Notice of 16 May

Posted on Updated on

All Central bureaus, all provincial, municipal and regional Party Committees, all Central ministries and commissions, all Party organizations and Party Committees in departments of State organs and People’s organizations, the People’s Liberation Army General Political Department

The Centre has decided to revoke the “Outline of the Report of the Five-Person Cultural Revolution Group concerning the Present Academic Discussion” it transmitted on 12 February 1966, to abolish the original “Five-Person Cultural Revolution Group” and its office bodies, and to re-establish the Small Cultural Revolution Group, subordinate to the Standing Committee of the Politburo. The report Outline of the so-called “Group of Five” is fundamentally mistaken, it violates the line of the Socialist Cultural Revolution put forward by the Centre and Comrade Mao Zedong, and violates the guiding principles of the 10th Plenum of the 8th Party Congress concerning the issue of class and class struggle in Socialist societies. This Outline feigns compliance with but actively resists this Cultural Revolution that Comrade Mao Zedong himself leads and initiated, and the instructions concerning criticising Wu Han that Comrade Mao Zedong gave at the Central Work Conference of September and October 1965 (i.e. at a meeting of the Politburo Standing Committee where all responsible comrades of Central bureaus participated).

The report Outline of the so-called “Group of Five” in fact is only a report Outline of Peng Zhen individually, Peng Zhen drafted it according to his own opinions, avoiding the “Group of Five” member, Comrade Kang Sheng and other comrades. In dealing with such a document on major issues that involve the entire picture of the Socialist revolution, Peng Zhen essentially did not discuss or consult matters within the “Group of Five”, he did not solicit opinions from any local Party Committee, he did not explain that, as an official Centre document, it was necessary to submit it to the Centre for inspection, and certainly did not obtain the agreement of the Central Committee Chairman, Comrade Mao Zedong, he adopted extremely improper means, was arbitrary and imperious, he abused his powers, he stole the name of the Centre to hastily issue it to the entire Party.

The main errors of this Outline are the following:

(1) This Outline stands on a bourgeois viewpoint, it uses bourgeois worldviews to deal with the situation and nature of present academic criticism, and fundamentally reversed the relationship between the enemy and ourselves.

Our country is currently facing the magnificent high tide of the proletarian Cultural Revolution. This high tide powerfully washes over the vestiges of the bourgeoisie and feudalism, and all remaining degenerate ideological and cultural battlefields. This Outline does not inspire the entire Party to freely mobilize the cultural soldiers among the worker and peasant masses and the bourgeoisie to continue their charge ahead, but it strives to pull this movement to the right. This Outline uses confused, self-contradictory and false expressions to obfuscate the acute class struggle on the present cultural and ideological front, it especially obfuscates the fact that the objective of this great struggle is the criticism of Wu Han and a large batch of other anti_-Party and anti-Socialist bourgeois representatives (there is a batch of these bourgeois representatives in the Centre, all Centre organs, all provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions). This Outline does not mention the point raised again and again by Chairman Mao that the crucial point of Wu Han’s “Hai Rui Dismissed from Office” is the question of dismissal from office, it conceals the serious political essence of this struggle.

(2) This Outline goes against the basic Marxist viewpoint that all class struggle is political struggle. When newspapers and periodicals just began to touch upon the political problems of Wu Han’s “Hai Rui Dismissed from Office”, the writers of the Outline actually put forward that “discussion in newspapers and periodicals must not be limited to political questions, we must fully unfold and discuss questions involving all sorts of academic theory.” They again declared on various occasions that in judging Wu Han, it was not permitted to talk about the crucial question, it was not permitted to talk about the question of the removal from office of the rightist opportunists at the 1959 Lushan Conference, it was not permitted to talk about the problem of Wu Han and others opposing the Party and opposing Socialism. Comrade Mao Zedong regularly tells us that the ideological struggle with the bourgeoisie is a long-term class struggle, it is not something that can hastily be resolved by coming to a political conclusion. Peng Zhen wilfully started rumours, he told many people that the Chairman believed that a political conclusion about the judgment of Wu Han could be reached in two months. He also said that political questions would be discussed again after two months. His objective was that he aimed to bring the political struggle in the cultural area into a so-called “pure academic” discussion, as regularly propagated by the bourgeoisie. It is very clear that this opposes giving prominence to proletarian politics, and aims to give prominence to bourgeois politics.

