lu Dingyi

(26 May 1956)

The director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and chairmen of the Chinese Federation of Literary and Artistic Circles, Mister Guo Moruo, wanted me to come and talk about the Communist Party of China’s policies concerning literature and art work, and scientific work. The Chinese Communist Party advocates letting a hundred flowers bloom in literature and art work, and advocates letting a hundred schools content in scientific work, this has already been declared by `chairman Mao at the Supreme State Conference. To implement this policy, we already have some experience, but our experience is still very little. What I want to speak about today, is my individual understanding of this policy. Those coming to the conference today are all natural scientists, social scientists, medical scientists, literators and artists, there are Communist Party members, and there are also friends from all democratic parties and without party affiliation of any sort. You can naturally understand how important and significant this policy is to our country’s literature and art, and scientific research work, and to the work in which you engage. If my understanding is wrong in places, I hope everyone will not stint comment, making our common understanding develop smoothly.

I, Why do we put forward this a policy like this? Why is a policy like this only brought up now?

If our country is to become rich and strong, apart from having to consolidate the people’s regime, developing the economy, developing the educational undertaking, and strengthening national defence, we must also ensure that literary, artistic and scientific work flourishes and develops, not having this condition is impossible.

If we want to let literary, artistic and scientific work flourish and develop, we must adopt a policy of “Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend”. If “only one flower is allowed to bloom” in literary and art work, regardless of how good this flower is, it can also not flourish. Taking this example before our eyes, which is the theatre. In recent years, there were still some people opposing Beijing opera. At that time, the Party decided to implement a policy of “letting a hundred flowers bloom, replacing the old with the new” in the area of theatre. Now, everyone can see that this policy is correct, and has gained huge results. Because of the free competition and mutual emulation by all types of drama, the progress of the theatre has been very rapid. In the area of scientific work, our country also has historical experiences. In our country’s Spring and Autumn period of warring states from two thousand years ago, the phenomenon of “letting a hundred schools contend” emerged in the field of learning, this became a golden age of the development of learning in our country’s past history, our country’s history proves that, if there is no encouragement to think things out for oneself, if there is no free discussion, then, the development of learning will stagnate. Conversely, if there is encouragement for thinking things out for oneself, and there is free discussion, learning can develop rapidly. The Spring and Autumn warring states period is greatly different from the situation at present. In that time, society was in turmoil, “letting a hundred schools contend” in the area of learning was spontaneous and did not have conscious uniform leadership Now, nevertheless, the people themselves have opened up the realm of freedom, the people’s democratic dictatorship has already been established and consolidated, the people require the rapid development of scientific work, consequently, conscious planning of scientific work is implemented , and the policy of “letting a hundred schools contend” is adopted to stimulate the development of academic work.

We must also consider that, in a class society, literary, artistic and scientific work must become a tool for class struggle in the end.

This problem, in the domain of literature and art, is relatively clear. In literature and art, there are some clearly harmful things. For example, pornographic fiction encouraging theft and lust are one of those. “playing mah-jong, his mother minds state affairs”, “the American moon is rounder than the Chinese one”, these so-called literary works are a few examples. Regarding such harmful literature and art in the same line as flies, mosquitos and mice, destroying it is completely necessary. This has advantages for literature and art, and also has disadvantages. Therefore, we say, there is literature and art that serves workers, peasants and soldiers, there is literature and art that serves imperialism, landlords, and the bourgeoisie. What we need, is literature and art serving workers, peasants and soldiers, and literature and art serving the popular masses.

In the areas of philosophy and social sciences, class struggle is also relatively clear. Everyone has criticized the philosophical viewpoint of Hu Shi, the historical viewpoint, the educational viewpoint and the political viewpoint. Criticizing Hu Shi is the reflection of class struggle in the area of social sciences. This criticism is completely what should be done. Criticism against other bourgeois idealist philosophical schools and bourgeois social studies should also be done.

In the area of natural sciences, although the natural sciences don’t have a class nature of themselves, natural science workers all have their own individual political standpoints. In the past, between a number of natural scientists, there were ideologies that blindly worshipped America. Among a number of scientists, there were also so-called “non-polarization” tendencies. Criticizing these wrong things is also completely what should be done. This sort of criticism is also a reflection of class struggle.

We must also consider that literature, art and scientific research, although closely related to class struggle, are not completely identical to politics in the end. Political struggle is the direct mode of expression of class struggle, literature, art and social sciences may directly express class struggle, and may also relatively windingly express class struggle. Believing that literature, art and science are unrelated to politics, and can be “art for the sake of art” or “science for the sake of science”, this is a sort of rightist, one-sided view, and it is wrong. Conversely, completely equating literature, art and science to politics may result in another sort of one-sided view, and may cause mistakes of “leftist” simplification.

The “Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend” we stand for, advocates the freedom to think things out for oneself in literary and artistic work, and scientific research work, the freedom to create and criticize, and the freedom to express one’s own thoughts, persist in one’s own opinions and maintain one’s own opinions.

The freedom we stand for, is different from the freedom that bourgeois democracy advocates. The freedom that the bourgeoisie advocates is only the freedom of the few, the workers don’t have a share, or only a very small share, the bourgeoisie implements dictatorship over the workers. Now, American warmongerers are flaunting some kind of “free world”, in this “world”, the reactionary warmongering clique has all the freedom, and the Luxembourgs were sentenced to death, because they advocated peace. We advocate that counterrevolutionaries are not permitted to have freedom, we advocate that we must absolutely implement dictatorship over counterrevolutionaries. But among the people, we advocate that there absolutely must be democratic freedom. This political line, must distinguish politically between enemies and ourselves.

The “Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend” we stand for, is the freedom among the people. We advocate that following the consolidation of the people’s regime, the broad people are consistent and are inconsistent internally. We already have a Constitution, and abiding by the Constitution is the duty of the people, this is the internal consistency of the people. That is to say, loving the motherland and supporting Socialism are matters in which the people nationwide should be consistent. But, among the people, there are also places of inconsistency, in ideology, there is a difference between materialism and idealism, this sort of difference can be present during the existence of classes, and after classes are abolished, it can still be present, up until the Communist society, it can still be present. When classes exist, the contradictions between materialism and idealism are expressed in contradictions between classes; after classes are abolished, as long as the contradiction between objective and subjective still exists, the contradiction between advanced and backward still exists, and the contradiction between social productive forces and productive relations still exists, the contradiction between materialism and idealism in Socialist society and Communist society will also still exist. There is struggle between materialism and idealism, and furthermore, this struggle will last for a long time. Communist Party members are dialectical materialists, and naturally advocate and propagate materialism and oppose spiritualism, they cannot waver in this. But, exactly because it is dialectical materialism, and exactly because they understand the laws of social development, Communist Party members advocate that the ideological struggle within the people must be strictly separated from the struggle with counterrevolutionaries. Within the people, there not only is the freedom to propagate materialism, but there also is the freedom to propagate idealism. As long as they are not counterrevolutionaries, and regardless of whether they propagate materialism or propagate spiritualism, they all have freedom. The argument between the two is also free. This is the ideological struggle within the people, and is different from the struggle conducted against counterrevolutionaries. Counterrevolutionaries should be suppressed and should be overthrown. The backward ideology of idealism among the people should be struggled against, this struggle is also intense, but this struggle starts from unity, and it is for the sake of overcoming backwardness and strengthening unity. Concerning ideological questions, the method of wanting to use administrative decrees to resolve these, cannot be effective. Only through open debate can materialist ideology overcome idealist ideology step by step.

Concerning questions of artistic quality, questions of academic quality and questions of technological quality, there also may be differences of opinion. These sorts of difference in opinion are completely permitted. In these sorts of questions of quality, expressing different opinions, engaging in debate, conducting criticism and counter-criticism, naturally is free.

In short, we advocate that in politics, a clear distinction must be drawn between enemies and us, and we also advocate that there certainly must be freedom among the people. “Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend” is the expression of freedom among the people in the areas of literature and art work, and scientific work.

We now already have complete conditions to implement the “Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend” policy.

What are our current circumstances?

First, socialist reform has obtained a decisive victory in all aspects and in the basic regions nationwide, the exploitation system will be completely abolished in these regions within a few years from now. All previously existing exploiters will be reformed into workers earning their own living. Our country is about to become a Socialist country without an exploiting class.

Second, the political and ideological situation of the intelligentsia has already basically changed, and basic change is further occurring at the moment. This has already been depicted in great detail in Comrade Zhou Enlai’s report concerning issues of intellectuals. Here, let me look back a little on the most recent struggle.

The most recent struggle, was the struggle to oppose bourgeois idealist ideology. In this struggle, the broad intellectuals manifested themselves very well, and there was great progress.

In this struggle, our intelligentsia’s main cutting edge was concentrated in the criticism of Hu Shi, he is not inly an idealist ideologically, but is also a reactionary politically. Furthermore, criticism was also conducted against bourgeois ideology of individualism in the literature and art world, etc. Now, everyone can see that this sort of struggle is necessary for promoting the development of socialist reform, and consequently, this struggle is correct.

