Oral History of Forty Years of Reform and Opening-up

The Recognition that the Key to Putting Things Right is to Negate the Absolute Loyalty to Maoism Upheld by Hua Guofeng

After the Central Committee of the CPC smashed the “Gang of Four” in October 1976, the author was the first to address at both the first assembly held in Nanjing University and the first assembly held by the province of Jiangsu to criticize, and disclose the crimes of, the “Gang of Four.” During the period from the winter of 1976 to the winter of 1977, I published four articles in the Journal of Nanjing University. The article, titled Review on Zhang Chunqiao’s “On the Comprehensive Dictatorship over the Bourgeoisie,” criticizes Zhang Chunqiao for propagating the idealism that superstructure determines infrastructure, castrating People’s democracy and falsifying the dictatorship of the proletariat as fascist dictatorship. The article, titled Marxism is A Science (co-authored with Lu Xishu) states that Marxism, as a science rather than a dogma, should be deemed with a scientific attitude, that is, sticking to the integration of theory and practice, of the universal truth of Marxism and the particular reality of China, and rejecting dogmatism or book worship. The article, titled Striving to Build a Modernized Socialist Power, argues that the mission of modern China is to promote socialist modernization. The article, titled Whoever Refutes the Decisive Role of Productive Forces is Equal to Opposition to Historical Materialism, argues that material production is fundamental to human survival and development, the development of productivity is the basic driving force for the development of social history, and that productivity determines productive relations is the fundamental principle of historical materialism. The “decisive role” of “productive forces” only emphasizes that productivity is fundamental and the first priority, and is the same as the “decisive role” of materials in “materialism,” a belief that only material things exist. Theory of productivity never denies the huge reaction of productive relations to productivity and of superstructure to economic foundation (the People’s Daily reprinted the abstract of this article in March 1978). For more than one year, I used Marxism as a theoretical weapon and continuously made theoretical explorations to promote the process of putting things right.

Nanjing University, one of the universities where “rebellion occurred” in the earliest days of the “Cultural Revolution” after Peking University initiated the “Red Guard Revolt,” the center of the “Cultural Revolution” in Jiangsu, is a place harshly afflicted by the “Cultural Revolution.” The purge of “May 16 counterrevolutionary revisionists” fabricated many cases in which people were unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged or sentenced. As early as mid-June 1966, the People’s Daily published an editorial entitled “Denouncing the Persecution against me by Kuang Yaming.” I did not participate in the “rebellion” just because I was disgraced as a member of the “Kuang Yaming Gang.”

After the “Gang of Four” was smashed, the faculty and students of Nanjing University strongly demanded that cases in which people were unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged or sentenced, such as the Tiananmen Incident in 1976, should be reviewed, the position of Deng Xiaoping should be restored, the re-alignment in ideological and organizational matters executed, and efforts should be pooled for socialist modernization. It dawned on everyone who personally experienced the “Cultural Revolution” that it was a disaster. I realized through practice that the “Cultural Revolution” should not continue, and we must re-explore the path of promoting socialist modernization. Smashing the “Gang of Four” and re-alignment presented an opportunity to bring about a turning point in history. At the same time, in the process of re-alignment, I realized that the Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought were gravely falsified and distorted during the “Cultural Revolution,” the country was in the throes of mess in all respects, and wrong or false convictions took place all over the country. It was immensely difficult to tackle these one by one. It was necessary to solve this by tackling the fundamental problem, namely the “master switch” for putting things right. What is the fundamental problem? I kept thinking in search of an answer.

We lacked in-depth knowledge of the national characteristics and took a dim view of the extremely complicated situation. There was great resistance to re-alignment. First, word got around in Beijing that articles by Zhang Chunqiao and Yao Wenyuan could not be criticized because they had been reviewed by Chairman Mao Zedong. What Chairman Mao Zedong had reviewed could not be criticized. Therefore, nothing could be subject to criticism, and the emerging movement to expose and criticize the “Gang of Four” suddenly slacked off. Soon after, the two major newspapers People’s Daily and PLA Daily and the one major journal Red Flag published editorials proposing absolute loyalty to Maoism, in accordance with which, the “Cultural Revolution” was not to be criticized, the Tiananmen Incident in 1976 not corrected, Deng Xiaoping not to resume his work, and wrong or false convictions not retried, and the theories, and policies regarding the “Cultural Revolution” are to be “unswervingly followed.”