(3) The Outline especially stresses the so-called “liberation”, but it uses hugely fraudulent methods to fundamentally distort the policy of liberation discussed by Comrade Mao Zedong in his speech at the Party National Propaganda Work Conference of March 1957, it blots out the class content of liberation. It was exactly when discussing this question that Comrade Mao Zedong pointed out: “we will still carry out a long period of ideological struggle with the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. Not understanding this situation and renouncing ideological struggle is mistaken. All mistaken thoughts are poisonous weeds, they are cow ghosts and snake spirits, they should all be criticized, we can absolutely not let them spread freely”. He also said that “liberation means giving a letting go one’s hold to let everyone state their opinions, to ensure that people dare to speak, dare to criticize and dare to dispute.” However, this Outline opposes “liberation” with the proletariat’s exposure of reactionary bourgeois viewpoints. Its so-called liberation is bourgeois liberalization, it only permits the liberation of the bourgeoisie, it does not permit the liberation of the proletariat, it does not permit the proletariat to attack the bourgeoisie, it shields the kind of reactionary bourgeois representatives of the kind of Wu Han. The so-called “liberation” of this Outline is anti-Mao Zedong Thought and suits the needs of the bourgeoisie.

(4) When we began to counterattack the bourgeoisie’s savage assaults, the authors of the Outline put forward that “everyone is equal in the face of the truth”. This slogan is a bourgeois slogan. They use this slogan to protect the bourgeoisie, oppose the proletariat, oppose Marxism-Leninism, oppose Mao Zedong Thought and fundamentally deny the class nature of truth. If in the, struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the struggle between Marxist truths and the fallacies of the bourgeoisie and all exploiting classes,  it is not the East wind that overwhelms the West wind, the West wind will overwhelm the East wind, and any sort of equality will be out of the question. The struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the superstructure, which includes all cultural areas, the proletariat’s continuing to eliminate the bourgeoisie’s representatives that have infiltrated the Communist Party and oppose the Red Flag in the name of the Red Flag, etc., where these fundamental problems are concerned, are we able to permit that there is any equality? A few decades ago, the old Socialist-democratic Party and the Modern Revisionism of a few decades ago never permitted the proletariat to be equal to the bourgeoisie. They fundamentally denied that the millennia of human development are the history of class struggle, they fundamentally denied the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and fundamentally denied the revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, and the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

Conversely, they are the faithful lapdogs of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, they are in league with the bourgeoisie and imperialism, they persist in bourgeois suppression, the ideological system of exploiting the proletariat and the capitalist social system, and they oppose the Marxist-Leninist ideological system and the social system of Socialism. They are a mass of anti-Party and anti-People counterrevolutionaries, their struggle with us is a struggle in which you die and I live, there cannot be the slightest talk of equality. Because of this, our struggle with them also can only be a struggle in which you die and I live, our relationship with them is absolutely not any kind of equal relationship, but it is another relationship of class suppression., it is a relationship in which the proletariat implements despotism or dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, and it cannot be any other relationship, such as a so-called equal relationship, a relationship of peaceful coexistence between the exploited class and the exploiting class, a relationship of virtue and morality, etc.

(5) The Outline says that “We must not only overwhelm the opponent politically, we must also greatly exceed and overwhelm the opponent in academic and professional terms”. This sort of thinking in which no class boundaries are drawn in academia is also very mistaken. The truth that the proletariat grasps in academia, the truth of Marxism-Leninism and the truth of Mao Zedong Thought have already greatly exceeded and overwhelmed the bourgeoisie long ago. The wordings in the Outline reflect that the authors adulate and favour the so-called “academic authority” of the bourgeoisie, and despise and stifle our newly emerging forces in academic circles that represent the proletariat and the struggle.