In this struggle, the Party Central Committee has pointed out that we must persist in opposing ideologies impeding the launching of academic criticism and discussion, these ideologies are expressed in: idolatry for bourgeois “famous person”, believing that they are “authoritative”, and cannot be criticized; adopting a bourgeois or aristocratic lording attitude over young Marxist academic workers, and suppressing them; some Party members pose as “authoritative”, and do not permit other persons to criticize them or engage in self-criticism; some Party members do not dare to criticism others because they  “fear to destroy the united front” or “fear to influence unity”; some Party members do not criticize errors in others because of personal friendships or relations of face, and even cover them. The Party Central Committee pointed out that we must persist in these principles: in academic criticism and discussion, no person may have any privilege; posing as “authoritative”, suppressing criticism, or ignoring the familiar sight of bourgeois erroneous ideology, adopting liberalist or even capitulationist attitudes are all incorrect. At the same time, the Party Central Committee pointed out that academic criticism and discussion should be reasonable and seek truth from facts. That is to say, it should advocate the establishment of acute academic debate on a scientific basis. Criticism and discussion shall have research work as basis, and oppose adopting simple and crude attitudes. We shall adopt the method of free discussion, and oppose the adoption of administrative decree methods. We shall permit criticized persons to conduct countercriticism, and not suppress this sort of countercriticism. We shall permit the minority holding different opinions to maintain their own opinions, and not implement the principle that the minority should submit to the majority. As for persons having made mistakes in academic issues, if, after criticism and discussion, they are not willing to publish articles self-criticizing their mistakes, we should not absolutely make them write self-criticizing articles. In academic circles, if different opinions emerge again on a certain academic question after a conclusion ahs already been reached, discussion is still permitted. The Party Central Committee has also pointed out: when conducting criticism of bourgeois erroneous ideologies and criticizing or discussing academic issues, we shall persist in the policy of the united Party front and the policy of uniting and reforming intellectuals. We shall differentiate people who persist in bourgeois erroneous viewpoints in ideology, and people who, although they have this sort of erroneous viewpoints, tend towards materialism, and treat them differently. We shall clearly differentiate political counterrevolutionaries and people who have made mistakes in academic ideology. Academic workers who have grave bourgeois erroneous viewpoints in academic ideology, as long as they are not counterrevolutionaries, shall be guaranteed the work position that they obtained and is suited for them, and they are guaranteed the possibility to continue to engage in research useful to society, that their speciality, useful to society is respected and given rein, and that this specialty is passed on to the youth, and at the same time, they are encouraged to vigorously participate in academic criticism and debate, and implement self-reform.

These instructions guarantee that we don’t make grave mistakes in opposing bourgeois idealist ideology and launching academic criticism work. Now, we find that this struggle is basically done correctly, and grasping it with proper restraint is generally also correct. But mistakes and flaws are present as well. For example, Mister Yu Pingbo, is a good person politically, and has only made mistakes in academic ideology on literature and art work. Criticising the mistakes he made in academic ideology is necessary, and at that time, there were a number of articles criticising Mister Yu that were written very well. But some articles were written a bit poorly, and lacked full persuasiveness, the intonation was also excessively strong. Some people went as far as to say that he monopolized ancient books, but this argument has no basis. Here, I want to clearly explain this sort of situation.

We have looked back for a bit, let’s again look at the present. Then, the present situation is greatly different from the past, if in the past two years, bourgeois spiritualism still had a very large market, many intellectuals would not have been able to differentiate what is materialist ideology, and what is idealist ideologies, and would not know the harm of idealist ideology to the Socialist undertaking, thus, there is great progress in our intelligentsia today.

Now, some departments’ originally decided plans on the work to criticize Hu Shi’s reactionary ideology have not yet been completed, the work to clean up hidden counterrevolutionaries has also not been completed. All uncompleted matters should be implemented to the full, and it is not permitted to give up halfway. Because only if this work is done well, it will be possible to create beneficial conditions for many work matters from now on. In this struggle, we must still stress uniting the good people which occupy more than ninety per cent of the whole body of people again and again, including backward elements, and jointly conduct struggle against counterrevolutionary elements.

Third, we still have enemies, domestically, there still is class struggle, but enemies, and especially domestic enemies, have been greatly weakened.

Who are the enemies? Abroad, there are the imperialist strategic forces with American warmongering elements at the head, domestically, there is the Chiang Kai-shek clique forcibly occupying Taiwan, there are also other remnants of reactionary elements. These are our enemies: against these people, we must still continue the firm struggle, and cannot slacken.

Fourth, the nationwide people’s political and ideological consistency has been greatly strengthened, and it still continues to be strengthened.

This situation had been estimated, therefore, the Chinese Communist Party Centre has now emphatically put forward the “Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend” policy, requiring us to muster all vigorous factors in the areas of literature and art work, and scientific work, serve the people even better, strive to make our literature and art flourish, and strive to make our country’s scientific work overtake global advanced levels.

Now, many of our natural science workers are drafting plans under government leadership concerning twelve years of natural science development, twelve-year development plans for philosophy and social sciences are also in the process of being drafted. Formulating and realizing these plans is the glorious task of our scientific circles. Implementing the policy of “letting a hundred schools contend”, is an important guarantee for completing this task.

II, Strengthening unity

“Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend” is for the sake of mobilizing all vigorous factors, and therefore, is a policy of strengthening unity. Unity on which basis? On a patriotic basis, and on a Socialist basis. Uniting to do what? Constructing a new Socialist China, and struggling with domestic and foreign enemies.

There are two different kinds of unity. One kind is the unity of mechanical subordination, the other kind is conscious and voluntary unity. What we want is conscious and voluntary unity.

Are our literature and art circles and scientific circles united? They are united. In comparison with the time when the People’s Republic of China began to be established, the has been great progress in literature and art circles and scientific circles in the aspect of unity. Social reform work and ideological reform work are the causes because of which we can have such a firm unity today, denying or belittling this point is incorrect. But this is not to say that our unity is already perfect in every way. There still are flaws in the aspect of unity.

Where are the flaws? First and foremost, they lie within the fact that some Communist Party members forgot the instructions of Comrade Mao Zedong, and forgot the harm of factionalism. The achievements in work often may cause some people to turn their heads, emotions of claiming praise and arrogance may rise op, and factionalist emotions may rise up.

In 1942, Comrade Mao Zedong in his text “Rectifying the Party’s Work Style”:

“Many of our comrades like to act self-importantly towards people outside of the Party, belittle people, despise people, and are unwilling to respect people, or are unwilling to understand the strong points of people. These are factionalist tendencies. These comrades have read some Marxist books and afterwards are not more modest, but more arrogant, they always say people are no good, but do not know that they themselves are half-baked. Our comrades must understand one truth: comparing Communist Party members and people outside the Party, regardless of at which time, they always are the minority. Assuming that there is one Communist Party member for every hundred people, means that there are 4.5 million Party members in the China of 450 million people. Even if this great number is attained, Communist Party members still only are one per cent, and ninety-nine per cent are non-Party members. What grounds do we have to not cooperate with non-Party members? We only have the duty of cooperation with all people who are willing to cooperate with us and able to cooperate with us, and we absolutely have no right to reject them. A part of the Party members have, however, not understood this rationale, and look down upon people who are willing to cooperate with us, and even reject them. This has no basis at all. Have Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin given us a basis like this? They have not. Conversely, they always repeatedly admonished us, that we must closely link with the masses, and must not become separated from the masses. Did the Chinese Communist Party give us this basis? It has not. In all resolutions of the Centre, there is not a single resolution saying that we may become separated from the masses and isolate ourselves. On the contrary, the Centre always called upon us to closely connect with the masses, and not to separate from them. Therefore, all acts of separation from the masses have no basis at all, and this is only a part of our comrades making factionalist ideologies and making mischief themselves. Because this sort of factionalism is still very grave in a part of the comrades, and still impedes the implementation of the Party line, we must conduct broad education aimed at this problem within the Party. First and foremost, we must make our cadres truly understand the gravity of this problem, and make them understand that if Communist Party members do not connect with cadres outside the Party and people outside the Party, it will be certainly impossible to overthrow our enemies, and certainly impossible to achieve the objectives of revolution.” (“Selected Works of Mao Zedong”, Volume III, pp. 827-828.)

Everyone knows that, since a few years, we have conducted several anti-factionalist struggles in the literature and art circles and scientific circles. These struggles have been conducted in hygiene work departments, in natural science research departments, in literature and art work departments, and in social science work departments. We still must continue to conduct this sort of struggle, and call upon Party members working in literary and art circles and scientific circles, to all rise up and pay attention to overcome factionalism.

In the process of struggle, we have found out some experiences, which I will talk about now:

(1) Everybody knows that the natural sciences, including the medical sciences, do not have a class nature, they have their own development laws. Their connection to the social system only lies in: under bad social systems, these sciences will develop more slowly, and under relatively good social systems, they can develop a bit faster. These are issues that have been resolved in theory long ago. Because of this, sticking a class label on some medical theory, biological or other natural science theory, that they are “feudal”, “capitalist”, “Socialist”, “proletarian” or “bourgeois” or somesuch, for example saying that “medicine is feudal medicine, Western medicine is capitalist medicine”, “Pavlovian theory is Socialist”, “Michurin theory is Socialist”, “Mendel-Morgan genetics is capitalist” or somesuch, are mistaken. We may not believe this. Some people make this sort of mistakes, because of factionalist ideologies, some because they want to stress learning from advanced Soviet science and stress unsuitable matters, and do not consciously make this sort of mistakes. We must treat all these kinds of different situations differently, and cannot generalize matters.

At the same time as pointing out the above mistakes, we must also point out another sort of mistakes. this sort if mistake is to deny that Pavlovian theory and Michurin theory are important theory. People making this sort of mistakes, again have different starting points. For some, it is because they have anti-Soviet emotions politically, and consequently even want to deny Soviet Union scientific achievements. For some, it is because they are in a different academic school, and cannot be convinced. The former is a problem of political points of view, the latter is a problem of academic ideology, must also be treated differently, and cannot be generalized.

(2) Concerning literature and art work, the Party only has one requirement, which is “to serve workers, peasants and soldiers”, speaking today, this also includes serving all labouring people, including intellectuals. We believe that socialist realism is the best creation method, but it is not the only creation method; under the precondition of serving workers, peasants and soldiers, any artist is permitted to use any method that they believe to be best to create, and mutually compete. Issues of themes have never been limited by the Party. Only permitting to write about worker, peasant and labour themes, only permitting to write about the new society, only permitting to write about the new human, etc., these sort of limits are incorrect. As literature and art must serve workers, peasants and soldiers, they must naturally extol new society and positive characters, and must at the same time also criticize old society and negative characters, they must extol progress, and must at the same time criticize backwardness, therefore, literature and art themes should be extremely broad. Things appearing in literature and art works, not only may be things existing in the world or existing in history, they may also include heavenly or celestial beings, birds and beast that can talk and other things that don’t exist in the world. Literature and art works may describe positive characters and the new society, and may describe negative characters and old society, furthermore, without old society, it is hard to set off new society, without negative characters, it is hard to set off positive characters. Therefore, restrictions and fetters concerning issues of theme, can only suffocate literature and art work, causing formulism and vulgar interests to develop and do harm rather than good. Concerning the question of literary and artistic characteristics, the question of model creation, etc., this should be discussed freely by literature and art workers, all different opinions may be tolerated, and consensus is gradually to be achieved in free discussion.

