本页主题: Comments on Tao Chu's Two Books by YAO WEN-YUAN 打印 | 加为IE收藏 | 复制链接 | 收藏主题 | 上一主题 | 下一主题

weihong
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 3193
威望: 3194 点
红花: 31935 朵
贡献值: 1 点
在线时间:286(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-12-31

 Comments on Tao Chu's Two Books by YAO WEN-YUAN

图片:
图片:
图片:
Comments on Tao Chu's Two Books

by YAO WEN-YUAN


Source: Peking Review, No. 38, September 15, 1967
Transcribed by www.WENGEWANG.ORG

LIKE a succession of gales, the great proletarian cultural revolution is shaking the whole of China and indeed the whole world.
   The situation is excellent. After a year of stirring battles, the great proletarian cultural revolution which started with mass criticism and repudiation in the field of culture is now triumphantly entering the phase of a mass movement of criticism and repudiation of the handful of top Party persons in authority taking the capitalist road. This campaign of mass criticism is of great political significance. It is a deep-going development of the proletarian revolutionaries' struggle to seize power, an important step in the elimination of revisionist poison, an ideological motive force mobilizing the masses in their tens of millions for active struggle, criticism and transformation, a mammoth mass struggle for the thorough application of Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line in the fields of politics, economy, culture and military affairs.
   The two books before us, Ideals, Integrity and Spiritual Life (Ideals for short) published in 1962 by the China Youth Publishing House, and Thinking, Feeling and Literary Talent (Thinking for short) published in 1964 by the Kwangtung People's Publishing House, are both excellent negative study material for the mass criticism campaign. They are sister books of the sinister work "on self-cultivation" and vividly portray the reactionary and ugly soul of Tao Chu the revisionist.
   Prior to the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, Tao Chu was a faithful executant of the bourgeois reactionary line represented by China's Khrushchov. After that session, when the reactionary features of the two top persons in authority taking the capitalist, road were exposed before the whole Party, he became the chief person representing and continuing to carry out the bourgeois reactionary line. In league with such henchmen as Wang Jen-chung, the counter-revolutionary revisionist, he continued to frantically oppose and distort the proletarian revolutionary line represented by Chairman Mao and to oppose and boycott the great thought of Mao Tse-tung, recruited deserters and turncoats, colluded with Party persons in authority taking the capitalist road and everywhere issued instructions to suppress the revolutionary masses and support and shield counter-revolutionary revisionists and ghosts and monsters, vainly trying by base tricks to blanket or annul the criticism and repudiation of the top capitalist roaders in the Party at the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.
   In the forward march of history, all who overestimate the strength of reaction and underestimate that of the people — addlepates dressed up as heroes and resisting progress — invariably end up quickly as contemptible clowns. At a 10.000-strong rally on July 30, 1966, this man who styled himself "a proletarian revolutionary in the main" waved his fist and haughtily shouted: "You can have me overthrown, too, if you don't believe me." How arrogant he was then! A virtual man-eater! He was trying to intimidate the masses, implying: Woe to anyone who dares oppose a "veteran revolutionary" like me; I am a hero and will never never fall. But the logic of history is such that anyone who comes out in opposition to Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line, the great proletarian cultural revolution and the revolutionary masses inevitably falls. The more rounded out a reactionary's performance, the heavier his fall. In retrospect, it is clear that the ludicrous performance he put on, glorifying himself and intimidating the people, was just another silly layer of grease paint on this double-dealer's face.
   "I have always been a revolutionary." Well, let's use these two books as our chief material and see whom this eternally revolutionary person "always" followed, what kind of "revolution" he was engaged in, what "ideals" he really cherished, what "integrity" he advocated, what class "thinking and feeling" he publicized and what "spiritual life" he led.

   Bourgeois Counter-Revolutionary "Ideals"

   Which "side" does Tao Chu belong to? What "ideals," the ideals of which side, does he advocate in the books? It will be enough to refer to the evidence he himself has provided.
   In August 1955, when the socialist transformation of agriculture and handicraft industries began surging ahead and the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were locked in a life-and-death struggle, Tao Chu stepped forward histrionically: "All of us belong to the same side, the side of the Chinese people. With the exception of the counter-revolutionaries, all should sincerely unite."1 This "all of us . . . with the exception of the counter-revolutionaries" is subject to the rule of one dividing into two — the proletariat on the one side and the bourgeoisie on the other. Tao Chu viciously slandered the ideological remoulding of intellectuals as "an insult to one's personality." He asserted that Hu Shih's reactionary ideas were simply "a question of method of thinking" which "can only be judged clearly . . . after 30 or 40 years."2 It is obvious that his "all of us" actually referred to the bourgeoisie and its agents such as Hu Shin. His boastful remark about "the side of the Chinese people" who should "sincerely" embrace each other in reality referred to the bourgeois reactionaries opposed to the people.
   In the same report, Tao Chu also used extremely sympathetic language to describe "the counter-revolutionaries now lying low on the mainland" as being "in a miserable plight and a painful frame of mind." Words reflect one's thinking. With the words "miserable" and "painful," Tao Chu at one stroke wrote off the hatefulness and brutality of the counter-revolutionaries and vividly portrayed a "spiritual life" in which he was in perfect harmony with them. When excerpts from this report were included in his book, these colourful and sympathetic expressions were deleted.
   Two years later, in May 1957, when the Rightists were launching wild attacks, Tao Chu promptly wrote articles for the press, declaring that "by and large classes have now disappeared," "the contradictions within the country between the enemy and ourselves have been resolved," and "the function of dictatorship should be weakened" in the dictatorship of the proletariat, which should be "geared ... to guiding production . . . and to organizing the people's economic life."3 The landlords, rich peasants and bourgeoisie all became members of one "big family," the dictatorship of the proletariat could be abolished and "a state of the whole people" with the sole task of "guiding production" could soon come into being. The out-and-out revisionist note he struck, which was directed at overthrowing the dictatorship of the proletariat, conclusively shows him up as a ringleader of the bourgeois Rightists.
   Two years later, in the first half of 1959, when the socialist revolution was developing in greater depth, Tao Chu wrote his article, "The Character of the Pine," in which he advised "never yielding to adverse circumstances,"4 and another article, "Revolutionary Firmness," in which he talked of "facing the raging sea" and the ability to withstand the "onslaughts of storms and hurricanes."5 Under his pen, the stirring great leap forward, the heroic aspiration of the revolutionary people to transform the world, became "adverse circumstances." As the tempest of socialist revolution struck at the bourgeoisie, landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements and Rightists, and at their agents the Peng Teh-huai anti-Party clique, Tao Chu hysterically called for the ability "to withstand the onslaughts of storms and hurricanes." There is no need to add a single word; his counter-revolutionary stand is crystal clear.
   Six years went by. It was 1965. On many occasions following the glorious Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman Mao pointed out that the principal contradiction within China was the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and between the socialist and the capitalist roads. In the document concerning the socialist education movement, known as "the 23 points," he stated that "the main target of the present movement is those within the Party who are in authority and are taking the capitalist road." These important instructions of Chairman Mao's were fiercely opposed and resisted by China's Khrushchov and by Tao Chu and company. Tao Chu showed himself up once again in November 1965, when the criticism and repudiation of the drama Hai Jui Dismissed From Office was just beginning and the life-and-death struggle against the counter-revolutionary revisionist, China's Khrushchov, was imminent. Writing in Wenyi Bao (Literary and Art Gazette), the mouthpiece of the counter-revolutionary black line in literature and art, he said: "1 think that at the present stage the task of reflecting the contradictions among the people should be put in the most important position."6 To argue that "contradictions among the people" formed the principal contradiction "at the present stage" was a flagrant denial of the fact that the principal contradiction within the country was the struggle between the two classes and between the two roads. It meant that he regarded the questions concerning the handful of counter-revolutionaries, renegades, Rightists and those in authority taking the capitalist road as contradictions "among the people," and thus covered up their crimes in trying to usurp the leadership in the Party, government and army, his purpose being to shield all the fiendish bourgeois counter-revolutionaries who had sneaked into the Party.
   Has Tao Chu "always been a revolutionary?" No, he has always been a counter-revolutionary! It can be said that at every turning point in history, he invariably and openly took the bourgeois stand and opposed Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line and socialism. His much vaunted "ideals" are bourgeois counter-revolutionary ideals, the reactionary ideals of protecting and developing capitalism, the idle dream of overthrowing the dictatorship of the proletariat and restoring capitalism in China.