After “Two Whatevers” were proposed, it was difficult to put things right. As I remember, I said at a symposium that the “Cultural Revolution” disrupted education. As a result, the quality of teaching fell, and scientific research could not be conducted. Colleges and universities were the hardest-hit. Someone leaped to the defense of the “Cultural Revolution”: “You can’t say that. The ‘Cultural Revolution’ was spearheaded by Chairman Mao Zedong, and the education front is the focus.” What the comrade said was well-intentioned, but it also showed the oppressive shackles of the “two whatevers” and the widespread bad influence of the cult of personality and dogmatism. The brutal “Cultural Revolution” still struck fear into people’s hearts. However, the public and officials were working in various ways to put things right.

A popular method at the time was to criticize the “Cultural Revolution” using Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and to put things right by citing what Chairman Mao Zedong said. Restoring the college entrance examination system, which was of widespread concern, is based on a few words said by Chairman Mao Zedong in a notebook. I believe this was a neat idea, but it was difficult to make breakthroughs in putting things right through this approach because what Chairman Mao Zedong said did not contain words that could be used as the basis for setting things right concerning major issues. I gradually realized that the “two whatevers” were the main stumbling block to putting things right, and were the biggest ban imposed by the chief leaders of the Central Government at the time. Denying the “two whatevers” was the fundamental problem to be solved in the efforts to put things right.

“Two whatevers” is an imitation of Lin Biao’s “theory of innate genius,” “pinnacle theory” and “every sentence as the gospel truth.” It is exactly the same as Chairman Mao Zedong’s “acting according to the established policy” as fabricated by the “Gang of Four.” These promote the theory of innate genius, idealism, and metaphysics, and indulge in personality cult. This is very clear. The “theory of innate genius,” “pinnacle theory” and “every sentence as the gospel truth” were intended to shape public opinion for the “Cultural Revolution” and were the tools for implementing the theory, line and policy of the “Cultural Revolution.” The purpose of “two whatevers” was to maintain the “Cultural Revolution,” stick to the theory, line and policy of the “Cultural Revolution,” and prevent the efforts to put things right. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels did not mention any things alike “two whatevers”, nor did Mao Zedong. To set things right, it was necessary to smash the shackles of “two whatevers.” However, it was a difficult task. Mao Zedong is the great leader of the Chinese people, and Mao Zedong Thought is the great banner steering the Chinese revolution to victory. The people are naturally full of admiration for Mao Zedong. “Defeating anyone who opposes Chairman Mao Zedong” was the most popular slogan. As a result, anyone criticizing the “two whatevers” may be accused of opposing Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought. Moreover, the “two whatevers” were put forward by the People’s Daily, PLA Daily and Red Flag. According to the convention during the “Cultural Revolution,” these three presses represented the viewpoints of the chief leaders of the Central Government. Anyone criticizing the “two whatevers” would be accused of being “anti-Party.” I gave it much thought at the time. The “Cultural Revolution” played havoc with China’s economy, science and technology, culture, education and other undertakings. In China, a very backward country at the time, the people were politically and spiritually depressed, and lived in poverty. China reached a critical historical crossroads: if we adhere to the “two whatevers” and maintain the theory, line and policy of the “Cultural Revolution,” the Chinese people would plunge into the abyss of misery. If the Chinese people deny these and embark on a new path of socialist modernization, the Chinese nation will become a proud member of the community of nations. It is a historical requirement and the people’s aspiration to bring order out of chaos and put things right. Denying the “two whatevers” is a matter of time, and the sooner the better. The fate of the country is the responsibility of every individual. As a theory teacher who has been trained for many years, and a CPC member, I have the responsibility and obligation to contribute to putting things right.