Literature and art circles already have the experience of implementing “Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend” in the area of theatre. This is a very precious experience. The present problem is to push the policy of “letting a hundred flowers bloom” towards all literature and art departments.

(3) In the area of philosophy and social science, work achievements are large. But exactly because of this, the danger of factionalism has also grown. If we don’t timely pay attention, the grave consequence of ideological ossification may occur. Since founding the nation, Marxism-Leninism has been propagated among the broad intellectuals, ideological rectification campaigns have been conducted, a struggle to oppose bourgeois idealism has been conducted and hidden counterrevolutionaries have been eliminated, amongst other work, this all is correct, necessary, and has had achievements. But, we should still look at the dark side of things. There are some Party members, in which ideologies of monopolizing academic work in philosophy and social science have arisen, they are opinionated, and look down upon or even forget the good points of people, they don’t see progress in people, and can’t hear critical opinions, they consider themselves always as teachers, and consider other people to be only allocated to them as students forever, and regard themselves as forever only being able to be an idealist or bourgeois scholar. This is extremely dangerous. Carrying on like this, there may be the danger of degeneration for individuals, the undertaking of philosophy and social science may be lifeless, stagnant and bogged down. These comrades should stop their intoxication as quickly as possible, become a bit more modest, and listen a bit more to criticism from others, do a bit more scholarship, and seek a bit more advice from people outside the Party, cooperate with them well, in order to avoid that the undertaking of philosophy and social science is harmed.

Seeing that there are already more than seven years since founding the nation, although there still are some people who persist in idealist ideology and persist in bourgeois ideology, many people have had great progress. It should be considered to in philosophy and social science research work and education work, according to the situation, progressively reorganize forces, and change some systems and methods that were originally mistaken or where although there were not mistakes, these have passed their time, in order to mobilize all vigorous factors, develop our country’s philosophy and social science undertakings. Philosophy and social science are extremely important scientific departments, and therefore, they absolutely must do their work well.

Here, we must passingly talk about questions of modern history. Modern history is an extremely important department in social science, but its achievements in recent years are few. It is said that, everyone is waiting for the Party Central Committee to publish a Party history textbook, and afterwards will write all sorts of modern history on the basis of the Party history textbook. Now, please don’t wait anymore. The Party Central Committee is not preparing to publish a Party history textbook, it is only preparing the successive publication of Party chronicles and document collections. Our recent history workers shall independently research all questions in recent history. In recent history research, they should also adopt the policy of letting a hundred schools contend, and should not adopt other policies.

In eradicating factionalism, uniting all people willing to cooperate or able to cooperate; eradicating monopolistic opinions, eradicating excessive restrictions and fetters, implementing the “Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend” policy; we must not only plan for ourselves, our departments or our work units, but help others more, help other departments and other work units; in eradicating arrogance and self-aggrandizement, opinionated thoughts, and implement modesty and prudency, and respect others. In this way, we may eradicate our flaws in unity in the past, and greatly strengthen unity.

We hope that literators and artists outside the Party and scientists also pay attention to questions of strengthening unity. Comrade Zhou Enlai had a paragraph in the “Report on Questions concerning Intellectuals”, we must repeat this here.

“Between some intellectuals and ourselves, some sorts of lack of mutual understanding still exist. We must actively strive to eliminate this sort of lack of mutual understanding. But this sort of lack of mutual understanding often come from two sides: one side is because our comrades have not approached them or understood them; the other side is because a part of the intellectuals adopted a reserved attitude or even an opposed attitude against Socialism. In our enterprises, schools and offices, in society, there still are intellectuals like this: they don’t distinguish between enemies and ourselves between the Communist Party and the Guomindang, the Chinese people and imperialism; they are not satisfied with Party government policies and measures, recall capitalism with nostalgia and even recall feudalism with nostalgia; they oppose the Soviet Union and are unwilling to learn from the Soviet Union; they refuse to study Marxism-Leninism, and slander Marxism-Leninism; they despise work, despise the working people, and despise cadres with a working class origin, they are unwilling to approach workers peasants and working or rural cadres; they are unwilling to see the growth of new productive forces, believe that progressives are speculators; they not only often create disputes and opposition between intellectuals and the Party, and also create disputes and opposition among intellectuals; they are self-important, consider themselves as the first under heaven, they are unable to accept leadership from any person or criticism from any person; they deny the interest of the people and the interest of society, always start from individual interests in all problems, praise that which conforms to their own interest, and oppose that which does not conform to their interest. Naturally, all people possessing everything needed for mistakes, are very few in number among the intellectuals; but there are people with one or a few of the above sorts of mistakes, who are not very few in number. They are not only backwards elements, but also a part of the middle-of-the-roaders often have a few of the above erroneous viewpoints. The trouble of narrow-mindedness, arrogance and self-importance, and starting from individual interest in looking at problems, are also not few in number among progressive elements. If these intellectuals don’t change their position, even if we strive to connect to them, there will still be a lack of mutual understanding between us and them.”

That is to say, in order to strengthen unity, the efforts of Communist Party members are required, and the efforts of non-Communist Party members are also required.

Individualism and sectarianism also exist in literature and art circles and science circles. The lack of mutual understanding between young and old science workers exists as well. These bad things should be eliminated. We believe that we are certainly able to eliminate them. As long as Communist Party members act as examples to strive together with non-Party members, the resolution of problems may be smooth.

III, The problem of criticism and the problem of study

“Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend”, as far as criticism work is concerned, is the freedom to criticize and the freedom to oppose criticism.

Some of today’s criticism causes people to be afraid. If it doesn’t cause people to be afraid, it is often tasteless. How should this problem be resolved?

There are two sorts of criticism. One sort is criticism of enemies, the so-called criticism of “finishing off with one blow”, or attacking criticism. The other kind is criticism of good people, this is criticism of comrades with good intentions, it starts from unity, and achieves the objective of unity through struggle. This sort of criticism must consider the situation as a whole, and adopt an attitude of talking about rationales more, and being good to people, and cannot use an attitude of “not permitting revolution” like the false foreign devil in “The True Story of Ah Q”

Regardless whether it is the former sort of criticism or the latter sort of criticism, they must both rely on research. It is not looking at one point and writing right away, but it is having seen many things, thought a lot and then writing.

There is a sort of idea that is wrong, and that is believing that criticism must absolutely be attacking. During the Yan’an period, some people used “essays” and other forms to attack the Party and the people’s regime, this sort of people still exists now, attacking this sort of people who hold an inimical attitude towards the Party and the people, should naturally be done. But if this sort of attacking method is also used among the people, it is a mistake.

I want to introduce four articles criticizing good people: 1. Mao Zedong: “Reforming Our Study”, 2. Mao Zedong: “Rectifying the Party’s Work Style”, 3. Mao Zedong: “Opposing Eight-Legged Writing in the Party”, 4. “People’s Daily”: “Concerning the Historical Experience of the Proletariat Dictatorship”. The first three are criticism of Wang Ming and Bo Gu, these two people are comrades who had made major mistakes; the latter article is a criticism of Comrade Stalin, Stalin is a comrade who has both great contributions and great mistakes, and the contributions are greater than the mistakes. Having read these criticism, you can know that this sort of criticism is permitted, it is both not an extreme attack, and is also not perfunctory or superficial, and criticism that is able to let many people benefit. It can be seen what kind of assiduous research work writing this sort of criticism has undergone. This sort of criticism truly is what we should advocate.

Climbing the heights of science and art is difficult work. The reason it is difficult, is because here, one can only seek truth from facts, and cannot be a trickster in the slightest. We should give scientists and artists full support. All scientists and artists working honestly, under this social system of ours, should only be receiving support, and should not be receiving attacks. In thinking things out for oneself and conducting complex creative labour, never making any mistake is impossible. First, only knowledge is insufficient, sometimes it may cause people to make wrong judgements. Second, a thing that was originally correct was exaggerated, or considered too extremely, this may also be a mistake. Lenin once said: “As long as we take one more small step ahead, but in what still seems as if it is a small step ahead, the truth may become an error.” (“The Teething Trouble of ‘leftism’ in Communist Activities”, Chapter 10) There are some who support progressive things, but this is being a bit too impatient, because of this they make mistakes, things often belong to this nature. Third, some people make mistakes of idealism, but mistakes of idealism are also not some strange facts, because “people’s understanding is not a straight line (and it is not conducted following a straight line), but it is an unlimited curve without limits, resembling a spiral. In any section, length or bit of the curved line, it can change into (one-sidedly change into an independent, integrated straight line, but this straight line (if it only looks at the tress and does not see the forest) may guide to a morass, or guide towards fideism (there, the class interest of the ruling class will consolidate it)”. (Lenin: “A Summary of Hegel’s Book ‘On Logic'”, p. 29) In the process of developing understanding, ideological fossilization, looking at issues in isolation (the “so-called splitting hairs”) and one-sidedly looking at problems, may all lead to idealist mistakes.

The fact that good people make mistakes is usual. People who never make mistakes do not exist in the world. This sort of mistakes should be strictly separated from counterrevolutionary discussions. Criticism against this sort of mistakes should only be well-disposed towards people, should only calmly speak about reason, and should consider the larger picture, start from unity to reach the objective of unity. People who made mistakes should vigorously be helped to rectify their mistakes. People receiving criticism should basically also not be afraid.