For example:
   (1) Tao Chu says: "The idea of socialism is to use every means to ensure rapid national industrialization."7 If this out-and-out reactionary theory of "socialism" were valid, wouldn't it follow that the industrialized United States attained "socialism" long ago? For the achievement of industrialization, there are two roads, two lines and two kinds of means — the socialist and the capitalist. To take the socialist road, it is essential to rely on the working class and the revolutionary masses, on the keeping of politics in the fore and on the revolutionary consciousness and initiative of the hundreds of millions of people awakened by Mao Tse-tung's thought, and to place the leadership of enterprises really in the hands of proletarian revolutionaries. On the other hand, taking the capitalist road means reliance on a few bourgeois "experts," on material incentives and on the conservatives, as is repeatedly advocated in Tao Chu's book, it means the usurpation of the leadership of the enterprises by a privileged stratum representing the interests of the bourgeoisie. What Tao Chu calls "every means" is reliance on the bourgeoisie in order to develop the capitalist system of exploitation and oppose the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce.
   "The history of China in the last century or so is a history of receiving blows, and the reason is that it had no industry."8 Here Tao Chu talks like a bungling teacher of history giving us a lecture on the modern history of China, a lecture which is indeed a reversal of history. The principal explanation of why the Chinese received blows in the 109 years from 1840 to 1949 is not that they had no industry, but that political power was in the hands of the lackeys of imperialism, in the hands of traitors, from the Ching government through the Northern warlords down to Chiang Kai-shek. Ever since the seizure of power throughout China by the proletariat and the working people under the leadership of their great leader Comrade Mao Tse-tung, the imperialists have had to stop and think how strong their snouts are before they try to attack us. The more thoroughgoing the great cultural revolution, the deeper the thought of Mao Tse-tung penetrates the consciousness of the people and the stronger the dictatorship of the proletariat, the more certain it is that no one will be able to match us in a war. This is the proletarian revolutionary ideal. To attribute the receiving of blows in the past entirely to the lack of industry is to cover up all the heinous crimes of the vicious traitors and to prettify the Chinese lackeys of the international bourgeoisie who have tried to restore capitalism in the name of "developing industry." This chimes perfectly with the theory of national betrayal of China's Khru-shchov!
   (2) Tao Chu says that "the ideal of communism" means "comfortable houses." It is to "provide every room with electricity at night and enable everybody to dress sprucely and ride in motor-cars. . . . "9 In short, it means "good food, good clothing and good housing." It means pleasure-seeking. He is ready to sell his very soul, with a cheap "communist" label thrown in, to whoever gives him "good food and good housing." This is indeed the philosophy of the lowest traitors! Communism in appearance but ultra-individualism or capitalism in essence — that is the definition of Tao Chu's "ideal of communism." Wouldn't it follow from this definition that the life of the U.S. bourgeoisie perfectly fits the "ideal of communism?"
   (3) Tao Chu says that it is a "lofty ideal" always to keep in mind that "one will become a navigator, aviator, scientist, writer, engineer, teacher .... "10 He lists one expert profession after another, but makes no mention at all of any worker, peasant or soldier. In the eyes of this renegade from the proletariat, the revolutionary workers, peasants and soldiers should rank very low. More than that, they should simply be condemned to bottomless perdition, without any hope of escape. At the other extreme is a long string of bourgeois "experts," who are assigned a very high, or even the “loftiest" place. "The bourgeoisie took part in the democratic movement. They have industrial know-how and are not as corrupt as the landlords."11 Yes, here you admit that by "experts" you refer not to proletarian specialists but to the bourgeoisie and their representatives in cultural circles. What you call "know-how" is the capitalists' knowledge of how to exploit the workers craftily and ruthlessly, and other similar knowledge. It is Tao Chu's "lofty ideal" to stage a counter-revolutionary come-back through those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have climbed very high. Today, a number of very high bourgeois "authorities" have been pulled down by young revolutionary fighters.
   Another of these great ideals is, in Tao Chu's words, "really enabling everybody to have personal ease of mind." In 1962, just at the lime when the bourgeoisie launched wanton attacks on the proletariat and when evil spirits of all kinds danced in riotous revelry, to give the bourgeoisie "ease of mind," Tao Chu in his article "Thoughts on How to Make Creative Writing Flourish" wrote such nonsense about the bourgeois intellectuals as "quite a number have become intellectuals of the working people." and "it is necessary to bring the enthusiasm of labouring intellectuals into play."12 (Note: in a speech he said: "The overwhelming majority of the intellectuals have now become intellectuals of the working people and the label of bourgeois intellectuals should be removed from them.") Fine! The "three family village", such people as Tien Han, Hsia Yen, Wu Han and Chien Po-tsan as well as Hai Jui, Wei Cheng. Li Hui-niang and the like, have all "become intellectuals of the working people." Can't they now prepare public opinion for a capitalist restoration with still greater vigour, for their label is removed and they have been provided with a fresh halo? Can't they now work to restore capitalism in comfort, with everybody happily "in harmony and enjoying ease of mind"?
   Either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie is bound to lack "ease of mind" — this is the inevitable consequence of class struggle. When the proletariat has "ease of mind." the bourgeoisie is bound to be uneasy. When the bourgeoisie has "ease of mind," the proletariat is bound to suffer. Either one or the other. Whoever calls For redressing the bourgeoisie's grievance that it does not have "ease of mind" only proves that he himself shares the very feelings of the bourgeoisie.
   Tao Chu says that this "socialist ideal" of his is 'beneficial to everybody," including the bourgeoisie. Socialism must eradicate the bourgeoisie through the dictatorship of the proletariat. How can it be beneficial lo the bourgeoisie? The "'socialism" which is "beneficial to everybody" is phoney socialism, or Khrushchov-type revisionism, the counter-revolutionary theory of Bukharin that capitalism can "grow" into socialism. It is the reactionary theory of the "party of the entire people," "the state of the whole people" and the "socialism of the whole people" which abandons class struggle and abolishes the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the slogan for restoring capitalism in China after the triumph of socialism.
   Enough! The material cited is sufficient to let us see this agent of the bourgeoisie in his true colours. He has obdurately followed a capitalist road which opposes socialism. What he thinks, praises and loves is capitalism; what he fears, curses and hales is socialism. In a word, the "ideals" in his writings are remoulding the state, society and the Party in the ugly image of the bourgeoisie.
   This person has a "famous saying": "To establish socialist ideas or ideals. . . it is at least necessary to make socialist ideas cover over fifty per cent of the whole realm of one's ideology."13 How is it possible to measure man's world outlook in percentages? It is utterly ridiculous. Stripped of its pretences, it is just a clumsy and colossal swindle. Its purpose is to tell the bourgeoisie to appear in disguise, to cloak "fifty per cent" of their language with "socialist ideas" and thus try to cover up their evil capitalist nature. This is the most typical of revisionism. Both books were written in this way. The top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road said in heart-to-heart talks with the bourgeoisie: So long as the bourgeoisie master Marxist phrases, they can "grow happily and peacefully into socialism" and gain both fame and wealth. This is the best footnote to "over fifty per cent" of "socialist ideas." "Ideals!" "Ideals!" At the sight of this faithful agent, the bourgeoisie are truly moved to tears of gratitude.