(6) Chairman Mao regularly says that there can be no construction without destruction. Destruction means criticism, it means the revolution. To destroy, we must stress the truth, stressing the truth is construction, the word destruction comes first, construction is among it. Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought have been established and incessantly developed in the struggle to destroy the bourgeois ideological system. But this Outline stresses that “without construction, it will be impossible to achieve true and thorough destruction”. This, in fact, is a prohibition of the destruction of bourgeois thought, and a prohibition of the construction of proletarian thought, it is diametrically opposed to the thinking of Chairman Mao, it runs counter to the revolutionary struggle of the great destruction of bourgeois ideology on the cultural front, and it is a prohibition of the proletarian revolution.

(7) The Outline puts forward that “we must not arbitrarily overwhelm others with power like a scholar-tyrant”, and “Guard against leftist academic workers marching the path of bourgeois experts and scholar-tyrants”. What are “scholar-tyrants” actually? Who is a “scholar-tyrant”? Does the proletariat not need to be dictators, must it not overwhelm the bourgeoisie? Must proletarian academia not overwhelm and eliminate bourgeois academia? When proletarian academics overwhelm and eliminate bourgeois academics, are they “scholar-tyrants”? The spearhead of the Outline’s opposition is pointed at the proletarian left, which obviously is aimed at putting on this “scholar-tyrant” hat on Marxists-Leninists, and at supporting the true bourgeois scholar-tyrants, by maintaining their tottering monopoly position in the academic area. In fact, those factions within the Party that march the bourgeois path and support bourgeois scholar-tyrants, those bourgeois representatives that have snuck into the Party to protect bourgeois scholar-tyrants, are great Party tyrants who do not read books, do not look at newspapers, do not engage with the masses, have no learning whatsoever, only rely on “arbitrarily overwhelming others” and steal the Party’s name.

(8) The authors of the Outline have ulterior motives, they wilfully muddy the water, they confuse the class alignment, they shift the objectives of the struggle, and put forward that we must conduct “rectification” of persistent leftists”. in this way, they hurriedly throw out the main objective of this Outline, which is the rectification of the proletarian left. They have especially collected leftist materials to seek for all sorts of excuses to attack the left, they also aim to use the name of “rectification” to further attack the left, vainly scheming to disintegrate the left’s teams. They brazenly defy Chairman Mao’s clear instructions that we must protect the left and support the left, and the policy he stressed of establishing and expanding the left’s teams. On the other hand, they confer the title of “persistent leftists” onto the bourgeois representatives, revisionists and traitors who have snuck into the Party, in order to shield them. They use this sort of method in an attempt to support the ambitions of the bourgeois right, and extinguish the dignity of the proletarian left. They are full of hatred for the proletariat, and full of love for the bourgeoisie. This is the idea of bourgeois universal love of the authors of the Outline.

(9) Exactly when a new acute struggle of the proletariat against bourgeois representatives on the ideological front had just started, and many sides and many localities had not yet begun to participate in the struggle, or although they had begun the struggle, the absolute majority of Party Committees did not quite understand the leadership of this magnificent struggle, were not very earnest, and were not yet very capable, the Outline repeatedly stresses that within the struggle, it is necessary that there is so-called “leadership”, that we are “cautious” and “careful”, and we must act “with the approval of relevant leadership organs”, this is all aimed at laying down many restrictions for the proletarian left, putting forward many rules and fetters, constraining the hands and feet of the proletarian left, and setting up layer upon layer of obstacles for the Cultural Revolution. In one sentence, they are hurriedly slamming the brakes, for a counterattack to come. The authors of the Outline utterly hate the articles in which the proletarian left counterattack the “authority” of the bourgeois that have already been published, and they will block those that have not yet been published. They have given a free hand to cow ghosts and snake spirits, letting them out of their cages, and for many years, they have stuffed our newspapers, radio, periodicals, books, teaching materials, plays, literary and artistic works, films, theatre, quyi, fine art, music, dance, etc., they have never advocated that we must be subject to the leadership of the proletariat, they would never approve this. From this contrast, it can be seen in which position the authors of the Outline actually are.