Mistakes are easy to make, but mistakes must be corrected ever better, persisting in mistakes may create great harm. As far as people receiving criticism as concerned, the truth should be persisted in, if other people’s criticism is incorrect, they may express different opinions; but mistakes should be corrected, if criticism from other people is correct, it should be modestly accepted. Publicly admitting mistakes, exposing the cause of mistakes, analyzing the environment giving rise to mistakes, carefully discuss the method of correcting mistakes, as far as a party is concerned, are serious Party symbols, as far as individuals are concerned, these are symbols of seeking truth from facts. Having made a mistake and accepting criticism, is to accept that other persons help oneself, and this only is useful to the development of our country’s scientific undertaking and literary and artistic undertaking, and cannot have any harm.

In the aspect for study, we must continue to organize study of Marxism and Leninism on a voluntary basis, at the same time, we must broadly study knowledge, and must critically study all times and all countries, friends and enemies.

Studying Marxism-Leninism, has become a great upsurge among the broad intellectuals, this is a good phenomenon. The scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism is the highest wisdom of mankind, and is a universally applicable truth. In the past, there were people believing that Marxism-Leninism is not applicable to China, this sort of argument has been completely bankrupted. Without the scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism as guidance, our country’s revolutionary victory cannot be imagined, all sorts of construction in our country, including scientific and cultural construction, must obtain huge achievements and speedy development, this can also not be imagined.

But, in this work of studying Marxism-Leninism, there are also many flaws and mistakes, the main ones are dogmatist tendencies.

Fifteen years ago, in may 1941, Comrade Mao Zedong wrote “Reforming Our Study”, afterwards, in February 1942, he wrote “Rectifying the Party’s Work Style” and “Opposing Eight-Legged Writing in the Party”. These three articles are the basic articles of the Yan’an rectification movement. The Yan’an rectification movement was a movement opposing subjectivism, and mainly opposing dogmatism. This is the greatest Marxist ideological movement after the May Fourth movement. Dogmatism seemingly ruined our country’s revolution in the people’s democratic revolution period, it is the great enemy of Marxism-Leninism. We must keep this painful experience closely in mind. We also must deeply be on guard, if we use a dogmatic attitude to research knowledge, if we use dogmatic attitudes to lead literature and art work, and scientific research work, this will certainly fail, because this sort of attitude completely violates the attitude of seeking truth from facts in Marxism.

I’d like to take this opportunity to seriously introduce Comrade Mao Zedong’s three articles “Reforming Our Study”, “Rectifying the Party’s Work Style” and “Opposing Eight-Legged Writing in the Party” to our literators, artists and scientists, and the “Resolution concerning Some Historical Questions” of the 7th Plenum of the 6th Party Congress. I hope all literature and art workers and scientific workers, carefully read these articles a few times, in order to understand where the differences between dogmatism and Marxism-Leninism are, why dogmatism is the great enemy of Marxism-Leninism, and why we must persist in struggle against dogmatism.

We must broadly study knowledge.

Our country has a great legacy in medicine, agriculture, philosophy, history, literature, theatre, painting, music, etc., which should be earnestly studied and critically accepted. Work in this area isn’t done too much, but is done too little, and not earnestly enough, ideologies despising ethnic heritage still exist, and are still very grave in these departments.

Which legacy should we accept and how should we accept them?

If we want things that seem perfect in every way from the viewpoint of the present, to be accepted as legacy, then there is no thing at all that can be accepted. Conversely, if we uncritically accept cultural heritage, it may easily become “national essentialism”.

Concerning our country’s cultural heritage, we propose adopting this principle: we must carefully select, protect and develop all of its beneficial part, and at the same time must honestly criticize its mistakes and flaws. Now, our work has flaws in two aspects. Concerning the beneficial parts in our country’s cultural heritage, there are negligent and careless tendencies of total negation This is the main tendency at present. The performance of the Kun opera “Fifteen Strands” told us that this sort of argument believing that in Kun opera, there are no beneficial part, is wrong, drama is also like this, are there also phenomena like this in other literature and art departments and scientific research departments? It should be said that there are. This sort of phenomenon should be corrected. At the same time, we have also found that there also are the phenomena of no criticism against flaws and mistakes in cultural heritage, or whitewashing them, this is not an honest attitude, therefore, it should also be corrected.

Literature and art workers, and scientific workers must learn from the people. The wisdom of the people is inexhaustible, and among the people, there are many treasures that have not yet been discovered, or that have been discovered but not used very well. Using an example from medicine, in the past, acupuncture, deep breathing exercises and other means have been looked down upon, only now we think highly of them. But folk medicine methods such as bonesetting, manual therapy, herbal medicine, etc., now have not attracted sufficient regard and attention. Using another example from music and painting, these two departments do not give sufficient attention to ethnic heritage. All these situations should be corrected. Things coming from among the people often are not systematized, and are simple things that have not been explained in theory, some still carry a so-called “sneaky personality”, carry the flavour of superstition, etc. This is not at all surprising. The task of scientific workers and literature and art workers is not to disdain these things, but they must go and study them, carefully select, protect and develop their beneficial parts, making them become scientific things.

We must have national self-respect, we absolutely cannot become ethnic nihilist. We oppose the erroneous stand of so-called “complete Westernization”. But this is not to say that we should be self-important, or refuse to study good things from abroad. Our country still is a very backward country, we must expend great effort to study many good things coming from abroad, only then can our country become rich and strong. National self-importance, regardless of circumstance, is always incorrect.

We should learn from the Soviet Union, learn from people’s democratic countries, and learn from the people in all countries of the world.

Learning from the Soviet Union is a correct slogan. We have already learned a bit, and there are many things we should still learn henceforth. The Soviet Union is the first Socialist country in the world, the world leader of the peaceful and democratic camp, its industrial development speed is rapid, it has rich experience of Socialist construction, and has already overtaken and surpassed the most advanced capitalist countries in many areas of science. A country like this, a people like this, naturally merits our good study. Not learning from the Soviet Union is basically wrong.

But, when learning from the Soviet Union, our study method must not be dogmatist mechanical transportation, but must integrate the real situation of our country. This point must attract attention. Otherwise, it may also cause our work to suffer harm.

Apart from learning from the Soviet Union, we must also learn from all the people’s democratic countries. All people’s democratic countries have their own strong points, many countries are more advanced in industry, science and technology, and there are also some countries that are more advanced than our country in other aspects. These all merit study. There should be no self-importance and arrogance.

The people of all countries in the world apart from the Soviet Union and people’s democratic countries, they are under different social systems and national systems. Social systems and country systems may change, but the people, however, will eternally exist and develop. The reason why they can exist and develop are not without cause. We should critically study all their strong points, regardless of whether they are literary or artistic, are customs and traditions, or belong to other categories. Here, there should also be no self-importance and arrogance.

Apart from friends, we must also learn from enemies, this is not to study their reactionary system, but to study their management methods and valuable things in science and technology. This sort of study has as objective to accelerate the development of our country’s Socialist construction, in order to even more powerfully prevent invasion and maintain peace in the world and in Asia.

I should also talk a bit about the issue the Party members should study the knowledge of non-Party members. Not a few of our Party members have flaws in their knowledge. Non-Party members lack basic knowledge about Marxism-Leninism, but where many non-Party member friends who enthusiastically study Marxism-Leninism are concerned, these are past things or will become past things. Many people among them have already overcome this flaw, or will make it up. This issue has already been put forward, and is also already being resolved. Now the issue we must put forward, is that Party members should pay attention to overcoming their own flaws. The method is only to sincerely seek advice from people in the know, and learn from them. The absolute majority of non-Party member intellectuals study very diligently. When Communist Party members learn all sorts of knowledge from them, they should not go backward. This is an important strand in the issue of learning.

After putting forward this policy of “Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend”, many problems will be progressively put forward, and must be resolved. I hope everyone considers the questions in this regard. Today, I only talk about a few issues of principle, I request everyone’s critique.

 

[1] A few scientists wrote a letter, they believed that they should prevent partiality from happening in understanding the policy of letting a hundred schools content. Now, extracts from the letter of Mister Yang Zhao of the Scientific Press are published here.

The letter of Mister Yang said: “The principle of letting a hundred schools contend undoubtedly is completely correct. But in reality, it seems there must be prevention against some possible incorrect proclivities in the understanding of this policy.

“As the name implies, those contending should be a number of what can be called “schools”. But some people often are content with dabbling, and by chance have some “achievement”, they are pleased with themselves, are not willing to deeply scrutinize things, are not willing to do academic work in an earnest and down to earth way, with the result that they get bogged down in mud pits and don’t know how to go back, but persist in their mistakes instead, they are unwilling to bow their head in the face of truth, the clearest example is that frequently, not a few people are unwilling to believe (or in fact, are unwilling to study arduously) why using a compass and a ruler to measure a trisecting angle, or why a perpetual motion machine is impossible, which has generally been acknowledged as being proven, and insistently waste time and brainpower on discovering miracles. This sort of depletion of mental wisdom is meaningless, and I’m afraid that the number of people with schemes that are clearly doomed to fail are not few. Among them, there are some people who, I’m afraid, because they want to become a “school” in one night, unavoidably alarm the people once they “contend”, and are unwilling to march the rugged path of study. If it is suggested to them to put in time and energy to study existing conclusions, and work on the basis of experience, their response very possibly may be said in a relaxed manner, that this is the theory of bourgeois scholars, and it is “idealistic”!

Similar to the above, experience tells us: there are some people, especially engineers and technological workers, because of the objective situation in their work, that don’t have great opportunity to come in contact with corresponding literature, because of this, they don’t put forth effort to consult the literature or learn from people, and go and research a question by working hard on their own, and have gained correct conclusions,  but it is unfortunate, that they still don’t know there already were people to follow.

If we want to truly become “schools” and be good at “contending”, we require undergoing a process of arduous study and practice lasting a long time. This point of basic knowledge one should at least have for letting a hundred schools contend, it seems as if it is necessary to stress it and point it out. Otherwise, henceforth, all research work units and all higher education institutes may receive many “schools” that all “contend” their “contended” inventions and discoveries, and we will need to spend a lot of precious time to check and review these, and also must cautiously and patiently explain that they are impossible, or point out that there have already been people who did this. In this way, the energy of writers will no doubt be wasted, the energy of reviewers will also be wasted. But if there is correct understanding of letting a hundred schools contend, the waste of energy can at least be reduced, and the useless can be changed into the useful.”