Determine the Motif of the Article as “Practice is the criterion for testing truth”

The first problem to address is how to criticize the “two whatevers.” It is obviously not advisable to launch an open attack on the “two whatevers.” It must be tackled with tact. Otherwise, no newspaper would publish such an article even if it was written. Therefore, it is necessary to find a “substitute” for the “two whatevers,” and this “substitute” is Lin Biao’s “theory of innate genius,” “pinnacle theory” and “every sentence as the gospel truth.” Making criticism against these is justifiable and no one could oppose it. In what form should it be criticized? I think criticizing “two whatevers” is first and foremost a theoretical issue. It is necessary to tell right from wrong theoretically, give positive arguments, and clarify the basic principles of Marxism before criticizing the idealism of “every sentence as the gospel truth.” It is necessary to establish the new before abolishing the old.

The second problem to address is which principle of Marxism is diametrically opposed to the “two whatevers.” This is a question that deserves serious consideration. The essence of “two whatevers” is idealism and metaphysics, but it is impractical to write a Marxist philosophical book to criticize “two whatevers.”

I have studied in detail the essential characteristics of the “two whatevers.” The essence of the “two whatevers” as idealism and metaphysics lies in its belief that Mao Zedong’s instructions and decisions are priorly correct, that the theories, lines and policies of the “Cultural Revolution” are priorly correct without the need to be tested by social practice, and that Mao Zedong is faultless, because Mao Zedong is a genius. Moreover, people studied and solved problems as well as distinguished right from wrong not based on practice, but on the quotations of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. These are the characteristics of the apriorism and subjective idealism of “two whatevers.” This sent me into thinking about such a question: What is the criterion for testing the correctness of knowledge, theories, viewpoints, lines, and policies? The criterion is practice according to Marxism. Practice is the criterion for testing truth. The essence of “every sentence as the gospel truth” and “two whatevers” is the denial of the basic Marxist viewpoint that practice is the criterion for testing truth. I suddenly saw the light and was very excited when this dawned on me. Therefore, I decided to take “practice is the criterion for testing truth” as the motif of the article.

Once the topic was determined, I set about studying the content and outline: first, I argue for “only practice as the criterion for testing truth.” Then, it is discussed that natural sciences, theories, lines and policies must be tested by social practice to prove whether they are correct. Whether the theories and viewpoints made by anyone are correct must be tested by social practice. The criterion of practice is both relative and absolute. It is followed by the criticism of the idealist and metaphysical nature of “every sentence as the gospel truth.” I emphasized at the time that all theories and lines must be tested by social practice, but I felt that it was not pertinent enough to touch a raw nerve for “two whatevers,” because Mao Zedong’s theory, lines, decisions, and instructions were priorly correct and these were not needed to be tested by practice, and because Mao Zedong was faultless. “Two whatevers” were not widely applicable to government officials and the public. Therefore, the general exposition of practice as the criterion for testing truth was not pertinent enough. What should we do? It was not advisable to openly say that Mao Zedong’s theories, lines and policies should also be tested by social practice, let alone saying that Mao Zedong would also make mistakes. I racked my brain and came up with a method: cite the example of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels modifying their theoretical viewpoints based on practice, which illustrates that the cognitive development of Marxists also follows humans’ law of cognition. Whether their theories and viewpoints are correct must also be tested by social practice. What they have in common is to take a scientific attitude, consciously confirm and develop their theories according to the tests of social practice, and openly modify incorrect or old-fashioned viewpoints. From the Preface to the 1872 German Edition of the “Communist Manifesto,” I cited the example of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels revising an important view in the Communist Manifesto to illustrate that some views in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels’ representative work Communist Manifesto must be revised according to practical tests, not to mention other works. Marxist teachers revise their views based on practical tests, not to mention others. Of course, Mao Zedong’s theory, lines, and decisions must also be tested by social practice, so that the truth is adhered to and mistakes are put right. There is no such thing as “every sentence as the gospel truth,” and “two whatevers” are untenable. I use the example of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels consciously to test their theories based on practice as the second part of the article. I am very satisfied with this part, thinking that it touch a raw nerve to “two whatevers,” and the argument is well-founded.