The "Spiritual Life" of a Renegade And Flunkey

   Would you like to know what kind of "spiritual life" is extolled in these two books? No need to read too far, just to get the essence is enough. It is the reactionary Kuomintang philosophy plus the flunkey's mentality.
   Tao Chu has engraved on his memory and learnt by rote the reactionary and decadent idealism of the Kuomintang and the gangster talk of hangman Chiang Kai-shek. This counter-revolutionary stuff occupies pride of place in his "spiritual life." Only a renegade can spit out such reactionary rubbish.
   The following is to be found among Chiang Kai-shek's counter-revolutionary utterances: "As to the meaning of politics, Dr. Sun Yat-sen has told us clearly: politics is the management of public affairs . . . therefore the meaning of politics is finding the scientific method for the general mobilization of the whole nation to manage public affairs in order to seek the greatest welfare for the whole nation and people."14
   Tao Chu rehashes all this with no change. He writes: "First of all, it is necessary to understand what politics is. Probably you all know Dr. Sun Yat-sen. He said: 'Politics is the management of public affairs.' Our 'management of public affairs' has the purpose of making our country prosperous and strong, making the people happy . . . that is, working for the people's interests, explaining reasons clearly and making people understand these reasons so that they join gladly and willingly in the work of building a socialist society."15
   Tao Chu shamelessly proclaims that he was a student of Chiang Kai-shek. Or, more accurately, a flunkey — for doesn't he sound like a flunkey?
   Calling politics "the management of public affairs" is the reactionary standpoint of the bourgeois exploiters. There is no such thing as "the public" in the abstract. In a class society the public is divided into classes. Nor is there such a thing as "management" in the abstract. In a class society management is invariably the handling of relations between classes, a question of which class controls and exercises political power. Chairman Mao penetratingly points out in bis Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art: "Politics, whether revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, is the struggle of class against class."16 Analysed from this standpoint of Chairman Mao's, politics is the struggle to consolidate or overthrow the political power of this or that class, the struggle to safeguard or destroy this or that system of ownership, the struggle to seize or preserve the interests of this or that class (or group). The proletariat can finally emancipate itself only by emancipating all mankind. Therefore, in its political struggle to overthrow the oppressive rule of the bourgeoisie and establish and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat stands not only for its own class interests but also for those of the broad masses of the labouring people. It is in order to cover up the class content of its political activities and its oppression and exploitation of the proletariat and the working people that the bourgeoisie describes its counter-revolutionary politics in such abstract terms as "the management of public affairs." This same old trick has been played throughout, starling with the bourgeoisie in the 18th century and coming right down to the Soviet modern revisionists with their "state of the whole people." Chiang Kai-shek's "management of the public" consists of the sanguinary suppression and slaughter of the toiling masses by the counter-revolutionary state apparatus, while describing the counter-revolutionary rule of the landlords and the bourgeoisie as "seeking happiness for the whole nation and people" and even deceiving them by "general mobilization." This is the zenith of shamelessness. By rehashing all this, flunkey Tao Chu tries to bring about counter-revolutionary capitalist restoration and abolish the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, while describing servile acts In the interests of the bourgeoisie and all other reactionaries as "working for the interests of the people"; he also tries to cheat the people by "explaining the reasons clearly." This, too, is the zenith of shamelessness.
   In his counter-revolutionary utterances, Chiang Kai-shek was an advocate of the "spirit of sincere devotion" and lauded "the man with a foreknowledge and keen perception of things." Tao Chu dishes all this up unchanged:
   "We do not in toto negate Dr. Sun Yat-sen's expressions 'the man with a foreknowledge and keen perception of things' and 'the man with a backward knowledge and blunt perception of things.' These are to be found in society: some people make progress faster and some more slowly. If only a man has the desire to advance, in the end he will make progress. . . . "17
   "Marxists should be magnanimous to other people and strict with themselves. . . .They should not demand too much of non-Party people, but should seek 'sincere unity' with them as Sun Yat-sen said. . . . "18
   The phrases "the man with a foreknowledge and keen perception of things" and "the man with a backward knowledge and blunt perception of things" express the reactionary viewpoint of historical idealism which empties things of their class content and is divorced from social practice. Chairman Mao points out: "It is man's social being that determines his thinking. Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced, class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world".19 Those counter-revolutionary revisionists who will never repent and those diehard capitalist readers who refuse to correct their errors after repeated education are that way not because they are "men with a backward knowledge and blunt perception of things," but because of their social being, i.e., their bourgeois class status, which determines their obstinately taking the capitalist road. Similarly, the U.S. imperialist butchers and the renegade clique of the C.P.S.U. are that way not because they lack "the desire to advance," but because they represent the reactionary bourgeoisie, and whatever tricks they play in the line they adopt, it can only be a counter-revolutionary line serving the U.S. monopoly capitalists and the Soviet bourgeois privileged stratum. As for the proletarian revolutionaries, the reason why they can smash all obstacles, break through every kind of onerous and cruel suppression by the handful of top Party capitalist readers and win victory is not that they are "men with a foreknowledge and keen perception of things," but that they have grasped the thought of Mao Tse-tung, this theoretical weapon which is the quintessence of the highest wisdom of the proletariat of China and the world, and that they represent the interests of the proletariat and the working masses. Therefore, the more they fight, the stronger they become, and they are indomitable in all difficulties and always maintain dynamic revolutionary optimism. Today, in advocating reactionary idealism such as that we have described, Tao Chu tries to make people believe that the bourgeoisie "will make progress in the end," to lull the people's revolutionary vigilance and to help the bourgeoisie sneak into the ranks of the proletariat to carry out sabotage.
   The expression "sincere unity" as used by Tao Chu is through and through the language of the Kuomintang reactionaries! Different classes give different interpretations of the identical term. We, too, occasionally use this term. Then it means unity for the definite aim of revolution, for the struggle to carry out the revolutionary tasks of the proletariat. We always say, unity subject to a socialist orientation, and unity on the basis of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung's thought. In contrast, Tao Chu’s "sincere unity" discards all principle, betrays the socialist orientation and caters to the needs of the bourgeoisie. Unity and struggle are two contradictory aspects of a single entity. Without struggle, there is no unity. Unity is relative and transitional whereas struggle is absolute. Everything in this world divides into two in the course of its development. Men's knowledge always develops in struggle. As Chairman Mao points out: "Marxism can develop only through struggle, and not only is this true of the past and the present, it is necessarily true of the future as well."20 Where is there such an immutable "sincere unity" as Tao Chu's? The fortune-teller hangs up a signboard reading. "Effective if sincere." It's a trick. Chiang Kai-shek used the term "sincere unity" to cover up internal dog-fights and as a tool for instilling fascist ideas, whereas Tao Chu does something original — he puts up the signboard of Marxism to disintegrate the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.
   The book also says: "The reason why victory could be won in the earlier period of the great revolution of 1925-27 was that Dr. Sun Yat-sen reorganized the Kuomintang and adopted the three great policies 'in conformity with' the objective law of the revolution at that time."21 It is a plain distortion of history and a reversal of the truth when Tao Chu attributes victory in the early period of the First Revolutionary Civil War of 1925-27 not to the correct leadership and policies of the Communist Party of China represented by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, not to the struggles of the revolutionary people, but solely to the Kuomintang. He simply speaks for the Kuomintang reactionaries. Isn't he speaking with a traitor's voice when he gives the fruits of victory won with the blood of countless revolutionary martyrs to the Kuomintang in order to please it?
   Enough! Enough! Does not all this vile talk reveal that behind Tao Chu's "spiritual life" lies the realm of reactionary Kuomintang philosophy?
   Besides the reactionary Kuomintang philosophy, his ideas are all rubbish from the sinister book on "self-cultivation."
   Doesn't the book Ideals cheat our young people when it prates that "personal and collective interests cannot be separated," that if a person makes a show of "doing a good job," he will be "taken into account," "be appreciated," "be praised" and even "have his name spread to the whole country and the whole world"? This is a complete reproduction of the philistine speculator's philosophy of the Khrushchov of China, the philosophy of "lose a little to gain much." In February 1960, when he received members of the Standing Committees of the China Democratic National Construction Association and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road handed the representatives of the bourgeoisie an idea. He said: "Personal benefits will accrue ir you serve the people wholeheartedly.”22 These words are an accurate summary of this bourgeois careerist:, experience in "getting on in the world" over several decades of his life and generalize the quintessence of the philosophy of life of this traitor to the proletariat. When used by him and the handful of people like him, such terms as "serve the people" and "collective interests” are falsehood and deception, they are employed for show, they are the means, whereas personal interests, personal power and personal enjoyment arc real, they are the ends they pursue, it presenting the essence of their dirty souls. This is the trick used by the bourgeois counter-revolutionary double-dealers to sneak into the ranks of the revolutionaries and to seize power. Can we tolerate the criminal use of this trick to poison the younger generation and to destroy people with "soft" weapons?
   Doesn't the book Ideals cheat the young people when it says: "Our common world outlook together with our common method of thinking . . . consists in proceeding from objective reality, in admitting that right is right and wrong is wrong"?23 This, too, is merchandise bought from China's Khrushchov. In class society, there are distinct class criteria for light and wrong. Reality means, first of all, the reality of class struggle: do you stand on the side of the proletariat or on the side of the bourgeoisie? On the side of imperialism or on the side of the revolutionary people? On the side of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung's thought, or on the side of revisionism? On the side of the proletarian headquarters headed by Chairman Mao or on the side of the counter-revolutionary bourgeois headquarters? Using the abstractions of "right and wrong'' to cover up their class approach to problems is the common characteristic of opportunists who have sold their souls. In May 1949, reporting on his infamous visit to Tientsin where he genuflected to the bourgeoisie, China's Khrushchov said shamelessly: "The capitalists said that our newspapers were not well run. 1 said that indeed they were not altogether well run. I admitted this mistake too. ... In the future we should adopt the attitude: right is right, wrong is wrong, good is good, bad is bad. ... If there is anything good about the capitalists, we should say it's good; if there is anything bad about the workers, we should say it's bad."24 Look how he "proceeded from reality'! "Where there is anything good about the capitalists, we should say it's good; if there is anything bad about the workers, we should say it's bad." What a fair judge he is! What a clear approach to "right and wrong" this scab takes! See how this infamous flunkey of the bourgeoisie never forgets his masters' "goodness"! How obvious is his ferocity when he condemns the workers for being "bad"!  And how well the author of the book “Ideals” has memorized the soul-selling philosophy of that certain person!
   The book “Ideals” misrepresents dialectical materialism when it slates that "existence is primary while-thinking is only secondary, the objective is primary while the subjective is only secondary,"25 totally denying man's dynamic role, the leap from matter to consciousness and from consciousness to matter, and the dialectical process of practice, knowledge, again practice, again knowledge ... in the development of man's knowledge. This is certainly not dialectical materialism but reactionary metaphysics. The proletariat's sole aim in understanding the objective world is to transform it in accordance with the laws inherent in the development of things. If one negates the trans-formation of the objective world, negates the revolution and the struggle to push history forward, doesn't the statement that "the objective is primary" become empty words on a sheet of paper? But this criticism alone is far from sufficient. It must be understood that the reason why he advocates this mechanical or vulgar materialism is to spread opportunism of a certain kind, under which one drifts with the current and is ready to sell out the interests of the proletariat at any time in order to serve the bourgeoisie. Isn't that true? The bourgeoisie can be said to have an objective existence. One may proceed from the stand of the bourgeoisie, follow its words and take its interests as the criterion, "right is right and wrong is wrong." In this way the restoration of capitalism can be brought about under the cloak of "seeking the truth from facts" and dialectical materialism. These tricks can be seen through once their true nature is exposed.
   Did not Tao Chu say to some young people gloatingly, "There are males and females in the world and they will naturally have love affairs"?26 This immediately makes one think of the absurd "famous saying" of China's Khrushchov: "One head of cattle plus another head of cattle is still cattle . . . but a bull plus a cow makes a new relationship; a man plus a woman forms the husband-and-wife relationship. Everything is a unity of opposites."27 In the eyes of this bunch, the relations between one person and another are the same as those between a bull and a cow. In class society, people are differentiated according to their class and are linked according to their class relations. The relations between man and woman arc no exception. Lu Hsun wrote in his " "Hard Translation' and the 'Class Character of Literature"1: "Victims of famine will hardly grow orchids like rich old gentlemen, nor will Chiao Ta of the Chia family fall in love with Miss Lin." [Chiao Ta is a gatekeeper in the feudal Chia family in the classical novel Dream of the Red Chamber — Tr.] This basic fact is denied by members of this gang, they trample it underfoot. But their vulgar language cannot in the least hurt Marxist class analysis. It only goes to show that their views on people's interrelations and their "self-cultivation are vulgar bourgeois nonsense such as "a bull plus a cow" and "a man plus a woman."   Isn't it clear that those persons with their voluble talk about "self-cultivation'" are hypocrites rotten to the core?
   Tao Chu's book says that the "success or failure" of a person in "his decades of life" is determined by "whether his subjective ideas conform with the objective situation."28 How did he himself obsequiously make his "subjective ideas" conform with the "objective situation" under Kuomintang rule, and in his "decades" of "success" how did he conform with U.S. imperialism, the Kuomintang reactionaries and the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie? Should not all this be brought out into the light of day?