(10) The present struggle is the question of implementing or resisting the path of the Cultural Revolution of Mao Zedong. But the Outline says that “We must, through this struggle and under the guidance of Mao Zedong Thought, open up a path to resolve this question (i.e. “thoroughly implementing the bourgeois thinking in the academic area”. Comrade Mao Zedong’s “On New Democracy”, “Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art”, “Letter to the Yan’an Peking Opera Theatre After Seeing “Driven to Join the Liangshan Rebels”, “On the Question of Correctly Handling Contradictions Among the People”, “Speech at the Chinese Communist Party national Propaganda Work Conference” and other such works have opened up a path for our proletariat on the cultural and ideological front long ago. However, the Outline believes that Mao Zedong Thought has not yet opened up a path for us, and that we must open up a path again. The Outline is an attempt to open up a path that is contrary to Mao Zedong Thought with this banner of “under the guidance of Mao Zedong Thought” as a pretence, this is a path of modern revisionism, and is a bath of bourgeois restoration. In short, this Outline opposes carrying the Socialist revolution through to the end, it opposes the line of the Cultural Revolution of the Party Centre with Comrade Mao Zedong at the head, it attacks proletarian leftists, it shields the bourgeois rightists, and it provides public opinion preparation for a bourgeois restoration. This Outline is the reflection of bourgeois thinking within the Party, it is downright revisionist. Struggling with this revisionist line is absolutely no small matter, but relates to the fate of our Party and our country, it relates to the prospects of our Party and our country, it relates to the future appearance of our Party and our country, and it also relates to the major event of the global revolution.

All levels’ Party Committees must immediately cease the implementation of the “Outline of the Report of the Five-Person Cultural Revolution Group concerning the Present Academic Discussion”. The entire Party must abide by the instructions of Comrade Mao Zedong, hold high the great banner of the proletarian Cultural Revolution, thoroughly expose the bourgeois reactionary viewpoints of those so-called “academic authorities” who oppose the Party and oppose Socialism, thoroughly criticize the bourgeois and reactionary thinking in academic circles, educational circles, news circles, literature and art circles and publishing circles, and seize leadership power in these cultural areas. In order to achieve this, we must at the same time criticize the bourgeois representatives who have snuck into the Party, into government, into the military, and into all areas of the cultural sphere, purge these people, and in some cases, it will be necessary to transfer their posts. We can especially not trust these people to take up the work of leading the Cultural Revolution, and even though in the past and at present, there are many people who are doing this work, this is particularly dangerous.

The bourgeois representatives that have snuck into the Party, into the government, into the military and the various cultural circles are  a batch of counterrevolutionary revisionist elements, one day when the opportunity is ripe, they will seize political power, and change the proletarian dictatorship into a bourgeois dictatorship. Some of these people have been unmasked by us, some have not yet been unmasked, some are currently receiving our trust, they are fostered to become our successors, persons such as Khrushchev, they are currently sleeping on our shoulders, all levels’ Party Committees must pay full attention to this point.

This Notice may, together with the mistaken document issued by the Centre on 12 February of this year, be sent to county Committees, Party Committees in cultural organs and Party Committees at the military unit level, they are requested to conduct discussions, on which document is mistaken and which document is correct, if they themselves understand how matters are, which successes there are and which mistakes there are.

各中央局,各省、市、自治区党委,中央各部委,国家机关各部门和各人民团体党组、党委,人民解放军总政治部:
中央决定撤销1966年2月12日批转的《文化革命五人小组关于当前学术讨论的汇报提纲》,撤销原来的“文化革命五人小组”及其办事机构,重新设立文化革命小组,隶属于政治局常委之下。所谓“五人小组”的汇报提纲是根本错误的,是违反中央和毛泽东同志提出的社会主义文化革命的路线的,是违反1962年党的八届十中全会关于社会主义社会阶级和阶级斗争问题的指导方针的。这个提纲,对毛泽东同志亲自领导和发动的这场文化大革命,对毛泽东同志在1965年9月至10月间中央工作会议上(即在一次有各中央局负责同志参加的中央政治局常委会议上)关于批判吴晗的指示,阳奉阴违,竭力抗拒。
所谓“五人小组”的汇报提纲,实际上只是彭真一个人的汇报提纲,是彭真背着“五人小组”成员康生同志和其他同志,按照他自己的意见制造出来的。对待这样一个关系到社会主义革命全局的重大问题的文件,彭真根本没有在“五 人小组”内讨论过、商量过,没有向任何地方党委征求过意见,没有说明要作为中央正式文件提请中央审查,更没有得到中央主席毛泽东同志的同意,采取了极不正当的手段,武断专横,滥用职权,盗窃中央的名义,匆匆忙忙发到全党。
这个提纲的主要错误如下:
第一