Mister Yang and a good many other  scientists’ opinion concerning errors happening in “letting a hundred schools contend”, are words of experience, and are convincing. This sort of mistake, this sort of tendency, should be prevented – Author.

[2] Some people believe that our country should not have freedom to propagate idealism. There are also people who believe that, as there is the freedom to propagate idealism, idealists should have unlimited freedom to propagate them. These viewpoints all start from errors. Taking religion as an example, in our country, all sorts of religion all have their own churches, temples, reading materials, publication organs, and also have schools for training cadres to do missionary work, these are all free and receive State protection. But, in order to benefit  the unity between atheists and religious believers, and avoid the occurrence of clashes, atheists do not go to churches or temples to propagate against religion, and believers to not conduct religious propaganda in public venues outside churches or temples, here, regardless of it concerns atheists or religious believers, both sides are limited in their propaganda freedom. – Author

 

百花齐放,百家争鸣

(一九五六年五月二十六日)

陆定一

中国科学院院长、中国文学艺术界联合会主席郭沫若先生,要我来讲讲中国共产党对文艺工作和科学工作的政策。中国共产党对文艺工作主张百花齐放,对科学工作主张百家争鸣,这已经由毛主席在最高国务会议上宣布过了。执行这个政策,我们已经有了部分的经验,但是我们的经验还是很少的。我今天所要讲的,是个人对这个政策的认识。今天到会的都是自然科学家、社会科学家、医学家、文学家和艺术家,有共产党员,也有各民主党派的和无党无派的朋友。你们当然能够了解,这个政策对于我国文学艺术和科学研究工作的发展,对于你们所从事的工作,有何等重要的意义。我的了解如有不对的地方,希望大家不吝指正,使我们的共同事业能够顺利发展。

一、为什么提出这样的政策?为什么现在才着重提出这样的政策?

我国要富强,除了必须巩固人民的政权,必须发展经济,发展教育事业,加强国防以外,还必须使文学艺术和科学工作得到繁荣的发展,缺少这一条是不行的。

要使文学艺术和科学工作得到繁荣的发展,必须采取“百花齐放,百家争鸣”的政策。文艺工作,如果“一花独放”,不论那朵花怎么好,也是不会繁荣的。拿眼前的例子来说,就是戏剧。几年以前,还有人反对京戏。那时,党决定在戏剧方面实行“百花齐放,推陈出新”的政策。现在大家都看到,这个政策是正确的,收到了巨大的效果。由于有了各剧种之间的自由竞赛和相互观摩,戏剧的进步就很快。在科学工作方面,我国也有历史经验。我国在两千年前的春秋战国时代,学术方面曾经出现过“百家争鸣”的局面,这成了我国过去历史上学术发展的黄金时代,我国的历史证明,如果没有对独立思考的鼓励,没有自由讨论,那么,学术的发展就会停滞。反过来说,有了对独立思考的鼓励,有了自由讨论,学术就能迅速发展。春秋战国时代同现在的情况是大不相同的。当时,社会是动乱的,学术方面的“百家争鸣”是自发的而没有有意识的统一领导的。现在,却是人民自己打出了自由的天地,人民民主专政已经建立起来而且巩固起来了,人民要求科学工作的迅速发展,因而自觉地对科学工作进行全盘的规划,并采取“百家争鸣”的政策来促进学术工作的发展。

我们又要看到,在阶级社会里,文学艺术和科学工作毕竟要成为阶级斗争的武器。

这个问题,在文学艺术的领域里,是比较明显的。文学艺术中有一些显然有害的东西。如诲盗诲淫的黄色小说是一个例子。“打打麻将,国事管他娘”,“美国月亮比中国的圆”这些所谓文学作品又是一些例子。把这样的有毒的文艺,同苍蝇、蚊子、老鼠一例看待,加以消灭,是完全应该的。这对文艺只有好处,没有坏处。所以,我们说,有为工农兵服务的文艺,有为帝国主义、地主、资产阶级服务的文艺。我们所需要的,是为工农兵服务的文艺,为人民大众服务的文艺。

在哲学和社会科学的领域里,阶级斗争也是比较明显的。胡适的哲学观点,历史学观点,教育学观点和政治观点,大家都批判过了。批判胡适,这是阶级斗争在社会科学领域里的反映。这个批判,是完全应该做的。对其他资产阶级唯心主义的哲学派别和资产阶级社会学的批判,也是应该做的。

在自然科学领域里,虽然自然科学本身没有阶级性,但自然科学工作者却是每个人都有自己的政治立场的。从前,在一部分自然科学家中间,有过盲目崇拜美国的思想。在一部分自然科学家中也有所谓“非政治化”的倾向。批判这些错误的东西也是完全应该的。这种批判,也就是阶级斗争的反映。

我们还必须看到,文学艺术和科学研究,虽然同阶级斗争密切有关,可是它和政治终究不是完全相同的。政治斗争,是阶级斗争的直接的表现形式,文艺和社会科学,可以直接地表现阶级斗争,也可以比较曲折地表现阶级斗争。以为文艺和科学同政治无关,可以“为艺术而艺术”,“为科学而科学”,这是一种右的片面性的看法,是错误的。反之,把文艺和科学同政治完全等同起来,就会发生另一种片面性的看法,就会犯“左”的简单化的错误。

我们所主张的“百花齐放,百家争鸣”是提倡在文学艺术工作和科学研究工作中有独立思考的自由,有辩论的自由,有创作和批评的自由,有发表自己的意见、坚持自己的意见和保留自己的意见的自由[1]。

我们所主张的自由,是同资产阶级民主主义所主张的自由不同的。资产阶级所主张的自由,只是少数人的自由,劳动人民是没有份或者很少有份的,资产阶级对劳动人民是实行专政的。现在美国的好战分子标榜什么“自由世界”,在那个“世界”里,好战分子反动派有一切自由,而卢森堡夫妇却被处以死刑,因为他们主张和平。我们是主张不许反革命分子有自由的,我们主张对反革命分子一定要实行专政。但是在人民内部,我们主张一定要有民主自由。这是一条政治界线,政治上必须分清敌我。

我们所主张的“百花齐放,百家争鸣”,是人民内部的自由。我们主张随着人民政权的巩固而扩大这种自由。

人民内部是一致的又是不一致的。我国已经有了宪法,遵守宪法是人民的义务,这就是人民内部的一致性。这就是说,爱祖国,拥护社会主义,是全国人民都应该一致的。但是,人民内部也有不一致的地方,在思想上有唯物主义和唯心主义的分别,这种分别,在阶级还存在的时候会有,在阶级消灭以后还会有,一直到共产主义社会还会有。在阶级还存在的时候,唯物主义和唯心主义之间的矛盾表现为阶级的矛盾;在阶级消灭以后,只要还存在着主观和客观的矛盾,还存在着先进和落后的矛盾,还存在着社会生产力和生产关系的矛盾,那么,唯物主义和唯心主义的矛盾在社会主义社会和共产主义社会中也还将存在。唯物主义和唯心主义之间,是有斗争的,而且这种斗争将身长期的。共产党人是辩证唯物主义者,当然主张宣传唯物主义,反对唯心主义,这是不可动摇的。但是,正因为是辩证唯物主义者,正因为了解了社会发展的规律,所以共产党人主张必须把人民内部的思想斗争同对反革命分子的斗争严格地区别开来。在人民内部,不但有宣传唯物主义的自由,也有宣传唯心主义的自由。只要不是反革命分子,不管是宣传唯物主义或者是宣传唯心主义,都是有自由的。两者之间的辩论,也是自由的[2]。这是人民内部的思想斗争,同对反革命分子所进行的斗争是不同的。对反革命,应该镇压,应该打倒。对人民内部的唯心主义的落后思想,应该进行斗争,这个斗争也是尖锐的,但这个斗争是从团结出发的,是为了克服落后,加强团结。对于思想问题,想用行政命令的办法来解决,是不会有效的。只有经过公开辩论,唯物主义的思想才能一步步克服唯心主义的思想。

在艺术性质的问题上,在学术性质的问题上,在技术性质的问题上,也会有意见的不同。这种意见上的不同,是完全容许的。在这类性质的问题上,发表不同的意见,进行辩论,进行批评和反批评,当然是自由的。

总而言之,我们主张政治上必须分清敌我,我们又主张人民内部一定要有自由。“百花齐放,百家争鸣”,是人民内部的自由在文艺工作和科学工作领域中的表现。

我们现在已经完全有条件来实行“百花齐放,百家争鸣”的政策了。

我们现在的情形是怎样呢?