In June 1977, I met a major problem in my family. Physical examination showed that my wife developed a tumor and must undergo surgery without delay. Thrown into a panic, I dropped my work and set about solving the issue of hospitalization for my wife. With the aid of my comrades, my wife was admitted to the Provincial Workers’ Hospital. The operation was successful, and postoperative escort service was required. It was summer holiday at that time. My children brought meals to their mother during the day, while I went around buying crucian carp, hens, and watermelon. I accompanied my wife at night. Four female patients shared a room. In the sultry weather, the escort people had to sleep while sitting on stools in the corridor. As I was young at the time, I could stay up all night after an afternoon snap. Therefore, I picked up the study work in the hospital that had been interrupted for two weeks. At the hospital, I perused the Marx & Engels Selected Works, Lenin Selected Works and Selected Works of Mao Zedong to find out and mark the chapters that deal with the viewpoint of practice. I read these works repeatedly in two or three nights. Afterward, I conceived the content and wrote the outline on the stool. When I got exhausted, I slept on several stools put together for a while, and continued my work when I awoke. When my wife was discharged a week later, I also finished writing my outline. Back home, it took me only a few days to draft the “Practice is the criterion for testing truth.” At the time, I felt a strong sense of responsibility and an impulse, with a willingness to bear hardships. Because of the political sensitivity and risk of this article, I laid down a few rules in the course of conception and writing: have a firm grasp of Marxism and make positive arguments; give correct and faultless viewpoints; take a tough stand and be to the point, and use Marxism-Leninism quotations, as well as examples in the works as much as possible; convince people with reason, and choose words carefully, without indulging in criticism. Having experienced many political movements, particularly the “Cultural Revolution,” I was keenly aware of the horrors of writing errors. Therefore, I must be resolute and courageous, as well as stick to a scientific attitude. I like to conduct research independently when writing articles. Such sensitive topics should be dealt with independently, because an author must be responsible for what they write. Therefore, I never discussed with others before sending the article.

As is my custom, I put a completed article aside for a few days before revising it. In general, three or four revisions are needed. This article was revised repeatedly over a month. The Eleventh CPC National Congress was held during this period. In the report of the Eleventh CPC National Congress, the chief person in charge of the Central Government still clung to the theory of “continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat,” and emphasized that the “Cultural Revolution” would be launched many times. In other words, it is to stick to the “two whatevers.” I felt that the article “Practice is the criterion for testing truth” was well-timed and it must be written well.

The revised article was completed at the end of August 1977. Where should I send it? I remembered Comrade Wang Qianghua, head of the philosophy group of Guangming Daily. I made acquaintance with Wang Qianghua in early June. The theoretical circles held a theory seminar at the Party School of Jiangsu Provincial Party Committee at the time. At the seminar, I delivered a speech entitled “Whoever opposes the ‘theory of the unique importance of productive forces’ is against the theory of historical materialism,” saying that the theory of productive forces is the fundamental viewpoint of historical materialism. After the seminar, I was introduced to Wang Qianghua. He seemed to agree with my viewpoint and asked me to write an article, but he did not propose a topic. Therefore, I sent the article “Practice is the criterion for testing truth” to Wang Qianghua, together with another article, in early September 1977.

This article was nearly half a year in the making, from its conception to delivery.

Modification and Publication

The article “Practice is the criterion for testing truth” consists of three parts: (1) Practice is the criterion for testing truth. Whether a theory or line is correct or not must be tested by social practice. What is proven correct by practice is the truth, and what is proved wrong should be rejected. Practice is the criterion for testing all truths. (2) Marx and Engels created dialectical materialism and historical materialism, but consciously tested their theories and doctrines, confirmed and developed the truth, and corrected mistakes according to social practice. (3) The “theory of innate genius,” “pinnacle theory” and “every sentence as the gospel truth” are idealistic metaphysics, and caused a pernicious influence. Continued efforts must be made to level criticism against these.

No news was received four months after the article was sent. On January 14, 1978, Wang Qianghua sent me two final proofs of “Practice is the Criterion for Testing Truth,” together with an accompanying letter which said that the article “has been roughly edited, primarily compressing the first part of the original manuscript”;

Moreover, the issues raised in this article are too penetrating. Please exercise sound judgement, so that people will not see Marxism-Leninism as the “outdated theory.” Please modify the article and then send it to me, so that it can be published as soon as possible.