Feelings of Bitter Hatred Towards The Proletariat

   In May 1959, just before the revisionist Peng Teh-huai dished up his sinister programme in a desperate effort to restore capitalism, Tao Chu, assuming the manner of Hai Jui in his article "The Sun's Radiance," blatantly and viciously abused our great socialist cause, our great Parts' and our great leader. On the one hand, he said that people used the words "the east is red. the sun rises" to "describe the vigour and vitality of our great cause" and that they "eulogize our Party and leader by likening them to the sun." On the other hand, he attacked the "faults" of the sun openly and railed obliquely: "In the depth of summer when the glaring sun is scorching the earth and making people sweat, they grumble and say that the sun's light and heat arc excessive. And as everyone knows, and has pointed out too, the sun itself has black spots on it."29
   "The sun itself has black spots on it." Is this not downright invective against our Party and great leader? In Tao Chu's eyes not only are there "black spots." but socialism is altogether pitch black. For those who see with bourgeois eyes, brightness and darkness are reversed. They are blinder than the blind. In the view of this revisionist, the radiance of socialism shed by the sun is intolerable to those in authority taking the capitalist road, it reveals their true features, makes them "sweat" and is "excessive." This is where the "faults" of the sun lie. In fact, this is precisely why the sun is great. Monsters and demons, bed bugs and lice, germs and viruses which hide in dark corners in the house can only be killed when they are exposed lo the light and heat of the sun. True working people are tempered and get stronger in the sunshine. How can one get strong without sweating in the sun? To condemn the sun for its "light and heat" is in fact to condemn the proletariat for "exceeding the limit," to condemn socialism and the people's communes for their "excesses." This naked bourgeois double-talk only shows him up as a ghost that dares not face the light of the sun.
   In "The Character of the Pine," does not Tao Chu praise the pine for "shutting out the sun's glare by its foliage in summer?"30 The brilliance of Mao Tse-tung's thought cannot be shut out. He who is bent on challenging brightness can only sink from darkness into deeper darkness.
   It is noteworthy that the phrase "eulogize our Party and leader by likening them to the sun" was suddenly changed into "eulogize our great, glorious and correct Party by likening it to the sun" in the second edition of Ideals which came out in 1965. This dodge which was meant to cover up his vicious purpose actually helps to expose it more flagrantly and it perfectly reveals his guilty conscience. He cut out the word "leader." Does not this precisely indicate that, between 1959 and 1962, when he wrote this article and published this book, he directed his spearhead at our great leader? Otherwise, why should he hastily cut it out? He added the words "great, glorious and correct" before "Party." Does not this precisely indicate that he did not consider the Chinese Communist Party great, glorious and correct when he wrote his article and published his book? Otherwise, why should he hastily add them? He had a guilty conscience, and feared his looks would betray him. That is why he was in such a pother. Is it not true that in a report made in May 1959, in Swatow, Kwangtung Province, Tao Chu clamoured about the need to "learn from the style of Hai Jui" in coordination with Peng Teh-huai's attack? Apparently, the style of this Hai Jui was not so lofty and he did not show much ability. Nevertheless, the rephrasing mentioned above inadvertently revealed his crimes in opposing the Party, socialism and Chairman Mao in coordination with Peng Teh-huai and company — an ironclad fact which he can never succeed in denying.
   By late September 1959, the Lushan Meeting of the Party Central Committee had ended, the Peng Teh-huai anti-Party clique had been exposed and the unbridled attack launched by the revisionists had been smashed. Then in his article "A Hard-Won Victory,' this revisionist Tao Chu was compelled to go through the motions of expressing dissatisfaction with "a few persons" who "took a keen interest in the shortcomings in our work."31 However, who were the few persons he referred to? Did they not include Tao Chu himself? In one of his articles, did he not order the press to "cover the shortcomings and errors in our work and to do this, notwithstanding the fact that they were but a single finger as compared with nine?"32 Wasn't he the person who was keen on exposing what he called the "dark side" and "black spots" of socialism? This cannot be denied. It is precisely because he had a hand in the dirty business that he expressed profound sympathy in this article for those whom he referred to as a few persons. He said that "in mentioning these people we hope that they will change their stand and. first of all. join the ranks of the builders of socialism heart and soul."33 This amounted to advising the bankrupt Right opportunists to pretend lo "change their stand" so as to sneak their way into the revolutionary ranks and to continue their anti-socialist activities.
   Burning hatred for the proletariat, deep affection and solicitude for the bourgeoisie — such are Tao Chu's feelings. Here this malignant monster stands revealed, now stripped of his mask.

"Literary Talent" Which Is Rotten To the Core

   How shameful it is for a man to preen himself on his "literary talent" on the strength of a pretentious literary style and incomprehensible language! It is very much like those ignorant landlords who hung on the lips of men of letters and, while obviously possessing not a title of literary knowledge, rocked back and forth, chanting mumbo jumbo like classical scholars.
   Though displaying no literary talent whatsoever, the book actively propagates (he revisionist line in literature and art in its entirety. The author, Tao Chu, has faithfully applied the reactionary programme for literature and art laid down by the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road and is a jackal from the same lair as Lu Ting-yi and Chou Yang. In the spring of 1960, at the "National Conference of Newsreel and Documentary Scenarists" which was convened by the counter-revolutionary revisionists Hsia Yen and Chen Huang-mei of the old Ministry of Culture, they distributed the big poisonous weed Thin kino. Feeling and Literary Talent as a conference document for all participants to study. This shows to what extent they worked in collusion. To counter Chairman Mao's line on literature and art, Tao Chu had netted into his black ragbag almost every kind of reactionary idea then prevalent in literary and art circles, i.e., the theory of "human nature," of "truthful writing," of "freedom of creation," of "the middle character," the theory that "there is no harm in ghost plays," etc. Let us give one or two examples and briefly refute them.
   "Communist Party members are warm-hearted. . . they must feel for everybody except counter-revolutionaries."34 In class society there are only class feelings; there are no feelings above class. "Feelings" here means "love." "To feel for everybody" is identical with the "love for everybody" propagated by modern revisionism. It means to "love" the exploiting classes, "love" renegades, "love" their flunkeys and "love" those in authority taking the capitalist road. This is the most shameless genuflection and homage to reactionaries.
   "We must fully develop the writers' freedom of creation. The writer's pen is his own and the writer's ideas are his own. We must allow the writers independence of creation."35 This is a naked counter-revolutionary slogan straight out of the Petofi Club. There is only freedom in the concrete, no freedom in the abstract. In class society there is only class freedom; there is no freedom above class. All works of literature and art serve the politics of definite classes. There is no such thing as "free" literature and art detached from class politics nor can there be any. Whatever their particular form of expression, the ideas of any person, including those of any writer, are not isolated "ideas of his own." They are a manifestation of the ideas, interests and aspirations of definite classes and the reflection of class relations in a given society. Do the 700 million Chinese people have 700 million kinds of "ideas of their own"? Certainly not. Fundamentally they fall into only two kinds — one is the world outlook of the proletariat, or Mao Tse-tung's thought; the other is the world outlook of the bourgeoisie, or bourgeois individualism of every kind. To advocate ''freedom of creation" or "independence of creation" which depart from Mao Tse-tung's thought is to instigate demons and freaks "freely" to attack socialism and propagate capitalism, and to deprive the proletarian revolutionaries of all freedom of counter-attack, thus serving (he criminal intrigue of restoring capitalism. The term "freedom of creation" is nothing but a fig-leaf for the diehard servants of the bourgeoisie.
   "Life is many-sided. It does not conform to one pattern. So don't confine it within a fixed framework."36 This is nothing but the "theory of opposition to subject matter as the decisive factor." Using the pretext of opposing "a fixed framework," its purpose is actually to oppose revolutionary writers doing their best to reflect the class struggle in the socialist era, sing the praise of the workers, peasants and soldiers and portray proletarian heroes. "Life is many-sided." Actually, it has two main sides. One is the revolutionary struggle of the proletarian revolutionaries and the broad working masses who, guided by Chairman Mao's revolutionary line, push history forward. The other is the rotten reactionary life of the bourgeois reactionaries, who resist the progress of history. We must take the militant life of the proletarian revolutionaries who are really conscious of their historical task as the principal aspect, as our orientation and as the central theme for praise and portrayal, and through the portrayal of typical heroes, reflect our unprecedentedly heroic age and the tremendous power and triumph of Mao Tse-tung's thought. As for the reactionary rotten life of the bourgeoisie, it can serve only as the target for criticism, assault and exposure and must never serve as the main side of creative works. "It does not conform to one pattern"; but there must be one pattern and in Tao Chu's mind life consists of the vulgar sentiments and demoralizing tunes of the bourgeoisie in the Three-Family Lane which have won his unceasing praise and which in fact are decaying rubbish in the garbage of history.   Isn't this clear enough?
   So long as literature and art "truthfully reflect reality, ... to me, their role at times is no less important than that of editorials and reports."37 This again is an exact reproduction of Hu Feng's theory of "truthful writing." All images created in works of literature and art show the political tendencies of the writers and artists, their class love and class hatred. There is no such thing as an abstract or disinterested "truthful reflection of reality." Proletarian revolutionaries are thoroughgoing materialists- Thoroughgoing materialists are dauntless. Only from the proletarian standpoint can one truthfully reflect the essence of historical progress. The reactionary literature and art of the bourgeoisie and the revisionists present the workers, peasants and soldiers in a distorted form. And they distort reality. This is the inevitable result of the reactionary world outlook of historical idealism on which such literature and art rest. To promote "truthful writing" in the abstract means to oppose the propagation of Mao Tse-tung's thought and the education of the people in the communist spirit through literature and art. It means negating and covering up the class character of literature and art, and seeking a "theoretical" basis for noxious weeds which glamorize the exploiting classes and defame the proletariat. It is the rottenest muck in the bourgeois armory of literature and art.
   "One may look at both the good and the bad aspect ... it is permissible for literary and artistic works to describe shortcomings .... We must not give the impression that when we want to praise the people's communes we have to laud them to the skies."38 This is the theory of "exposure of the dark side," a reproduction of the reactionary theory of laying "equal stress on the bright and the dark, half and half," which Chairman Mao condemned long ago. We should distinguish between the main current and the minor currents of life. Only when we focus on the main current can we give a typical presentation of the essence of social advance. Minor currents merely offer a contrast to the main current and can be used as a means to present the essence, forming a subordinate aspect of the whole, partial and temporary twists in the course of advance, never to be regarded as the main content of life. We should center our efforts mainly on writing about the bright, on praising the triumph of Mao Tse-tung's thought, on presenting the world-shaking heroism and wisdom of proletarian revolutionary fighters in the struggle, on portraying the heroic workers, peasants and soldiers of our era and not on presenting the "good side" and the "bad side," half and half. Naturally works on the people's communes should praise their superiority to the full. Why should it be necessary to list all the shortcomings and mistakes occurring along the path of progress? There is a song called The People's Communes Are Fine. Is it necessary to modify this title with another sentence The People's Communes Have Shortcomings! To exaggerate, play up and build vicious fabrication upon partial, isolated phenomena is the old tune the imperialists, the revisionists and the bourgeoisie harp upon their rumor-mongering and slanders, and this veteran rightist apes them. Is it necessary to tone down sharp conflicts? No, it is not. Society advances through class struggle. The revolutionary forces of the proletariat invariably blaze their way forward in fierce struggle with the counterrevolutionary forces of the bourgeoisie. Only by making typical historical generalizations about class contradictions and class struggles can the bright, the victorious and the heroic be portrayed in all their depth and splendor, and not superficially and trivially. The revolutionary people will sweep Tao Chu's theory of the "exposure of the dark side" into the dustbin of history, along with his black soul.