第一,社会主义改造在全国基本地区内已在各方面取得决定性的胜利,剥削制度将在今后几年内在这些地区被消灭。一切原有的剥削者将被改造成为自食其力的劳动者。我国即将成为没有剥削阶级的社会主义国家。

第二,知识界的政治思想状况已经有了根本的变化,并且正在发生更进一步的根本变化。这在周恩来同志关于知识分子问题的报告中已经说得很详细。在这里,让我略为回顾一下最近的一次斗争。

最近的一次斗争,是反对资产阶级唯心主义思想的斗争。在这次斗争中,广大的知识分子表现得很好,进步很大。

在这个斗争中,我们学术界的主要锋芒,集中在对胡适的批判,他不仅思想上是唯心主义者,而且政治上是反动的。此外,还对文艺界中的个人主义的资产阶级思想等等进行了批判。现在大家都可以看得见,这种斗争对于推动社会主义改造的发展是必要的,因而这个斗争是正确的。

在这个斗争中,中共中央曾经指示,必须坚决反对阻碍开展学术批评和讨论的思想,这些思想表现为:对资产阶级“名人”的偶像崇拜,认为他们是“权威”,不能批评;对青年的马克思主义的学术工作者采取资产阶级贵族老爷的态度,对他们实行压制;某些党员以“权威”自居,不许别人批评自己,不进行自我批评;某些党员因为“怕破坏统一战线”,“怕影响团结”,不敢批评别人;某些党员因为私人友情或情面的关系,对别人的错误不去批评,甚至加以掩护。中共中央指出,必须坚持这样的原则:在学术批评和讨论中,任何人都不能有什么特权;以“权威”自居,压制批评,或者对资产阶级错误思想熟视无睹,采取自由主义甚至投降主义的态度,都是不对的。同时,中共中央又指示,学术批评和讨论,应当是说理的,实事求是的。这就是说,应当提倡建立在科学基础上的尖锐的学术论争。批评和讨论应当以研究工作为基础,反对采取简单、粗暴的态度。应当采取自由讨论的方法,反对采取行政命令的方法。应当容许被批评者进行反批评,而不是压制这种反批评。应当容许持有不同意见的少数人保留自己的意见,而不是实行少数服从多数的原则。对于在学术问题上犯了错误的人,经过批评和讨论后,如果不愿意发表文章检讨自己的错误,不一定要他写检讨的文章。在学术界,对于某一学术问题已经做了结论之后,如果又发生不同的意见,仍然容许讨论。中共中央又指示:在进行对资产阶级错误思想的批判和学术问题的批评和讨论时,应当坚持党的统一战线政策和团结改造知识分子的政策。应当把在思想上坚持资产阶级错误观点的人,和虽有这种错误观点但是倾向于唯物主义的人区别开来,分别对待。应当分清政治上的反革命分子和学术思想上犯错误的人。学术思想上有严重的资产阶级错误观点的学术工作者,只要政治上不是反革命分子,都应当保障他们获得适合于他们的工作岗位,保障他们有可能继续进行对于社会有用的研究,尊重和发挥他们对社会有用的专长,并将这种专长传授给青年,同时鼓励他们积极参加学术的批评和讨论,实行自我改造。

这些指示,保证了我们在反对资产阶级唯心主义思想和开展学术批评的工作中不犯重大错误。现在检查起来,这个斗争基本上是做得对的,在分寸的掌握上也大体是对的。但错误和缺点还是有的。例如俞平伯先生,他政治上是好人,只是犯了在文艺工作中学术思想上的错误。对他在学术思想上的错误加以批判是必要的,当时确有一些批判俞先生的文章是写得好的。但是有一些文章则写得差一些,缺乏充分的说服力量,语调也过分激烈了一些。至于有人说他把古籍垄断起来,则是并无根据的说法。这种情况,我要在这里解释清楚。

我们回顾一下,再看现在。那么,现在的情形已经同过去有很大的不同了,如果在一两年前,资产阶级唯心主义还有很大的市场,很多知识分子不能辨别什么是唯物主义思想,什么是唯心主义思想,不知道资产阶级唯心主义思想对社会主义事业有什么危害,那么,今天我们思想界已经大有进步。

现在,有些部门对胡适的反动思想的批判工作的原定计划还没有做完,肃清暗藏的反革命分子的工作也没有做完。凡是没有做完的,应该贯彻进行到底,不可以半途而废。因为只有把这些工作做好了,才能为今后的很多工作创造出有利的条件。在这个斗争中还必须再三强调团结占全体人数百分之九十几的好人,包括落后的分子在内,共同对反革命分子进行斗争。

第三,我们还有敌人,国内也还有阶级斗争,但是敌人特别是国内的敌人已经大大削弱了。

敌人是谁呢?在国外,有以美国好战分子为首的帝国主义侵略势力,在国内,有盘踞台湾的蒋介石集团,还有其他残余的反革命分子。这些就是我们的敌人:对这些敌人,仍然必须继续坚决斗争,不能松懈。

第四,全国人民政治上思想上的一致性大大增强,而且还在继续增强之中。

正是估计到这样的情况,所以中国共产党中央现在着重提出了“百花齐放,百家争鸣”的政策,就是要我们在文艺工作和科学工作方面,也把一切积极因素都调动起来,更好地为人民服务,为繁荣我国的文学艺术而努力,为使我国的科学工作赶上世界先进水平而努力。

现在,我们许多自然科学工作者正在政府领导之下草拟关于自然科学发展的十二年的规划,哲学和社会科学的十二年发展规划也正在拟定的过程中。制定和实现这些规划,是我们科学界的光荣任务。贯彻“百家争鸣”的方针,是完成这个任务的一个重要保证。

二、加强团结

“百花齐放,百家争鸣”,既是为了动员一切积极因素,所以又是一个加强团结的政策。在什么基础上的团结?在爱国主义的基础上,在社会主义的基础上。团结起来干什么?建设社会主义的新中国,并且同内外敌人作斗争。

有两种不同的团结。一种是机械服从的团结,一种是自觉自愿的团结。我们所要的,是自觉自愿的团结。

我们的文艺界科学界是不是团结的呢?是团结的。同中华人民共和国开始建立的时候比较起来,文艺界和科学界在团结方面是大有进步了。社会改革的工作和思想改造的工作,是我们所以能有今天这样的坚固团结的原因,否认或忽视这一点是不对的。但这决不是说,我们的团结已经十全十美了。团结方面还有缺点。

缺点在哪里?首先在于有些共产党员忘记了毛泽东同志的指示,忘记了宗派主义的害处。工作中的成绩,往往会使一些人冲昏头脑,居功自傲的情绪就会发展起来,宗派主义的情绪就会发展起来。

毛泽东同志在一九四二年,在《整顿党的作风》一文中说:

“我们的许多同志,喜欢对党外人员妄自尊大,看人家不起,藐视人家,而不愿尊重人家,不愿了解人家的长处。这就是宗派主义的倾向。这些同志,读了几本马克思主义的书籍之后,不是更谦虚,而是更骄傲了,总是说人家不行,而不知自己实在是一知半解。我们的同志必须懂得一条真理:共产党员和党外人员相比较,无论何时都是占少数。假定一百个人中有一个共产党员,全中国四亿五千万人中就有四百五十万共产党员。即使达到这样大的数目,共产党员也还是只占百分之一,百分之九十九都是非党员。我们有什么理由不和非党人员合作呢?对于一切愿意同我们合作以及可能同我们合作的人,我们只有同他们合作的义务,绝无排斥他们的权利。一部分党员却不懂得这个道理,看不起愿意同我们合作的人,甚至排斥他们。这是没有任何根据的。马克思、恩格斯、列宁、斯大林给了我们这样的根据么?没有。相反地,他们总是谆谆告诫我们,要密切联系群众,而不要脱离群众。中国共产党中央给了我们这个根据么?没有。中央的一切决议案中,没有一个决议说是我们可以脱离群众使自己孤立起来。相反地,中央总是叫我们密切联系群众,而不要脱离群众。所以,一切脱离群众的行为,并没有任何的根据,只是我们一部分同志自己造出来的宗派主义思想在那里作怪。因为这种宗派主义在一部分同志中还很严重,还在障碍党的路线的实行,所以我们要针对这个问题在党内进行广大的教育。首先要使我们的干部真正懂得这个问题的严重性,使他们懂得共产党员如果不同党外干部、党外人员互相联合,敌人就一定不能打倒,革命的目的就一定不能达到。”(《毛泽东选集》第三卷第八二七――八二八页)

大家都知道,几年以来,我们在文艺界科学界中,曾在党内进行了几次反宗派主义的斗争。这种斗争,在卫生工作部门中,在自然科学研究部门中,在文学艺术工作部门中,在社会科学工作部门中,都曾经进行过。我们还要继续进行这种斗争,并且号召在文艺界和科学界工作的党员,都起来注意克服宗派主义。

在斗争过程中,我们摸索出了几条经验,现在要来说一说:

(一)大家都知道,自然科学包括医学在内是没有阶极性的,它们有自己的发展规律。它们同社会制度的关系,仅仅在于:在不好的社会制度之下,这些科学要发展得慢些,在较好的社会制度下就能发展得快些。这些本来是在理论上早已解决了的问题。因此,在某一种医学学说上,生物学或其他自然科学的学说上,贴上什么“封建”、“资本主义”、“社会主义”、“无产阶级”、“资产阶级”之类的阶级标签,例如说什么“中医是封建医,西医是资本主义医”,“巴甫洛夫的学说是社会主义的”,“米丘林的学说是社会主义的”,“孟德尔一摩尔根的遗传学是资本主义的”之类,就是错误的。我们切勿相信。犯这种错误的人,有的是因为宗派主义的思想,有的却因为要强调学习苏联的先进科学而强调得不恰当,不自觉地犯这种错误的。对于这种种不同的情况,都要分别对待,不能一概而论。

在指出上述错误的同时,我们也要指出另一种错误。这种错误就是否认巴甫洛夫学说和米丘林学说是重要的学说。犯这种错误的人,又有不同的出发点。有的是因为政治上有反苏情绪,因而连苏联的科学成就也要加以否认。有的是因为学派不同,不能心服。前者是政治观点问题,后者是学术思想问题,也要不同对待,不能一概而论。

(二)对于文学艺术工作,党只有一个要求,就是“为工农兵服务”,今天来说,也就是为包括知识分子在内的一切劳动人民服务。社会主义现实主义,我们认为是最好的创作方法,但并不是唯一的创作方法;在为工农兵服务的前提下,任何作家可以用任何自己认为最好的方法来创作,互相竞赛。题材问题,党从未加以限制。只许写工农兵题材,只许写新社会,只许写新人物等等,这种限制是不对的。文艺既然要为工农兵服务,当然要歌颂新社会和正面人物,同时也要批评旧社会和反面人物,要歌颂进步,同时要批评落后,所以,文艺题材应该非常宽广。在文艺作品里出现的,不但可以有世界上存在着的和历史上存在过的东西,也可以有天上的仙人、会说话的禽兽等等世界上所没有的东西。文艺作品可以写正面人物和新社会,也可以写反面人物和旧社会,而且,没有旧社会就难以衬托出新社会,没有反面人物也难以衬托出正面人物。因此,关于题材问题的清规戒律,只会把文艺工作窒息,使公式主义和低级趣味发展起来,是有害无益的。至于艺术特征问题,典型创造问题等,应该由文艺工作者自由讨论,可以容许各种不同的见解,并在自由讨论中逐渐达到一致。