这个提纲站在资产阶级的立场上,用资产阶级世界观来看待当前学术批判的形势和性质,根本颠倒了敌我关系。
我国正面临着一个伟大的无产阶级文化革命的高潮。这个高潮有力地冲击着资产阶级和封建残余还保存的一切腐朽的思想阵地和文化阵地。这个提纲,不是鼓舞全党放手发动广大的工农兵群众和无产阶级的文化战士继续冲锋前进,而是力图把这个运动拉向右转。这个提纲用混乱的、自相矛盾的、虚伪的词句,模糊了当前文化思想战线上的尖锐的阶级斗争,特别是模糊了这场大斗争的目的是对吴晗及其他一大批反党反社会主义的资产阶级代表人物(中央和中央各机关,各省、市、自治区,都有这样一批资产阶级代表人物)的批判。这个提纲不提毛主席一再指出的吴晗《海瑞罢官》的要害是罢官问题,掩盖这场斗争的严重的政治性质。
第二

这个提纲违背了一切阶级斗争都是政治斗争这一个马克思主义的基本论点。当报刊上刚刚涉及吴晗《海瑞罢官》的政治问题的时候,提纲的作者们竟然提出“在报刊上的讨论不要局限于政治问题,要把涉及到各种学术理论的问题,充分地展开讨论”。他们又在各种场合宣称,对吴晗的批判,不准谈要害问题,不准涉及1959年庐山会议对右倾机会主义分子的罢官问题,不准谈吴晗等反党反社会主义的问题。毛泽东同志经常告诉我们,同资产阶级在意识形态上的斗争,是长期的阶级斗争,不是匆忙做一个政治结论就可以解决。彭真有意造谣,对许多人说,主席认为对吴晗的批判可以在两个月后做政治结论。又说,两个月后再谈政治问题。他的目的,就是要把文化领域的政治斗争,纳入资产阶级经常宣扬的所谓“纯学术”讨论。很明显,这是反对突出无产阶级的政治,而要突出资产阶级的政治。
第三

提纲特别强调所谓“放”,但是却用偷天换日的手法,根本歪曲了毛泽东同志1957年3月在党的全国宣传工作会议上所讲的放的方针,抹煞放的阶级内容。毛泽东同志正是在讲这个问题的时候指出,“我们同资产阶级和小资产阶级的思想还要进行长期的斗争。不了解这种情况,放弃思想斗争,那就是错误的。凡是错误的思想,凡是毒草,凡是牛鬼蛇神,都应该进行批判,决不能让它们自由泛滥。”又说,“放,就是放手让大家讲意见,使人们敢于说话,敢于批评,敢于争论”。这个提纲却把“放”同无产阶级对于资产阶级反动立场的揭露对立起来。它的所谓“放”,是资产阶级的自由化,只许资产阶级放,不许无产阶级放,不许无产阶级反击资产阶级,是包庇吴晗这一类的反动的资产阶级代表人物。这个提纲的所谓“放”,是反毛泽东思想的,是适应资产阶级需要的。
第四