See Through the Khrushchev Type Careerists

   From the several aspects mentioned people can easily see that Tao Chu is nothing but a big rightist who managed to slip out of the net, a revisionist, a loyal executor and propagandist of the reactionary bourgeois line represented by China's Khrushchev, a counter-revolutionary double-dealer who sneaked into the Party. The reactionary system of Kuomintang philosophy and the other germs spread by his books must be thoroughly wiped out.
   Tao Chu is a careerist of the Khrushchev type. He sticks stubbornly to the capitalist political orientation. He bitterly hates socialism and hankers after capitalism day and night. His "Ideals" in politics, culture and life are nothing but a capitalist restoration in China. His head is stuffed with the reactionary world outlook of the exploiting classes, such as the philosophy of traitors and the idea of "the scholar dies for his bosom friend."
   However, in his efforts not to be exposed under the dictatorship of the proletariat, he cannot but disguise himself in a revolutionary cloak. This fellow is extremely crooked. He is a double-dealer who talks big, now eloquent and seemingly straighforward and now insinuating; such are his familiar practices. But on the fundamental question of which road to take, the socialist or the capitalist road, he can be promptly stripped of his disguise and his true features can be laid bare when he is brought before the magic mirror of Mao Tse-tung's thought. Aren't these two books iron-clad proof of his taking the capitalist road?
   All careerists of the Khrushchev type are conspiratorial usurpers of Party leadership. In order to oppose the proletarian headquarters headed by Chairman Mao, oppose Mao Tse-tung's thought and oppose the proletarian revolutionaries, they resort to all kinds of tricks and intrigues to expand the power held by a handful of revisionists and they shamelessly boost themselves. Tao Chu came out with these two books not only to prepare public opinion for a capitalist restoration, but also as a means of expanding the power held by a handful of revisionists like himself. There is an article in his book entitle, "Introduction to Notes of Talks Made During the Journey to the West." "Notes of Talks Made During the Journey to the West" was originally titled "Notes of Talks Taken by Members of My Entourage." When he was rambling round, Tao Chu took along several malevolent scholars as members of his retinue. He talked at random, and these scholars took notes on his talk as though it consisted of Imperial decrees. The notes were then embellished and released to the press. The "notes of talks" are notes on Tao Chu's talks. From these, "a total of twenty-seven articles were produced!" He had the audacity to have them published in book form. He even chose the title for the collection, wrote an introduction and added an inscription! Does this not show his ambition to become the "despotic ruler of the south?" In the propagation of his reactionary views, Tao Chu's books, "Ideals" and "Thinking," teem with such displays of personal power and self-glorification. He intended to use these books to prepare public opinion for the seizure of power from the proletarian headquarters. When Tao Chu came from his regional post to the central organ of leadership, he extended his reach so far and wide and within a few months exposed his manic desire to seize power from the proletariat so strikingly, stopping at nothing in recruiting deserters and turncoats, buying over bad elements who had already been exposed by the revolutionary people, opposing the Central Committee of the Party headed by Chairman Mao and attacking the revolutionaries, that none of his double-dealing tricks could cover up his counter-revolutionary ambition any longer. Can we not draw an important lesson from this negative example and learn how to see through persons of the Khrushchev type?
   Tao Chu is a despicable pragmatist. He has the speculator's glib talk. In order to peddle revisionism and to oppose and attack what he called dogmatism -actually Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse-tung's thought - he appeared as an ultra-rightist one minute and on the extreme "Left" the next. In this way, he corrupted, confused and hoodwinked those who wavered in the middle of the road, so as to protect himself from being exposed. After he took charge of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee, Tao Chu became the faithful agent of the top Party boss in authority taking the capitalist road in suppressing the revolutionary masses. He did his utmost to oppose Chairman Mao's great big-character poster "Bombard the Headquarters." He tried his best to protect the monsters. But when the masses rose to criticize and repudiate the bourgeois reactionary line, with a twist of the body he made a sudden change and appeared in the guise of an ultra-"Left" anarchist. He shouted himself hoarse that "in the Great Cultural Revolution, it is correct to doubt everyone." "I am all for bombardment in general . . . nobody knows what the headquarters really represents, and that goes for every headquarters." "You can oppose anybody." He "creatively" developed the bourgeois reactionary line of "hitting hard at many in order to protect a handful." He appeared to be surprisingly "Left," but in fact he was "Left" in form and Right in essence. His purpose was to blur the distribution between the proletarian headquarters and the bourgeois headquarters, and direct the spearhead of attack at the proletarian headquarters headed by Chairman Mao so that the handful of Party persons in authority taking the capitalist road could sneak away in the confusion. "To doubt everyone" and such like are designed to deal with the proletarian headquarters. "To doubt everyone" except himself, "to overthrow everyone" except himself -isn't there something fishy here? Comrades, please note that there are now a handful of counter-revolutionaries who are adopting the same method. Using slogans that sound extremely "Left" but in essence are extremely Right, they have stirred up evil gusts of "doubting everyone," while bombarding the proletarian headquarters, creating dissension and exploiting confusion. To achieve their sinister ulterior aim, they have vainly attempted to shake and split the proletarian headquarters headed by Chairman Mao. The organizers and manipulators of the so-called "May 16" group are just such a scheming counterrevolutionary gang. It must be thoroughly exposed. Young people who have been misled and have not understood the true situation should pull themselves up sharply and turn back to hit those who have misled them. They should avoid the traps set for them. This counter-revolutionary organization has two aims; one is to undermine and split the leadership of the Party's Central Committee headed by our great leader Chairman Mao, and the other is to undermine and split the main pillar of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the great Chinese People's Liberation Army. This counter-revolutionary organization dares not come out into the open. It has hidden itself underground in Peking for the last few months. We have as yet not fully identified most of its members and leaders. For they send their people out to paste up broadsheets and paint slogans only in the silence of the night. The broad masses are making investigations in relation to these people, and things will shortly be made clear.
  