Wang Qianghua and other comrades were aware of the pointed questions raised in this article, and they dared to publish this article nevertheless. They are commendable for this. I chewed over his suggestions and scrutinized the article. I believed that the article would not cause “side effects,” and it was inappropriate to change the subject of the article, which upholds “practice is the criterion for testing truth,” opposes “two whatevers,” criticizes the “Cultural Revolution,” and promotes the efforts to put things right. Therefore, I made little revisions, trying to be as thoughtful as possible, and sticking to the article’s subject and basic viewpoint. In order to avoid falling into a passive position, Wang Qianghua sent me proofs of the articles in February, March, and April for revision, and I acted accordingly. The editor did not make specific requirements for these revisions.

On March 13, Wang Qianghua sent me another letter, saying that

The purpose of your article is crystal-clear. However, for a more convincing article, please add some content based on reality. Because the “Gang of Four” exploited isolated words to frighten people and cramp people’s thinking for many years, some comrades engage in concepts, and rigidly follow instructions without proceeding from reality. As a consequence, they shudder at the thought of these, and are unable to get work done. Please consider including words to this effect.

I was pleased to do so. I appended a long paragraph when revising the article. An excerpt of this is as follows:

In the past decade, the subjective idealism of the “Gang of Four” was rampant … They exploited just a word or two to frighten and beat people, and imposed restrictions and shackles on people. As a consequence, some comrades did work without summarizing practical experience or listening to the opinions of the public. Regardless of specific conditions, they proceeded from concepts and principles, and regarded a word or two as tenets and applied these mechanically. They dared not to draw new conclusions from reality even if what they did was inconsistent with reality. In the face of new problems under new circumstances, they did not employ Marxist viewpoints and methods to conduct investigation and research, and analyze problems on a case-by-case basis. Instead, they focused on book learning and quotations, and regarded the isolated words as a panacea for all problems, no matter whether it conformed to reality or whether the work could be done properly. When telling right from wrong, they used the isolated words as a guideline, without using practice as a criterion, and facts as a basis. In a nutshell, they had lingering fear … Therefore, we must continue to expose and criticize the “Gang of Four,” eliminate its pernicious influence, free the mind, have a thorough and accurate grasp of the Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought system, combine theory with practice, seek truth from facts, smash the restrictions imposed by the “Gang of Four,” and pull off our revolutionary work.

I gained a deeper understanding. Therefore, I added this paragraph. At the same time, I changed the title of the article to “Practice Is the Criterion for Testing All Truths.” However, according to the proof dated April 2, the editor deleted the following words: “When telling right from wrong, they used isolated words as a guideline, without using practice as a criterion, and facts as a basis. In a nutshell, they had lingering fear.” These few words directly criticize the “two whatevers.” I understand the editor’s situation and state of mind: support the practice as the criterion and oppose the “two whatevers,” but it was inappropriate to speak frankly.

In mid to late April, I went to Beijing for the National Philosophy Symposium held by the Institute of Philosophy. Wang Qianghua invited me to the newspaper office that night. He told me that “Practice is the Criterion for Testing All Truths” was finalized and planned to be published in the philosophy edition on April 2. Due to the controversy, it was sent to the new editor-in-chief Yang Xiguang for review. Yang Xiguang spoke highly of it, adding that it was a pity to publish it in the philosophy edition. He said that it should be published as an important article on the front page, but it still needed to be revised based on the reality. Wang Qianghua said that he originally planned to invite me to Beijing to make revision. This visit gave me the right opportunity to revise the article.

In the editor-in-chief’s office, I met Yang Xiguang, Ma Peiwen, Sun Changjiang, Wang Qianghua, Tao Kai and others. Yang Xiguang expressed the intention: publish it as an important article instead of an article in the philosophy edition, so revisions were necessary. Everyone was invited to give comments. He said that he had communicated with the Theory Research Office of the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, and the Theory Research Office was also studying this topic. Therefore, comrade Sun Changjiang was invited to participate in the discussion and help revise the article. Opinions were solicited without delay. These can be summed up as follows: First, strengthen the link between theory and practice, criticize “every sentence as the gospel truth,” smash the restrictions, publicize the efforts to free the mind and seek truth from facts, make the article more pertinent and convincing, and take aim at “two whatevers.” Second, the article required more thorough and in-depth content, and should be precise and complete theoretically, in case to fall into a passive situation. Ma Peiwen advocated publicly criticizing “two whatevers.” I disagreed without delay, because the “two whatevers” were put forward by People’s Daily, PLA Daily and Red Flag. If the “two whatevers” were publicly criticized, no newspaper or radio station would dare to publish this article.