在我们开始反击资产阶级猖狂进攻的时候,提纲的作者们却提出,“在真理面前人人平等”。这个口号是资产阶级的口号。他们用这个口号保护资产阶级,反对无产阶级,反对马克思列宁主义,反对毛泽东思想,根本否认真理的阶级性。无产阶级同资产阶级的斗争,马克思主义的真理同资产阶级以及一切剥削阶级的谬论的斗争,不是东风压倒西风,就是西风压倒东风,根本谈不上什么平等。无产阶级对资产阶级斗争,无产阶级对资产阶级专政,无产阶级在上层建筑其中包括在各个文化领域的专政,无产阶级继续清除资产阶级钻在共产党内打着红旗反红旗的代表人物等等,在这些基本问题上,难道能够允许有什么平等吗?几十年以来的老的社会民主党和十几年以来的现代修正主义,从来就不允许无产阶级同资产阶级有什么平等。他们根本否认几千年的人类历史是阶级斗争史,根本否认无产阶级对资产阶级的阶级斗争,根本否认无产阶级对资产阶级的革命和对资产阶级的专政。
相反,他们是资产阶级、帝国主义的忠实走狗,同资产阶级、帝国主义一道,坚持资产阶级压迫、剥削无产阶级的思想体系和资本主义的社会制度,反对马克思列宁主义的思想体系和社会主义的社会制度。他们是一群反共、反人民的反革命分子,他们同我们的斗争是你死我活的斗争,丝毫谈不到什么平等。因此,我们对他们的斗争也只能是一场你死我活的斗争,我们对他们的关系绝对不是什么平等的关系,而是一 个阶级压迫另一个阶级的关系,即无产阶级对资产阶级实行独裁或专政的关系,而不能是什么别的关系,例如所谓平等关系、被剥削阶级同剥削阶级的和平共处关系、仁义道德关系等等。
第五

提纲说,“不仅要在政治上压倒对方,而且要在学术和业务的水准上真正大大地超过和压倒对方”。这种对学术不分阶级界限的思想,也是很错误的。无产阶级在学术上所掌握的真理,马克思列宁主义的真理,毛泽东思想的真理,早已大大地超过了和压倒了资产阶级。提纲的提法,表现了作者吹捧和抬高资产阶级的所谓“学术权威”,仇视和压制我们在学术界的一批代表无产阶级的、战斗的新生力量。
第六