With regard to these persons, so long as we use the method of class analysis which Chairman Mao teaches and study their attitude to the bourgeoisie and to the proletariat, study their political tendencies by analyzing whom they support and whom they oppose, and study their past history, we can detect a sinister counter-revolutionary hand even in the midst of the constantly changing phenomenon. The more they try to cover up those things which have already been exposed by pretending to be extraordinarily "excessive" or "fair," the more fully they reveal their true features as careerists. Take the revisionist Tao Chu for example. This obvious thief consciously adopted the guise of a sage; this obvious man on the extreme Right, who openly declared that his heart "beat in unison with" that of the bourgeoisie, suddenly and deliberately jumped into the extremely "Left" position of "doubting everyone." Yet all the time the spearhead of his attack was directed at the proletarian revolutionaries. This clearly exposes him as a careerist.
   The deepening of the class struggle and the victories of the proletarian revolutionaries compel the enemies constantly to change their tactics of struggle. When one counter-revolutionary scheme of theirs is seen through, they resort to another and they use these devices alternately. But these degenerates can never escape detection by Mao Tse-tung's thought which discovers the minutest detail in everything. In the present victorious situation, we must give full attention to the general orientation of the struggle, to safeguard the proletarian headquarters headed by Chairman Mao, to carrying through the unified plan for battle decided upon by Chairman Mao and the Central Committee of the Party, to mastering policies and tactics, to uniting the great majority and to preventing such characters as Tao Chu from creating confusion in our ranks, from either the Right, or the "Left," or both sides simultaneously. When the forces of the Left make mistakes, the forces of the Right exploit them. This has always been so. In the current movement of mass criticism and repudiation, we should arrive at a still deeper understanding of this fact by summing up the historical experience of class struggle.
   In Chapter Five of the novel The Dream of the Red Chamber there is a song titled The Trouble With Being Too Clever. Its first two lines read, "With all your calculations and intrigues, you are too clever; they bring you no good but will cost you your life!" All the Khrushchev-like careerists who oppose Mao Tse-tung's thought and think themselves clever have "calculated and intrigued" in the dark. This game can be said to have reached its climax with Tao Chu's invention of the famous "art of transplanting people's heads" (the head of the number two top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road was cut out from another picture and transplanted onto someone else's shoulders in a photograph in order to give prominence to the number two Party capitalist-roader in opposition to the decision of the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Party). But in the end the rock these people lift to hurl at others drops on their own feet, and they themselves create the conditions for their own downfall. The handful of Party persons in authority taking the capitalist road in the Wuhan area have turned out to be fools of the same kind, simple-minded and reactionary in their thinking. Those who play intrigues will come to no good end. When the broad masses rise to action, nothing evil can be hidden any more. The downfall of the revisionist bad elements who oppose Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line is inevitable.  Such is the verdict of history.  No matter how they struggle and quibble, the handful of the Khrushchev-like careerists will never be able to escape this verdict of history.
   The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is surging forward like a mighty torrent. The brilliant rays of Mao Tse-tung's thought are lighting up all China and the entire world. China's proletarian revolutionaries and revolutionary people are courageous. We are determined to carry this great revolution through to the end. The counter-offensives, attacks, rumors and sowing of discord by the handful of capitalist-roaders in authority, and all the different kinds of slander, distortion, vilification and clamor coming from the imperialists, the reactionaries of all countries and the modern revisionists, definitely cannot prevent our advance but will only prove these same persons to be thoroughly stupid and at the end of their tether. Comrades, let us raise our hands and hail this great storm which is cleansing the vast land of China! Mao Tse-tung's thought is invincible. The people's strength is inexhaustible. What is new-born and revolutionary is irresistible. People will see that, after traversing the magnificent and tortuous path of the Great Cultural Revolution, a great socialist China under the dictatorship of the proletariat, unprecedentedly strong, consolidated and unified, will tower in the east like a giant and deal still heavier blows at the cannibals of the twentieth century.


1. Ideals, Integrity and Spiritual Life, China Youth Publishing House, 1962, p. 77.
2. Ibid., pp. 61-63.
3. "Problems Concerning Contradictions Among the People and Letting a Hundred Flowers Blossom and a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend," "How to Handle Correctly the Contradictions Among the Kwantung People," in Nang Fang Jih Pao, Canton, May 4 and 5, 1967.
4. Ideals, Integrity and Spiritual Life,, p. 5.
5. Ibid., p. 20.
6. Wen Yi Pao [Literary and Art Gazette], No. 11, 1965, p. 3.
7. Ideals, Integrity and Spiritual Life,, p. 51.
8. Ibid., p. 45.
9. Ibid., p. 112.
10. Ibid., p. 95.
11. Ibid., p. 50.
12. Thinking, Feeling and Literary Talent, Kwangtung People's Publishing House, 1964, p. 37-38.
13. Ideals, Integrity and Spiritual Life,, p. 49.
14.    Chiang Kai-shek, Essentials of Dr. Sun Yat-sen's Teachings, Second
Lecture.
15. Ideals, Integrity and Spiritual Life, op. cit., pp. 42-43.
16. Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Volume III, p. 868.
17. Thinking, Feeling and Literary Talent, Kwangtung People's Publishing House, 1964, p. 21.
18. "Tao Chu's Talk to Kwangtung Democrats," September 27, 1961.
19. Mao Tse-tung, Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?, People's Publishing House, 1964, p.l.
20. Mao Tse-tung, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, People's Publishing House, 1957, p. 27.
21. Ideal, Integrity and Spiritual Life, op. cit., p. 67.
22. Khrushchev of China "Summary of Talk to the Central Committee of the China Democratic National Construction Association and Leading Members of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce," February 12, 1960.
23. Ideals, Integrity and Spiritual Life, op. cit., pp. 68-69.
24. Khrushchev of China "Talk at the Peking Cadres Conferences," May 19, 1949.
25. Ideals, Integrity and Spiritual Life, op. cit., p. 69.
26. Wen Yi Pao [Literary and Art Gazette], No. 11, 1965, p.
27. Khrushchev of China "On Organizational and Disc Communists," 1941.
28. Ideals, Integrity and Spiritual Life,, p. 67.
29. Ibid., p. 9.
30. Ibid., p. 4.
31. Ibid., p. 26.
32. Ibid., p. 11.
33. Ibid., p. 27.
34. Ibid., p. 75.
35. Thinking, Feeling and Literary Talent,p. 33.
36. Ibid., p. 45-46.
37. Ibid., p. 3.
38. Ibid., pp. 46-47.

Source: Peking Review, No. 38, September 6, 1967
Transcribed by www.WENGEWANG.ORG
[ 此帖被weihong在2009-03-24 13:32重新编辑 ]
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-03-24 13:26 | [楼 主]
weihong
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 3193
威望: 3194 点
红花: 31935 朵
贡献值: 1 点
在线时间:286(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-12-31

 

评陶铸的两本书
姚文元

  1967.09.08

  伟大的无产阶级文化大革命,如阵阵疾风骤雨,震荡着全中国,震撼着全世界。

  形势大好。从文化领域中的大批判开始的无产阶级文化大革命,经过了一年激动人心的战斗,现在正胜利地进入对党内最大的一小撮走资本主义道路当权派的群众性的大批判。这个大批判具有重大的政治意义,它是无产阶级革命派夺权斗争的深入发展,是清除修正主义毒素的重大步骤,是动员千百万群众投入斗、批、改的思想动力,是在政治、经济、文化、军事各个方面深入贯彻毛主席的无产阶级革命路线的一场声势浩大的群众性的斗争。

  放在我们面前的这两本书:一九六二年中国青年出版社出版的《理想,情操,精神生活》(简称《理想》),和一九六四年广东人民出版社出版的《思想·感情·文采》(简称《思想》),就是我们展开大批判极好的反面教材。它们是黑《修养》的“姊妹篇”,活龙活现地刻划出陶铸这个修正主义者的反动而丑恶的灵魂。

  在八届十一中全会之前,陶铸是以中国赫鲁晓夫为代表的资产阶级反动路线忠实的执行者。在八届十一中全会之后,当两个最大的走资本主义道路当权派的反动面目被全党揭穿之后,他就成为继续执行资产阶级反动路线的主要代表人物。他伙同他的心腹反革命修正主义分子王任重之流,继续疯狂地反对和歪曲以毛主席为代表的无产阶级革命路线,反对和抵制伟大的毛泽东思想,招降纳叛,勾结党内走资本主义道路的当权派,到处发指示压制革命群众,支持、包庇反革命修正主义分子和牛鬼蛇神,妄图用卑劣的手段,掩盖和推翻党的八届十一中全会对党内最大的走资本主义道路当权派的批判。

  历史的前进,总是使那些过高估计反动派力量、过低估计人民力量、昏头昏脑地想把自己装成“英雄”的倒行逆施的人物,很快成为令人嗤笑的小丑。一九六六年七月三十日,当这位自吹为“基本上是无产阶级革命家”的人物,在万人大会上,飞扬跋扈地向群众挥拳吼叫“你们如果不相信我,也可以把我搞垮嘛”的时候,他是多么自傲啊!简直要吃人!他是想以此来恐吓群众:谁敢反对他这个“老革命”,谁就要倒霉,而他这个“英雄”是绝对“垮”不了的。但是,历史的逻辑就是这样:谁跳出来反对毛主席的无产阶级革命路线,反对无产阶级文化大革命,反对广大革命人民,谁就一定要垮台。越是表演得充分的反动派,垮得就越彻底。回头去看,他的自我标榜、威吓群众的丑态,只不过在两面派的脸谱上增加了一道令人发笑的油彩而已。

