中国共产党中央委员会
（一九六六年五月十六日）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：
中央决定撤销一九六六年二月十二日批转的《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，是违反一九六二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，对毛泽东同志在一九六五年九月至十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：
（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。
（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，不准涉及一九五九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。
（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一九五七年三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。
（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。
（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。
（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，是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。
Circular of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
May 16, 1966
To all regional bureaus of the Central Committee, all provincial, municipal and autonomous regional party committees, ail departments and commissions under the Central Committee, all leading party members’ groups and party committees in government departments and people’s organizations, and the General Political Department of the PLA:
The Central Committee has decided to revoke the ‘Outline Report on the Current Academic Discussion made by the Group of Five in Charge of the Cultural Revolution’ which was approved for distribution on 12 February 1966, to dissolve the ‘Group of Five in Charge of the Cultural Revolution’ and its offices, and to set up a new Cultural Revolution group directly under the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau. The outline report by the so-called ‘Group of Five’ is fundamentally wrong. It runs counter to the line of the socialist cultural revolution set forth by the Central Committee and Comrade Mao Tse-tung to the guiding principles formulated at the Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the party in 1962 on the question of classes and class struggle in socialist society. While feigning compliance, the outline actually opposes and stubbornly resists the great Cultural Revolution initiated and led personally by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, as well as the instructions, regarding the criticism of Wu Han, which he gave at the work conference of the Central Committee held in September and October 1965 (that is, at the session of the Standing Committee attended also by the leading comrades of all the regional bureaux of the Central Committee).
The outline report by the so-called ‘Group of Five’ is actually an outline report by P’eng Chen alone. He concocted it according to his own ideas behind the backs of Comrade K’ang Sheng, a member of the ‘Group of Five’, and other comrades. In handling such a document regarding important questions which affect the overall situation in the socialist revolution, P’eng Chen had no discussion or exchange of views at all within the ‘Group of Five’. He did not ask any local party committee for its opinion; nor, when submitting the outline report, did he make it clear that it was being sent to the Central Committee for examination as its official document, and still less did he get the approval of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee. Employing the most improper methods, he acted arbitrarily, abused his powers, and, usurping the name of the Central Committee, hurriedly issued the outline report to the whole party.
The main errors of the outline report are as follows:
-
Proceeding from a bourgeois stand and the bourgeois world outlook in its appraisal of the situation and the nature of the current academic criticism, the outline completely reverses the relation between the enemy and ourselves, putting the one into the position of the other. Our country is now in an upsurge of the great proletarian Cultural Revolution which is pounding at all the decadent ideological and cultural positions still held by the bourgeoisie and the remnants of feudalism. Instead of encouraging the entire party boldly to arouse the broad masses of workers, peasants, and soldiers, and the fighters for proletarian culture so that they can continue to charge ahead, the outline does its best to turn the movement to the right. Using muddled, self-contradictory, and hypocritical language, it obscures the sharp class struggle that is taking place on the cultural and ideological front. In particular, it obscures the aim of this great struggle, which is to criticize and repudiate Wu Han and the considerable number of other anti-party and anti-socialist representatives of the bourgeoisie (there are a number of these in the Central Committee and in the party, government, and other departments at the central as well as at the provincial, municipal, and autonomous region level). By avoiding any mention of the fact repeatedly pointed out by Chairman Mao, namely, that the key point in Wu Han’s drama Hai Jui Dismissed from Office is the question of dismissal from office, the outline covers up the serious political nature of the struggle.
-
The outline violates the basic Marxist thesis that all class struggles are political struggles. When the press began to touch on the political issues involved in Wu Han’s Hai Jui Dismissed from Office, the authors of the outline went so far as to say: “The discussion in the press should not be confined to political questions, but should go fully into the various academic and theoretical questions involved”. Regarding the criticism of Wu Han, they declared on various occasions that it was impermissible to deal with the heart of the matter, namely, the dismissal of the right opportunists at the Lushan plenum in 1959 and the opposition of Wu Han and others to the party and socialism. Comrade Mao Tse-tung has often told us that the ideological struggle against the bourgeoisie is a protracted class struggle which cannot be resolved by drawing hasty political conclusions. However, P’eng Chen deliberately spread rumours, telling many people that Chairman Mao believed political conclusions on the criticism of Wu Han could be drawn after two months. P’eng Chen also said that the political issues could be discussed two months later. His purpose was to channel the political struggle in the cultural sphere into the so-called pure academic discussion so frequently advocated by the bourgeois politics and opposing giving prominence to proletarian politics.