毛主席经常说,不破不立。破,就是批判,就是革命。破,就要讲道理,讲道理就是立,破字当头,立也就在其中了。马克思列宁主义、毛泽东思想,就是在破资产阶级思想体系的斗争中建立和不断发展起来的。但这个提纲却强调“没有立,就不可能达到真正、彻底的破”。这实际上是对资产阶级的思想不准破,对无产阶级的思想不准立,是同毛主席的思想针锋相对的,是同我们在文化战线上进行大破资产阶级意识形态的革命斗争背道而驰的,是不准无产阶级革命。
(七)提纲提出“不要象学阀一样武断和以势压人”,又说“警惕左派学术工作者走上资产阶级专家、学阀的道路”。究竟什么是“学阀”?谁是“学阀”?难道无产阶级不要专政,不要压倒资产阶级?难道无产阶级的学术不要压倒和消灭资产阶级的学术?难道无产阶级学术压倒和消灭资产阶级学术,就是“学阀”?提纲反对的锋芒是指向无产阶级左派,显然是要给马克思列宁主义者戴上“学阀”这顶帽子,倒过来支持真正的资产阶级的学阀,维持他们在学术界的摇摇欲坠的垄断地位。其实,那些支持资产阶级学阀的党内走资本主义道路的当权派,那些钻进党内保护资产阶级学阀的资产阶级代表人物,才是不读书、不看报、不接触群众、什么学问也没有、专靠“武断和以势压人”、窃取党的名义的大党阀。
(八)提纲的作者们别有用心,故意把水搅浑,混淆阶级阵线,转移斗争目标,提出要对“坚定的左派”进行“整风”。他们这样急急忙忙抛出这个提纲的主要目的,就是要整无产阶级左派。他们专门收集左派的材料,寻找各种借口打击左派,还想借“整风”的名义进一步打击左派,妄图瓦解左派的队伍。他们公然抗拒毛主席明确提出要保护左派,支持左派,强调建立和扩大左派队伍的方针。另一方面,他们却把混进党内的资产阶级代表人物、修正主义者、叛徒封成“坚定的左派”,加以包庇。他们用这种手法,企图长资产阶级右派的志气,灭无产阶级左派的威风。他们对无产阶级充满了恨,对资产阶级充满了爱。这就是提纲作者们的资产阶级的博爱观。
(九)正当无产阶级在思想战线上对资产阶级代表人物发动一场新的激烈斗争刚刚开始,而且许多方面、许多地方还没有开始参加斗争,或者虽然已经开始了斗争,但是绝大多数党委对于这场伟大斗争的领导还很不理解,很不认真,很不得力的时候,提纲却反复强调斗争中要所谓“有领导”、要“谨慎”、要“慎重”、要“经过有关领导机构批准”,这些都是要给无产阶级左派划许多框框,提出许多清规戒律,束缚无产阶级左派的手脚,要给无产阶级的文化革命设置重重障碍。一句话,迫不及待地要刹车,来一个反攻倒算。提纲的作者们对于无产阶级左派反击资产阶级反动“权威”的文章,已经发表的,他们极端怀恨,还没有发表的,他们加以扣压。他们对于一切牛鬼蛇神却放手让其出笼,多年来塞满了我们的报纸、广播、刊物、书籍、教科书、讲演、文艺作品、电影、戏剧、曲艺、美术、音乐、舞蹈等等,从不提倡要受无产阶级的领导,从来也不要批准。这一对比,就可以看出,提纲的作者们究竟处在一种什么地位了。
(十)当前的斗争,是执行还是抗拒毛泽东同志的文化革命的路线的问题。但提纲却说,“我们要通过这场斗争,在毛泽东思想的指引下,开辟解决这个问题(指“彻底清理学术领域内的资产阶级思想”)的道路”。毛泽东同志的《新民主主义论》、《在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话》、《看了〈逼上梁山〉以后写给延安平剧院的信》、《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题》、《在中国共产党全国宣传工作会议上的讲话》等著作,早已在文化思想战线上给我们无产阶级开辟了道路。提纲却认为毛泽东思想 还没有给我们开辟道路,而要重新开辟道路。提纲是企图打着“在毛泽东思想的指引下”这个旗帜作为幌子,开辟一条同毛泽东思想相反的道路,即现代修正主义的道路,也就是资产阶级复辟的道路。 总之,这个提纲是反对把社会主义革命进行到底,反对以毛泽东同志为首的党中央的文化革命路线,打击无产阶级左派,包庇资产阶级右派,为资产阶级复辟作舆论准备。这个提纲是资产阶级思想在党内的反映,是彻头彻尾的修正主义。同这条修正主义路线作斗争,绝对不是一件小事,而是关系我们党和国家的命运,关系我们党和国家的前途,关系我们党和国家将来的面貌,也是关系世界革命的一件头等大事。
各级党委要立即停止执行《文化革命五人小组关于当前学术讨论的汇报提纲》。全党必须遵照毛泽东同志的指示,高举无产阶级文化革命的大旗,彻底揭露那批反党反社会主义的所谓“学术权威”的资产阶级反动立场,彻底批判学术界、教育界、新闻界、文艺界、出版界的资产阶级反动思想,夺取在这些文化领域中的领导权。而要做到这一点,必须同时批判混进党里、政府里、军队里和文化领域的各界里的资产阶级代表人物,清洗这些人,有些则要调动他们的职务。尤其不能信用这些人去做领导文化革命的工作,而过去和现在确有很多人是在做这种工作,这是异常危险的。
混进党里、政府里、军队里和各种文化界的资产阶级代表人物,使一批反革命的修正主义分子,一旦时机成熟,他们就会要夺取政权,由无产阶级专政变为资产阶级专政。这些人物,有些已被我们识破了,有些则还没有被识破,有些正在受到我们信用,被培养为我们的接班人,例如赫鲁晓夫那样的人物,他们现正睡在我们的身旁,各级党委必须充分注意这一点。
这个通知,可以连同中央今年二月十二日发出的错误文件,发到县委、文化机关党委和军队团级党委,请他们展开讨论,究竟那一个文件是错误的,那一个文件是正确的,他们自己的认识如何,有那些成绩,有那些错误。

 

One thought on “Notice of 16 May

    Latest Updates | China Copyright and Media said:
    March 23, 2014 at 9:33 am

    […] Notice of 16 May (Central Committee, 1966) […]

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