  “我是一贯革命的。”好,我们就用这两本书为主要材料,看一看这个“一贯革命”的人物到底“一贯”跟谁走,是在“革”什么“命”,到底在坚持什么“理想”,在鼓吹什么“情操”,在宣扬哪一个阶级的“思想感情”,在过着一种什么样的“精神生活”。

  资产阶级反革命派的“理想”

  陶铸是那一“派”?书中鼓吹的“理想”是那一派的“理想”?只要看看他的自画招供就足够了:

  一九五五年八月,正当对农业、手工业的社会主义改造进入高潮,无产阶级同资产阶级进行你死我活斗争的时候,陶铸跳出来拍着胸膛宣布:“我们大家都是一派,这一派叫做中国人民派,除了反革命分子以外,大家都要很亲切地团结起来”①。“除了反革命分子以外”的“大家”是一分为二的:无产阶级为一方,资产阶级为一方。陶铸恶毒地诬蔑对知识分子的思想改造是“侮辱人格”,胡说什么胡适的反动思想仅仅是属于“思想方法问题”,“等三十年、四十年”以后“才看得清楚 ”②,很明显,他说的“我们大家”,指的是资产阶级及其代理人胡适之流的人物。陶铸所吹嘘的要“很亲切地”拥抱在一起的什么“中国人民派”,实际上就是反人民的资产阶级反动派。

  在同一个报告中,陶铸还无限同情地说:“目前大陆上潜伏的反革命分子的处境是可怜的,心情是痛苦的”,言为心声,一个“可怜”,一个“痛苦”,一笔勾销了反革命分子的可恨和残暴,把他同反革命分子心心相印的“精神生活”,活活地刻划了出来。这样精彩的“表态”,在收入本书时作为“摘要”以外的部分被删去了。

  过了两年,一九五七年五月,正当右派猖狂进攻的时候,陶铸立刻在报上写文章大叫大喊,“现在阶级已经基本消灭”,“国内敌我矛盾已经解决”,无产阶级专政的“专政职能要减弱”,要“转”到“领导生产”“组织人民的经济生活”方面去③。地主、富农、资产阶级,统统成了一个“大家庭”中的人,无产阶级专政可以取消,只管“领导生产”的“全民国家”即可实现。这种推翻无产阶级专政的彻头彻尾的修正主义腔调,完全是一付资产阶级右派头目的嘴脸。

  再过两年,一九五九年上半年,正当社会主义革命进一步深入的时候,陶铸在《松树的风格》中,鼓吹“永不屈服于恶劣环境”④;在《革命的坚定性》中鼓吹什么要“面对大海”,经得起“狂风暴雨的侵袭”⑤。轰轰烈烈的大跃进,革命人民改造世界的英雄壮志,被他叫做“恶劣的环境”;社会主义革命的风暴打击了资产阶级和地富反坏右以及他们的代理人彭德怀反党集团,他却狂叫“要经得起狂风暴雨的打击”。不须多加一字,反革命立场昭然若揭。

  再过六年,到了一九六五年。在伟大的八届十中全会之后,毛主席多次提出了国内的主要矛盾是无产阶级同资产阶级两个阶级、社会主义同资本主义两条道路的斗争,并且在关于社会主义教育运动的“二十三条”中提出了“这次运动的重点,是整党内那些走资本主义道路的当权派”。中国的赫鲁晓夫及陶铸之流,则发狂地反对和抵抗毛主席的这些重要指示。一九六五年十一月,正当批判《海瑞罢官》刚开始,一场同反革命修正主义分子、中国的赫鲁晓夫的生死搏斗迫在眉睫的时刻,陶铸在反革命文艺黑线的喉舌《文艺报》上又一次“亮相”。他说:“我认为,在现阶段,应当把反映人民内部矛盾的任务,摆到最重要的位置上来。”⑥说什么“现阶段”的主要矛盾是“人民内部矛盾”,这是公然抹杀国内的主要矛盾是两个阶级、两条道路的斗争,把一小撮反革命分子、叛徒、右派分子、走资本主义道路的当权派,都当做“人民内部”的问题,掩盖他们篡党、篡政、篡军的罪恶,好把钻进党内的一批穷凶极恶的资产阶级反革命派统统包庇下来。

  什么“一贯革命”?一贯的反革命!可以说,每个历史关键时刻,他都公开地站在资产阶级立场上反对毛主席的无产阶级革命路线,反对社会主义。吹得五花八门的什么“理想”,就是资产阶级反革命派的理想,是保护和发展资本主义的反动理想,是在中国推翻无产阶级专政、实现资本主义复辟的痴心妄想。

  请看:

  其一曰:“社会主义思想,就是要用一切办法去保证国家迅速工业化”⑦。照这种反动透顶的“社会主义”理论,岂不是工业化了的美国早就实现了“社会主义”了吗?搞“工业化”,有社会主义和资本主义两条道路,两条路线,两种“办法”。走社会主义道路,就要依靠工人阶级和广大革命群众,依靠突出政治,依靠毛泽东思想所唤起的亿万人民的革命觉悟和革命积极性,使企业的领导权真正掌握在无产阶级革命派手里;走资本主义道路,就是书中反复鼓吹的依靠少数资产阶级“专家 ”,依靠“物质刺激”,依靠保守派,使企业的领导权为代表资产阶级利益的特权阶层所篡夺。所谓用“一切办法”,就是要用依靠资产阶级的办法来发展资本主义的剥削制度,抗拒对资本主义工商业的社会主义改造。

  “中国过去一百多年的历史,尽是挨打的历史,原因就是自己没有工业”⑧。陶铸俨然以一个蹩脚的历史教师的口吻向我们讲一篇中国近代史,当然是颠倒了的历史。从一八四○年到一九四九年,这一百零九年,中国人所以“挨打”,主要并不是因为没有工业,而是因为政权掌握在帝国主义的走狗即从清朝政府、北洋军阀到蒋介石这些卖国贼手里。自从中国的无产阶级和劳动人民在伟大领袖毛泽东同志领导下夺取了全国政权,帝国主义再想打我们,就得先想想自己的猪爪子有多硬。文化大革命越搞得彻底,毛泽东思想越是深入人心,无产阶级专政越巩固,打起仗来就越无敌于天下。这就是无产阶级革命派的“理想”。把过去“挨打”统统归诸“ 没有工业”,这就把那些罪大恶极的卖国贼的罪行统统掩盖了,这就美化了那些在“发展工业”幌子下复辟资本主义的国际资产阶级在中国的走狗,这是同中国的赫鲁晓夫一模一样的卖国主义腔调!

  其二曰:“共产主义理想”就是“舒适的房子”,就是“使所有的房间在晚上都亮起电灯,使所有的人都穿上整齐漂亮的衣裳,出门都能坐汽车……”⑨一句话,就是“吃得好、穿得好、住得好”。就是享乐主义。什么人给他“吃得好,住得好”,他就可以出卖自己灵魂,而且还可以廉价奉送一顶“共产主义”的帽子。真是最卑鄙的叛徒哲学!“共产主义”的外衣,极端个人主义即资本主义的本质,这就是陶铸所谓“共产主义理想”的定义。照这个定义,美国资产阶级生活岂不是最符合 “共产主义理想”了吗?

  其三曰:“崇高的理想”就是念念不忘地“想着自己将来成为航海家、飞行家、科学家、文学家、工程师、教师……”⑩家、家、家,就是没有工、农、兵。在这个无产阶级的叛徒眼中,革命的工人,农民,战士,地位都应当摆得很“低”,岂但低,简直应当打进地狱,压在最低层,永世不得翻身。而摆得很高很高以至极其“ 崇高”的,是那些一大串资产阶级的“家”。“资产阶级参加过民主运动,他们搞工业有知识,不比地主那么腐败”①①。对了,这就招供出你这些“家”,并不是无产阶级的专门家,而是资产阶级及其在文化界的代表人物。你所谓的“知识”,就是资本家如何巧妙而残酷地剥削工人之类的知识。陶铸的“崇高理想”就是通过这一批爬得很“高”的资产阶级代表人物,实行反革命复辟。今天,一批很“高”的资产阶级“权威”被革命小将拉下来了。

  还有一种:伟大的理想,就是所谓要“真正做到大家心情舒畅”。一九六二年,正当资产阶级向无产阶级发动了猖狂进攻,妖魔乱舞,毒草丛生的时刻,为了资产阶级能“心情舒畅”,陶铸在《对繁荣创作的意见》一文中,就胡说什么资产阶级知识分子“有不少人已经是属于劳动人民的知识分子了”、“一定要发挥劳动知识分子的积极性。”①②(按:查陶铸的报告原文为:“绝大多数知识分子现在已经是属于劳动人民的知识分子,应该给脱下资产阶级知识分子的帽子。”)好呵!什么“三家村”,什么田汉、夏衍、吴晗、翦伯赞,什么海瑞、魏征、李慧娘之流,统统“属于劳动人民知识分子”了,他们经过这一番脱帽加冕,不是就可以更“起劲”地为资本主义复辟准备舆论了吗?乐陶陶地“大家很融洽、很舒畅”,不就可以舒舒服服地搞资本主义复辟了吗?