-
The outline lays special emphasis on what it calls ‘opening wide’. But playing a sly trick it grossly distorts the policy of ‘opening wide’ expounded by Comrade Mao Tse-tung at the party’s National Conference on Propaganda Work in March 1957 and negates the class content of ‘opening wide’. It was in dealing with this question that Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out: ‘We still have to wage a protracted struggle against bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology. It is wrong not to understand this and to give up ideological struggle. All erroneous ideas, all poisonous weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be subjected to criticism; in no circumstance should they be allowed to spread unchecked.’ Comrade Mao Tse-tung also said, ‘To “open wide” means to let all people express their opinions freely, so that they dare to speak, dare to criticize, and dare to debate.’ This outline, however, poses ‘opening wide’ against exposure by the proletariat of the bourgeoisie’s reactionary stand. What it means by ‘opening wide’ is bourgeois liberalization, which would allow only the bourgeoisie to ‘open wide’, but would not allow the proletariat to ‘open wide’ and hit back; in other words, it is a shield for such reactionary bourgeois representatives as Wu Han. The ‘opening wide’ in this outline is against Mao Tse-tung’s thought and caters for the needs of the bourgeoisie.
-
Just when we began the counter-offensive against the wild attacks of the bourgeoisie, the authors of the outline raised the slogan: ‘everyone is equal before the truth’. This is a bourgeois slogan. Completely negating the class nature of truth, they use this slogan to protect the bourgeoisie and oppose the proletariat, oppose Marxism-Leninism, and oppose Mao Tse-tung’s thought. In the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the truth of Marxism and the fallacies of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes, either the East wind prevails over the West wind or the West wind prevails over the East wind, and there is absolutely no such thing as equality. Can any equality be permitted on such basic questions as the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the superstructure, including all the various spheres of culture, and the continued efforts of the proletariat to weed out those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the communist party and who wave ‘red flags’ to oppose the red flag? For decades the old-line Social Democrats, and for over ten years the modern revisionists, have never allowed the proletariat equality with the bourgeoisie. They completely deny that the several thousand years of human history is a history of class struggle. They completely deny the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie, and the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, they are faithful lackeys of the bourgeoisie and imperialism. Together with the bourgeoisie and imperialism, they cling to the bourgeois ideology of oppression and exploitation of the proletariat and to the capitalist system, and they oppose Marxist-Leninist ideology and the socialist system. They are a bunch of counter-revolutionaries opposing the communist party and the people. Their struggle against us is one of life and death, and there is no question of equality. Therefore, our struggle against them, too, can be nothing but a life-and-death struggle, and our relation with them can in no way be one of equality. On the contrary, it is a relation of one class oppressing another, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. There can be no other type of relation, such as a so called relation of equality, or of peaceful coexistence between exploiting and exploited classes, or of kindness or magnanimity.
-
The outline states: ‘It is necessary not only to beat the other side politically, but also, by academic and professional standards, truly surpass and beat it by a wide margin.’ This concept which makes no class distinction on academic matters is also very wrong. The truth on academic questions, the truth of Marxism-Leninism, of Mao Tse-tung’s thought — which the proletariat has grasped — has already far surpassed and beaten the bourgeoisie. The formulation in the outline shows that its authors laud the so-called academic authorities of the bourgeoisie and try to boost their prestige, and that they hate and repress the militant newborn forces representative of the proletariat in academic circles.
-
Chairman Mao often says that there is no construction without destruction. Destruction means criticism and repudiation; it means revolution. It involves reasoning things out, which is construction. Put destruction first, and in the process you have construction. Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung’s thought, was founded and has constantly developed in the course of the struggle to destroy bourgeois ideology. This outline, however, emphasizes that ‘without construction, there can be no real and thorough destruction’. This amounts to prohibiting the destruction of bourgeois ideology and prohibiting the construction of proletarian ideology. It is diametrically opposed to Chairman Mao’s thought. It runs counter to the revolutionary struggle we have been waging on the cultural front for the vigorous destruction of bourgeois ideology. And it amounts to prohibiting the proletariat from making any revolution.
-
The outline states that ‘we must not behave like scholar-tyrants who are always acting arbitrarily and trying to overwhelm people with their power’ and that ‘we should guard against any tendency for academic workers of the left to take the road of bourgeois experts and scholar-tyrants’. What is really meant by ‘scholar-tyrants’? Who are the ‘scholar-tyrants’? Should the proletariat not exercise dictatorship and overwhelm the bourgeoisie? Should the academic work of the proletariat not overwhelm and eradicate that of the bourgeoisie? And if proletarian academic work overwhelms and eradicates bourgeois academic work, can this be regarded as an act of ‘scholar-tyrants’? The outline directs its spearhead against the proletarian left. Obviously, its aim is to label the Marxist-Leninists ‘scholar-tyrants’ and thus to support the real, bourgeois scholar-tyrants and prop up their tottering monopoly position in academic circles. As a matter of fact, those party people in authority taking the capitalist road who support the bourgeois scholar-tyrants, and those bourgeois representatives who have sneaked into the party and protect the bourgeois scholar-tyrants, are indeed big party tyrants who have usurped the name of the party, have no contact with the masses, have no learning at all, and rely solely on ‘acting arbitrarily and trying to overwhelm people with their power’.