文艺界已经有了戏剧方面实行“百花齐放,推陈出新”的经验。这是很宝贵的经验。现在的问题是把“百花齐放”的政策推行到一切文学艺术部门去。

(三)在哲学和社会科学领域中,工作成绩是大的。但正因为如此,宗派主义的危险也就大了。如果不及时注意,可能发生思想僵化的严重后果。建国以来,在广大知识分子中宣传马克思列宁主义,进行思想改造运动,进行反对资产阶级唯心主义的斗争和肃清暗藏的反革命分子等工作,都是对的,必要的,而且是有成绩的。但是,还应该看到阴暗面。有一些党员,产生了把哲学和社会科学的学术工作垄断起来的思想,自以为是,看不见甚至忘记了别人的长处,看不见别人的进步,听不得批评的意见,自己永远以先生自居,把别人看做是永远只配当自己的学生,看做永远只能是个唯心主义者或资产阶级学者。这就非常危险了。这样下去,个人就有堕落的危险,哲学和社会科学的事业就会死气沉沉,停滞不前。这些同志应该赶快停止陶醉,放谦虚些,多听些别人的批评,多做些学问,多向党外人士请教,同他们好好合作,以免哲学和社会科学的事业受到损失。

鉴于建国以来已经将要七年,虽然还有一些人坚持唯心主义的思想,坚持资产阶级的思想,但是,很多人已经有了很大进步。应该考虑在哲学和社会科学的研究工作和教育工作中,依照情况,逐步改组力量,改变有些原来是错误的和原来并不错误但现在已经过了时的制度和办法,以便动员一切积极因素,发展我国的哲学和社会科学事业。哲学和社会科学是极重要的科学部门,所以一定要把工作做好。

这里要附带谈谈近代史问题。近代史是社会科学中极其重要的部门,但是近年来成绩不多。据说,大家在等待中共中央编出一本党史教科书来,然后根据党史教科书来写各种近代史。现在请你们不要等待了。中共中央不准备编党史教科书,只准备陆续出版党的大事记和文件汇编。我们的近代史学工作者,应当独立地研究近代史中的各种问题。在近代史的研究中,也应该采取百家争鸣的政策,不应该采取别的政策。

去掉宗派主义,团结一切愿意合作或可能合作的人;去掉垄断想法,去掉过多的清规戒律,实行“百花齐放,百家争鸣”的政策;不要专为自己为本部门本单位的利益打算,多多帮助别人,帮助别部门别单位;去掉骄傲自大,自以为是,实行谦虚谨慎,尊重别人。这样,就可以去掉我们过去团结中的缺点,大大地加强团结。

我们希望党外的文艺家和科学家也来注意加强团结的问题。周恩来同志在《关干知识分子问题的报告》中有一段话,我要在这里复述一遍。

“在一部分知识分子同我们党之间,还存在着某种隔膜。我们必须主动地努力消除这种隔膜。但是这种隔膜常常是从两方面来的:一方面是由于我们的同志没有去接近他们,了解他们;而另一方面,却是由于一部分知识分子对于社会主义采取了保留态度甚至反对态度。在我们的企业、学校、机关里,在社会上,都还有这样的知识分子:他们在共产党和国民党之间、中国人民和帝国主义之间不分敌我;他们不满意党和人民政府的政策和措施,留恋资本主义甚至留恋封建主义;他们反对苏联,不愿意学习苏联;他们拒绝学习马克思列宁主义,并且诋毁马克思列宁主义;他们轻视劳动,轻视劳动人民,轻视劳动人民出身的干部,不愿意同工人农民和工农干部接近;他们不愿意看见新生力量的生长,认为进步分子是投机;他们不但常常在知识分子和党之间制造纠纷和对立,而且也在知识分子中间制造纠纷和对立;他们妄自尊大,自以为天下第一,不能够接受任何人的领导和任何人的批评;他们否认人民的利益、社会的利益,看一切问题都从个人的利益出发,合乎自己利益的就赞成,不合乎自己利益的就反对。当然,所有这些错误一应俱全的人,在现在的知识分子中是很少数;但是有上述一种或者几种错误的人,就不是很少数。不但落后分子,就是一部分中间分子,也常有以上所说的某一些错误观点。胸怀狭窄、高傲自大、看问题从个人的利益出发的毛病,在进步分子中也还不少。这样的知识分子如果不改变立场,即使我们努力同他们接近,他们同我们之间也还是会有隔膜的。”

这就是说,为了加强团结,要求共产党员的努力,也要求非共产党员的努力。

个人主义,门户之见,在文艺界科学界中也是存在的。新老科学工作者之间的隔膜,也是存在的。这些不好的东西都应该去掉。我们相信一定能够去掉的。只要共产党员做出榜样来同非党员一起努力,问题的解决是会顺利的。

三、批评问题和学习问题

“百花齐放,百家争鸣”,对批评工作来说,就是批评的自由和反批评的自由。

现在的批评,有的令人害怕。如果不令人害怕,就又往往淡而无味。这个问题该怎样解决呢?

批评有两种。一种是对敌人的批评,所谓“一棍子打死”的批评,或打击式的批评。另外一种是对好人的批评,这是善意的同志式的批评,是从团结出发,经过斗争,来达到团结的目的的。这种批评,必需顾全大局,采取多说道理,与人为善的态度,而不能用《阿Q正传》中假洋鬼子的“不准革命”的态度。

不论前一种批评或后一种批评,都要依靠研究。不是看到一点就写,而是看了很多想了很多才写。

有一种想法是错误的,就是认为批评一定是打击的。在延安时期有人用“杂文”和别的形式来攻击党和人民政权,这种人现在也还有,对于这种对党和人民政府持敌对态度的人报之以打击,当然是应该的。但如果在人民内部也用这种打击的办法,就是错误的了。

对好人的批评,我想介绍四篇文章:1.毛泽东:《改造我们的学习》2.毛泽东:《整顿党的作风》3.毛泽东:《反对党八股》4.《人民日报》:《关于无产阶级专政的历史经验》。前三篇,是对王明、博古的批评,这两人在当时是犯了重大错误的同志;后一篇是对斯大林同志的批评,斯大林是既有大功劳,又有大错误,而功劳多于错误的同志。看了这些批评,就会知道,可以有这样的批评,既不是过火的打击,也不是不痛不痒,而能使很多人得益的批评。可以看的出,写这样的批评,是经过了怎样的刻苦研究工作。这种批评,正是我们所应该提倡的。

攀登科学和艺术的高峰是很困难的工作。所以困难,因为这里只能实事求是,不能有一点调皮。我们应该给科学家和艺术家以充分的支持。凡是老老实实做工作的科学家和文艺家,在我们这个社会制度之下,是只应受到支持,不应受到打击的。独立思考,进行复杂的创造性的劳动,完全不犯错误是不可能的。第一,单是知识不足,有时就会使人作出错误的判断。第二,把本来是正确的东西夸张了,看得太绝对了,也会犯错误。列宁说过:“只要向前再多走一小步,–看来仿佛依然是向同一方向前进的一小步,――真理便会变成错误”。(《共产主义运动中的“左派”幼稚病》第十章)有一些人,对进步的事物很拥护,只是太性急了一些,因而犯了错误,常常是属于这种性质。第三,有些人犯的是唯心主义的错误,但是犯唯心主义的错误也并不是什么稀奇的事情,因为“人的认识并不是直线(也不是循着直线进行的),而是那无限地近似于螺旋形的曲线。这曲线的任何一个断片、截片、小片,都可以转化(片面地转化)为独立的、完整的直线,而这一直线(如果只看见树木而不看见森林)就会导引到泥坑,导引到僧侣主义(在那里统治阶级的阶级利益把它巩固起来)”。(列宁:《黑格尔〈逻辑学〉一书摘要》第二一九页)在认识发展的过程中,思想的僵化,孤立地看问题(所谓“钻牛角尖”)和片面地看问题,都会引导到唯心主义的错误。

好人犯错误的事是常有的。完全不犯错误的人在世界上是没有的。应该把这种错误同反革命的言论严格区别开来。对这种错误的批评只应该是与人为善的,只应该是平心静气来说道理的,只应该是顾全大局,从团结出发达到团结的目的的。对于犯了错误的人,应该积极帮助他改正错误。受到批评的人也根本不用害怕。

错误是容易犯的,但是错误必须要改正得愈快愈好,坚持错误就会造成很大的损失。对被批评的人来说,真理是应该坚持的,别人批评得不对,可以表示不同的意见;但错误是应该改正的,别人批评得对,应该虚心接受。公开承认错误,揭露错误的原因,分析产生错误的环境,仔细讨论改正错误的方法,这对于一个政党来说,是郑重的党的标志,对于个人来说,也是实事求是的标志。犯了错误,接受批评,就是接受别人对自己的帮助,这对于自己,对于我国科学事业和文学艺术事业的发展是只会有好处,不会有什么坏处。

学习方面,要继续在自愿的基础之上组织对马克思、列宁主义的学习,同时,要广泛地学习知识,对古今中外,对朋友,对敌人,都要批判地学习。

学习马克思列宁主义,在广大的知识分子中已经成为热潮,这是一种好现象。马克思列宁主义的科学理论,是人类的最高智慧,是放之四海而皆准的真理。从前有人以为,马克思列宁主义是不适用于中国的,这种说法已经完全破产了。没有马克思列宁主义的科学理论作为指导,我国的革命胜利是不能设想的,我国的各种建设,包括科学和文化的建设在内,要取得巨大的成就和迅速的发展,也是不可设想的。

但是,在学习马克思列宁主义这个工作中,也有许多缺点和错误,主要的是教条主义的倾向。

十五年前,即一九四一年五月,毛泽东同志写了《改造我们的学习》,后来,一九四二年二月,又写了《整顿党的作风》和《反对党八股》。这三篇文章,是延安整风运动的基本文件。延安整风运动,是反对主观主义,主要地反对教条主义的一个思想运动。这是五四运动以后我国一次最伟大的马克思主义思想运动。教条主义,在我国民主革命时期中几乎断送了我国的革命,它是马克思列宁主义的大敌。这个痛苦的经验我们要牢牢记住。我们还必须深深警惕,如果用教条主义的态度来研究学问,如果用教条主义的态度来领导文艺工作和科学研究工作,那是一定要失败的,因为这种态度是完全违反马克思列宁主义的实事求是的态度的。

我愿意趁这个机会,向我们的文艺家、科学家,郑重介绍毛泽东同志的《改造我们的学习》、《整顿党的作风》、《反对党八股》三篇文章,和中共中央六届七中全会《关于若干历史问题的决议》。我希望每个文艺工作者和科学工作者,都把这几篇文件精读几遍,以便了解教条主义同马克思列宁主义的分别何在,为什么教条主义是马克思列宁主义的大敌,为什么必须坚决地同教条主义进行斗争。

我们要广泛地学习知识。

我国有很多的医学、农学、哲学、历史学、文学、戏剧、绘画、音乐等等的遗产,应该认真学习,批判地加以接受。这方面的工作不是做得太多,而是做得太少,不够认真,轻视民族遗产的思想还存在,在有些部门还是很严重。

接受些什么遗产和怎样接受遗产呢?