I attended a philosophical symposium during the day and revised the article at night. The next morning, the Guangming Daily correspondent collected the manuscript, and sent the proof sample in the evening. This went on three times. After the philosophical symposium was over, Yang Xiguang invited me to the Guangming Daily guesthouse for the revision work. During this period, I visited the People’s Daily press and met He Kuang, Wang Zisong, Cui Wenyu, Gu Jiawang and others. He Kuang said that the article must be convincing. If the Guangming Daily did not publish it, we would. At the instructions of Yang Xiguang, I went to Wu Jiang for comments. He spoke positively of the article, and wrote to Yang Xiguang on one proof: “It’s a potent and well-thought-out article.” Wu Jiang gave opinions for revision: “Strengthen the link between theory and practice, give thorough arguments, and write meticulously to make it more convincing.”

For the revisions I made in Beijing, the following must be explained:

First, the article consisted of four parts instead of three parts, adding “the unity of theory and practice is a basic principle of Marxism” as the second part (this part is an extension of a paragraph I had written).

Second, emphasize smashing the “forbidden areas”: “some ‘forbidden areas’ exist in theory and in practice.” For the so-called “forbidden areas,” issues were not studied realistically under the guidance of Marxism, and scientific methods were not used to distinguish right and wrong. Problems were solved by relying on “belief.” This is totally wrong. With Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, there was no problem that could not be studied, and there were no “forbidden areas.” Where there were “forbidden areas,” there would be no practice as the criterion of truth, there would be no science, nor Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. It was just blind obedience. Later, Zhou Yang’s statement at the National Philosophy Symposium that “there are no forbidden areas for science” was quoted.

Third, two sentences were added during revision: “They (Marx and Engels) did not think that whatever they had said was the truth, nor do they think that all their conclusions must be upheld.”

Fourth, it further elaborated that whether theories, doctrines, lines and policies were correct must be tested by practice, without exception.

The May 1st International Labor Day in 1978 was approaching. I planned to go back to Nanjing. Yang Xiguang said that “The revision has almost been finished. You can go home if you want. The rest will be left for the comrades of the Party School of the CPC Central Committee.” When bidding farewell to Sun Changjiang, he said that “I will sort it out and prune the article if necessary.”

Sun Changjiang was my teacher, teaching the pre-Qin part of the Chinese philosophy when I was studying at Renmin University of China. In summary, Mr. Sun Changjiang’s revisions are summarized as follows: First, knock the article into shape. Titles were added to the four sections to make them more eye-catching. Second, it further discussed the part of “unity of theory and practice.” Third, the views of the article were analyzed and extended to make the article concise. In short, Mr. Sun’s revisions perfected the article. I am very grateful to him for this.

During the course of revisions, Yang Xiguang stayed with me at the Guangming Daily guesthouse, and we held talks several times. He said that when he finished studies at the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, Comrade Hu Yaobang talked with him and requested him to go to work at the Guangming Daily to bring in new changes. Yang Xiguang said that: “My efforts to bring new changes to Guangming Daily will start with this article.”

Yang Xiguang also said that Hu Yaobang would be invited to revise and finalize this article. He thought from a higher standpoint. He set up theory research office at the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, and ran an internal journal, Theoretical Trends. Articles published in Theoretical Trends must be reviewed and approved by Hu Yaobang. Therefore, our article must be revised by the Theoretical Research Office of the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, and reviewed by Hu Yaobang before it could be published on Theoretical Trends. Shortly afterward, he told me:

Arrangement has been made for the publication of this article. First, it would be published internally on Theoretical Trends, and then publicly published on Guangming Daily the next day. The People’s Daily and PLA Daily would reprint it, and Xinhua News Agency would air it nationwide. We discussed and agreed that we must criticize the “two whatevers,” and promote the efforts to free the mind and put things right.