-
For their own ulterior purposes, the authors of the outline demand a ‘rectification campaign’ against the staunch left in a deliberate effort to create confusion, blur class alignments and divert people from the target of struggle. Their main purpose in dishing up the outline in such a hurry was to attack the proletarian left. They have gone out of their way to build up dossiers about the left, tried to find all sorts of pretexts for attacking them, and intended to launch further attacks on them by means of a ‘rectification campaign,’ in the vain hope of disintegrating their ranks. They openly resist the policy explicitly put forward by Chairman Mao of protecting and supporting the left and giving serious attention to building up and expanding their ranks. On the other hand, they have conferred on those bourgeois representatives, revisionists, and renegades who have sneaked into the party the title of ‘staunch left’, and are shielding them. In these ways, they are trying to inflate the arrogance of the bourgeois rightists and to dampen the spirits of the proletarian left. They are filled with hatred for the proletariat and love for the bourgeoisie. Such is the bourgeois concept of brotherhood held by the authors of the outline.
-
At a time when the new and fierce struggle of the proletariat against the representatives of the bourgeoisie on the ideological front has only just began, and in many spheres and places has not even started — or, if it has started, most party committees concerned have a very poor understanding of the task of leadership in this great struggle and their leadership is far from conscientious and effective — the outline stresses again and again that the struggle must be conducted ‘under direction’, ‘with prudence’, ‘with caution’, and ‘with the approval of the leading bodies concerned’. All this serves to place restrictions on the proletarian left, to impose taboos and commandments in order to tie their hands, and to place all sorts of obstacles in the way of the proletarian cultural revolution. In a word, the authors of the outline are rushing to apply the brakes and launch a counter-attack in revenge. As for the articles written by the proletarian left refuting the reactionary bourgeois ‘authorities’, they nurse bitter hatred against those already published and are suppressing those not yet published. But on the other hand, they give free rein to all the various ghosts and monsters who for many years have abounded in our press, radio, magazines, books, text-book, platforms, works of literature, cinema, drama, ballads and stories, the fine arts, music, the dance, etc., and in doing so they never advocate proletarian leadership or stress any need for approval. The contrast here shows where the authors of the outline really stand.
-
The present struggle centres on the issue of implementation of, or resistance to, Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s line on the Cultural Revolution. Yet the outline states: ‘Through this struggle, and under the guidance of Mao Tse-tung’s thought, we shall open up the way for the solution of this problem (that is, “the thorough liquidation of bourgeois ideas in the realm of academic work”).’ Comrade Mao Tse-tung opened up the way for the proletariat on the cultural and ideological front long ago, in his On New Democracy, Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art, Letter to the Yenan Peking Opera Theatre after Seeing the Performance of ‘Driven to Joint the Liangshan Rebels’, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, and Speech at the Chinese Communist Party’s National Conference on Propaganda Work. Yet the outline maintains that Mao Tse-tung’s thought has not yet opened up the way for us and that the way has to be opened up anew. Using the banner of ‘under the guidance of Mao Tse-tung’s thought’ as cover, the outline actually attempts to open up a way opposed to Mao Tse-tung’s thought, that is the way of modern revisionism, the way for the restoration of capitalism.
In short, the outline opposes carrying the socialist revolution through to the end, opposes the line on the Cultural Revolution pursued by the Central Committee of the party headed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, attacks the proletarian left and shields the bourgeois right, thereby preparing public opinion for the restoration of capitalism. It is a reflection of bourgeois ideology in the party, it is out-and-out revisionism. Far from being a minor issue, the struggle against this revisionist line is an issue of prime importance having a vital bearing on the destiny and future of our party and date, on the future complexion of our party and date, and on the world revolution.
Party committees at all levels must immediately stop carrying out the ‘Outline Report on the Current Academic Discussion made by the Group of Five in Charge of the Cultural Revolution’. The whole party must follow Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s instructions, hold high the great banner of the proletarian Cultural Revolution, thoroughly expose the reactionary bourgeois stand of those so-called ‘academic authorities’ who oppose the party and socialism, thoroughly criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois ideas in the sphere of academic work, education, journalism, literature and art, and publishing, and seize the leadership in these cultural spheres. To achieve this, it is necessary at the same time to criticize and repudiate those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the party, the government, the army, and all spheres of culture, to clear them out or transfer some of them to other positions. Above all, we must not entrust these people with the work of leading the Cultural Revolution. In fact many of them have done and are still doing such work, and this is extremely dangerous.
Those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the party, the government, the army, and various cultural circles are a bunch of counter-revolutionary revisionists. Once conditions are ripe, they will seize political power and turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Some of them we have already seen thorough, others we have not. Some are still trusted by us and are being trained as our successors, persons like Khrushchev, for example, who are still nestling beside us. Party committees at all levels must pay full attention to this matter.
This circular is to be sent, together with the erroneous document issued by the Central Committee on 12 February 1966, down to the level of county party committees, party committees in the cultural organizations, and party committees at regimental level in the army. These committees are asked to discuss which of the two documents is wrong and which is correct, their understanding of these documents, and their achievements and mistake.