如果要从现在的观点看来十全十美的东西,才作为遗产来接受,那么,就没有什么东西可以接受的了。相反,如果无批判地接受文化遗产,这便成了“国粹主义”了。

对我国的文化遗产,我们提议采取这样的方针:要细心地选择、保护和发展它的一切有益成分,同时要老老实实地批判它的错误和缺点。现在,我们的工作在两个方面都有缺点。对我国文化遗产中的有益成分,有粗心大意一笔抹煞的倾向。这是当前主要的倾向。昆剧《十五贯》的演出,告诉了我们,那种认为昆剧里没有有益成分的说法是错误的,戏剧如此,其他文艺部门和科学研究部门是否也有类似的现象呢?应该说是有的。这种现象是应该改正的。同时,我们也发现了对文化遗产的缺点错误不加批判,或者加以粉饰的现象,这不是老老实实的态度,所以也是应该改正的。

文艺工作者和科学工作者,要向人民去学习。人民的智慧是无穷无尽的,人民中间有很多宝藏还没有被发现,或者发现了还没有好好利用。举医学为例来说,从前,针灸、气功疗法等都是被看不起的,现在才被看得起了。可是,像正骨、推拿、草药等民间的医疗方法,现在还没有引起足够的重视和注意。再举音乐和绘画为例来说,这两个部门对民族遗产是不够重视的。凡是有这种情况的,都应该改正过来。从民间来的东西,常常是不系统化的,没有从理论上加以说明的朴素的东西,有的还带着所谓“江湖气”,带着迷信的色彩等等。这是不足为奇的。科学工作者和文艺工作者的任务,不是去鄙视这些东西,而是要去学习,细心选择、保护和发展它们的有益成分,使之成为科学的东西。

我们要有民族自尊心,我们决不能做民族虚无主义者。我们反对所谓“全盘西化”的错误主张。但这次不是说我们应该自大,拒绝学习外国的好东西。我国还是一个很落后的国家,我们要花很大的努力向外国学习许多东西,我们的国家才能富强。民族自大,无论在什么情况下都是不对的。

我们应该向苏联学习,向人民民主国家学习,向世界各国人民学习。

向苏联学习,这是正确的口号。我们已经学了一些,今后还有许多应当学习。苏联是世界上第一个社会主义国家,世界和平民主阵营的领袖,它的工业发展速度最快,对社会主义建设有丰富的经验,在科学方面也已经有不少重要部门赶上和超过了最先进的资本主义国家。这样的国家,这样的人民,当然值得我们好好学习。不向苏联学习,是根本错误的。

但是,在学习苏联的时候,我们的学习方法必须不是教条主义的机械搬运,而是要结合我国的实际情况。这一点必须引起注意。否则,也会使我们的工作受到损失。

除了向苏联学习以外,还要向各人民民主国家学习。各人民民主国家,都有自己的长处,许多国家在工业和科学技术方面比我国进步,也有些国家在其他方面比我国进步,这些都是值得学习的。自高自大是不应该的。

苏联和人民民主国家以外的世界各国的人民,他们是在不同的社会制度和国家制度之下。社会制度国家制度会有变化,但人民却会永远生存和发展下去。他们所以能够生存和发展,都不是没有原因的。凡是他们的长处,不论属于文艺科学的,属于风俗习惯的,或者属于其他种类的,我们都应该批判地加以学习。这里也不应该自高自大。

除了朋友之外,我们也要向敌人学习,不是学习他们的反动的制度,而是学习他们的管理万法和科学技术中的有价值的东西。这种学习,目的是加速我国的社会主义建设的发展,以便更有力量来防止侵略和保卫世界和亚洲的和平。

还要说一说党员应该向非党员学习知识的问题。我们不少党员是在知识上有缺陷的。非党员缺少马列主义的基本知识,但对于许多热心学习马克思列宁主义的非党员的朋友来说,那是过去的事或者将要过去的事了。他们之中很多的人已经把这个缺陷补足了,或者将要补足了。这个问题已经提出了,也已经在解决之中了。现在要提出的问题,是党员应该注意补足自己的缺陷了。办法只有老老实实向懂得的人去请教,去学习。非党员的知识分子,绝大部分学习得很努力。共产党员向他们学习各种知识的时候,不应落后。这也是学习问题里的重要的一条。

“百花齐放,百家争鸣”这个政策提出来之后,有许多问题会逐步跟着提出来,要求解决。希望大家考虑这方面的问题。今天只讲些原则问题,请大家加以指正。

根据《陆定一文集》刊印

* 这是陆定一于一九五六年五月二十六日在怀仁堂的讲话。在此之前,四月二十八日,毛泽东在中共中央政治局扩大会议上说,艺术问题上的“百花齐放”,学术问题上的“百家争鸣”,应该成为我国发展科学、繁荣文学艺术的方针。中共中央赞同毛泽东的意见,确定“百花齐放,百家争鸣”为党的科学和文化工作的方针。五月二十六日中共中央宣传部举行报告会,陆定一作题为《百花齐放,百家争鸣》的讲话,对中共中央这个方针作了全面的阐述。六月七日,陆定一将此讲话送给毛泽东审阅,他在写给毛泽东的信中说:“因为有二百个科学家集中北京起草科学规划,李富春提议向他们讲一次百花齐放,百家争鸣的政策。少奇同志指定我去讲,讲稿起草后,中宣部讨论了两次,后又根据恩来同志的意见作了修改,并作了‘此件很好’的批语。”六月十三日,这篇讲话在《人民日报》上发表。

注释

[1] 几位科学家来信,认为应该防止对百家争鸣的政策在认识上发生偏向。现在把科学出版社杨肇先生的来信摘要发表在这里。

扬先生的信说:

“百家争鸣的方针毫无疑问是完全正确的。但在实际上对这一方针的认识似乎要防止很可能有的某些不正确的偏向。

“顾名思义,争鸣的应当是多少可以称为‘家’的。可是有一些人往往安于浅尝,偶有一‘得’,便沾沾自喜,不肯深入钻研,不肯脚踏实地去做学术工夫,以致陷入泥坑而不知返,反而坚持错误,在真理面前还不肯低头,最显著的例子,就是经常有不少的人不肯相信(其实是不肯艰苦学习)已经公认为证明了的为什么用圆规和直尺三等分角是不可能的,为什么永动机是不可能的,而偏偏要白费时间和脑力去发现奇迹。这种把精神智慧消耗于毫无意义的、明明注定要失败的企图上的人,为数恐不在少。其中有些人恐不免是由于要想隔夜成‘家’,一‘鸣’惊人,不愿去走崎岖的学习途径。如果向他们建议去下工夫进行学习已有的结论,根据经验,很可能他的答复会轻松地说,那是资产阶级学者的理论,是‘唯心’的!

“与上面所说的情形相仿,经验告诉我们:有些人,尤其是工程师和技术工作者,由于业务上的客观情况,不大有机会去接触相关的文献,因此就不努力去查文献或向人请教,而径自苦心孤诣地去研究一个问题,并且得出了正确的结果,可是很不幸,他还不知道早已有人甚至在几十年前就已经作好了。

“要真正成‘家’,要善‘鸣’,是需要经过一段长时期艰苦钻研和实践的历程的。这一点对百家争鸣起码应该具备的正确知识,似乎有必要着重予以指出。否则,今后各研究单位、各高等学校将会收到很多‘家’各‘鸣’其‘鸣’的发现或发明,还得花费不少宝贵时间予以审阅,还得小心翼翼地耐烦地说明其不可能,或指出其已有前人作过。这样,作者的精力固然白费了,审查人的精力也是白费的。但如果对百家争鸣具有正确的认识,至少可以减少精力的浪费,进一步还可化无用为有用。”

杨先生和好几位别的科学家关于防止对“百家争鸣”发生误解的意见,是经验之谈,是有道理的。这种误解,这种偏向,是应该防止的。――作者

[2] 有人以为,在我国不应该有宣传唯心主义的自由。也有人以为,既然有宣传唯心主义的自由,那么唯心主义者就应该有无限的宣传自由。这些看法,都是出于误解。以宗教为例来说,在我国,各种宗教都有自己的教堂、寺庙、刊物、出版机关,还有训练传教干部的学校,这些都是自由的而且受到国家的保护的。但是,为了有利于无神论者和有神论者之间的团结,避免发生冲突起见,无神论者不到教堂、寺庙里去做反宗教宣传,有神论者不在教堂、寺庙以外的公共场所进行宗教宣传,这里,无神论者和有神论者双方在宣传上的自由又是有限度的。――`作者

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s