  无产阶级同资产阶级,总有一家不“舒畅”,这是阶级斗争的必然。无产阶级心情“舒畅”之日,就是资产阶级倒霉之时。资产阶级心情“舒畅”之时,就是无产阶级痛苦之日。二者必居其一。为资产阶级不“舒畅”而喊冤叫屈的人,只能证明他自己是同资产阶级共呼吸的。

  陶铸说:他这种“社会主义理想”是“对所有的人”包括资产阶级“都是有好处的”。社会主义就是通过无产阶级专政来彻底消灭资产阶级,怎么会对资产阶级“有好处”呢?所谓“对所有的人都是有好处”的“社会主义”,是假社会主义,是赫鲁晓夫式的修正主义,是布哈林的资本主义可以“长入”社会主义的反革命理论,是取消阶级斗争、取消无产阶级专政的“全民党”“全民国家”“全民社会主义”的反动理论,是社会主义在中国取得伟大胜利之后复辟资本主义的口号。

  够了!上述这些材料,已足够使我们看清楚这位资产阶级代理人的真面目。他坚持的是一条反社会主义的资本主义道路。他爱的、想的、颂的是资本主义,他恨的、怕的、骂的是社会主义。这些文章中的“理想”,一言以蔽之,就是要以资产阶级的丑恶面貌来改造国家,改造社会,改造党。

  这位人物有一句“名言”:“确立社会主义思想”或理想,就是“起码也要使社会主义思想占整个思想的百分之五十几以上”①③。人的世界观怎么可以用百分比来计算呢?真是荒谬绝伦。拆穿了,其实是一场十分拙劣的大骗局。这是在告诉资产阶级以伪装的形式出现,把“百分之五十”的语言披上“社会主义思想”的外衣,来掩盖资本主义的丑恶本质。这是最典型的修正主义。这两本书就是用此法写出的。党内最大的走资本主义道路当权派说过这样向资产阶级“交心”的话:“资产阶级”只要“学会马克思主义”词句,就可以“眉笑眼开”地“和平进入社会主义”,名、利双收。这就是所谓“百分之五十几”的“社会主义思想”最好的注解。“ 理想”!“理想”!资产阶级看见这样忠实的代理人,真要感激涕零了。 (⑴⑵)

  叛徒加奴才的“精神生活”

  你要知道这两本书中宣扬一种什么“精神生活”吗?不须多看,取其“精华”就够了。这就是──国民党的反动哲学加上奴才的“思想”。

  陶铸对于国民党的那些极其腐朽反动的唯心论,以及刽子手蒋介石的黑话,是记得很牢,背得很熟的。这些反革命的货色在他“精神生活”中占有头等重要的位置。只有叛徒的嘴巴里才吐得出这样反动的东西。

  蒋介石在其反革命言论中说过:“讲到政治的意义,总理已经明白告诉我们:‘政’就是众人的事,‘治’就是管理,管理众人的事便是‘政治’。……所以‘政治’的意义:就是要达到全国总动员之科学的方法,来管理众人的事,而为整个国家和全体民众谋最大的福利。”①④

  陶铸原封不动地搬过来说:“首先要了解什么是政治。大家大概都知道孙中山先生吧,他说过:‘政就是众人的事,治就是管理,管理众人的事,就是政治。’…… 我们‘管理众人的事’是为了使国家富强、人民幸福……就是为人民谋利益的事,讲清道理,使大家懂得道理,心悦诚服地来参加建设社会主义社会的工作。”①⑤

  陶铸无耻地说过:他是蒋介石的“学生”。更准确一些,是奴才。你看他这种言论象不象奴才!?

  把政治叫做“管理众人之事”,这是资产阶级剥削者的反动观点。没有抽象的“众人”,“众人”在阶级社会里,是划分为阶级的。也没有什么抽象的“管理”,“ 管理”在阶级社会中,总是处理阶级之间的关系,是哪一个阶级掌握和运用政权的问题。毛主席在《在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话》中十分深刻地指出:“政治,不论革命的和反革命的,都是阶级对阶级的斗争”①⑥。用毛主席这个观点去分析,政治,就是为巩固或推翻这一阶级或那一阶级的政权而斗争;为保护或摧毁这一种所有制或那一种所有制而斗争;为夺取或维护这一阶级(集团)的利益或那一阶级(集团)的利益而斗争。无产阶级只有解放全人类,才能最后解放自己,因此,无产阶级推翻资产阶级压迫、建立和巩固无产阶级专政的政治斗争,就不但代表了本阶级的利益,而且代表了广大劳动人民的利益。而资产阶级为了掩盖它政治活动的阶级内容,掩饰资产阶级对无产阶级和劳动人民的压迫和剥削,就把反革命政治抽象地说成是“管理众人之事”,这是从十八世纪的资产阶级直到搞“全民国家”的苏联现代修正主义者共同的手法。蒋介石所谓“管理众人”,就是血腥地使用反革命的国家机器去镇压和屠杀广大的劳动人民,把地主、资产阶级的反革命统治,说成是“为整个国家和全体民众谋幸福”,还要用什么“总动员”去欺骗,卑鄙无耻到了极点。而奴才陶铸搬出这一套,则是要实现反革命的资本主义复辟,取消无产阶级对资产阶级的专政,把为资产阶级及一切反动派利益效劳的奴才行为,说成是“为人民谋利益”,还要用什么“讲清道理”去欺骗,同样是卑鄙到了极点。

  蒋介石在其反革命言论中鼓吹什么“亲爱精诚的精神”,鼓吹什么“先知先觉”。陶铸原封不动地用上了:

  “我们并不完全否认孙中山先生的所谓‘先知先觉’、‘后知后觉’的说法,社会上是有这种情况的:有些人进步快一些,有些人进步慢一些,只要他有上进之心,终归是可以进步的……”①⑦;

  “马克思主义者应要求人宽,要求己严……对党外人士不是要求很高,应象孙中山讲的‘精诚团结’……。”①⑧

  “先知先觉”“后知后觉”的说法是抽去了阶级内容、脱离社会实践的历史唯心论的反动观点。毛主席指出:“人们的社会存在,决定人们的思想。而代表先进阶级的正确思想,一旦被群众掌握,就会变成改造社会、改造世界的物质力量。”①⑨那些死不回头的反革命修正主义分子,那些累教不改的走资本主义道路的死硬派,并不是因为他们什么“后知后觉”,而是因为他们的社会存在即资产阶级的阶级地位决定了他们顽固地要走资本主义道路。美帝国主义杀人犯和苏共叛徒集团也并不是因为他们缺少“上进之心”,而是因为他们是反动资产阶级的代表,他们所执行的路线不管有多少花招,只能是为美国垄断资产阶级和苏联资产阶级特权阶层服务的反革命路线。无产阶级革命派所以能够冲破重重障碍、突破党内最大的一小撮走资本主义道路当权派的各种沉重的以至残酷的压迫而取得胜利,并不是因为他们“ 先知先觉”,而是因为他们掌握了毛泽东思想,掌握了这个集中了中国和世界无产阶级最高智慧的理论武器,代表了无产阶级和广大劳动人民的利益,所以能越战越强,万难不屈,永远保持旺盛的革命乐观主义。今天陶铸吹捧这种反动的唯心论,是要使人们相信资产阶级“终归可以进步”,麻痹人民的革命警惕,帮助资产阶级混进无产阶级内部进行破坏。

  陶铸所谓的“精诚团结”,纯粹是国民党反动派的语言!同一个词汇,不同的阶级赋予不同的解释。我们偶而也用这个词,那是指在一定革命目标下的团结,为实现无产阶级的革命任务而斗争。我们从来是讲:在社会主义方向下的团结,在马列主义、毛泽东思想原则基础上的团结。然而陶铸所谓的“精诚团结”,却是抛弃原则、背叛社会主义方向、适合资产阶级要求的“精诚团结”!团结和斗争是统一体的两个相互矛盾着的侧面,没有斗争,也就无所谓团结。团结是相对的、过渡的,斗争是绝对的。世界上的事物,总是在发展中一分为二,人们的认识,总是在斗争中发展的。正如毛主席指出的:“马克思主义必须在斗争中才能发展,不但过去是这样,现在是这样,将来也必然还是这样。”②⑩哪里有陶铸那种永恒不变的“精诚团结”。算命先生挂出一块牌子说:“诚则灵”,那是骗人的把戏。蒋介石用什么“精诚团结”掩盖内部的狗咬狗,作为灌输法西斯思想的工具,陶铸则破天荒地挂上“马克思主义”的招牌,用来瓦解无产阶级对资产阶级的斗争。

  书中还说:“一九二五──二七年大革命初期之所以能获得胜利,是由于孙中山先生改组国民党,实行三大政策,‘顺应’了当时革命的客观规律”②①。把一九二五年至一九二七年第一次国内革命战争初期的胜利,不是归于以毛泽东同志为代表的中国共产党的正确领导和正确政策,不是归于革命人民的斗争,而是统统归于国民党,这完全歪曲历史,颠倒是非,站在国民党反动派的立场上说话。把无数革命烈士的鲜血所换来的胜利果实送给国民党作捧场,这不是叛徒的腔调是什么?

  够了!够了!这些肮脏的言论,难道不是暴露出陶铸“精神生活”深处是一个国民党反动哲学的世界吗?

  除了国民党反动哲学外,剩下的“思想”完全是黑《修养》中的垃圾。

  《理想》一书不是欺骗青年说,什么“个人利益和集体利益是不可分的”,只要装做“把工作做好”,就会得到“重视”“器重”“赞扬”以至“闻名全中国、全世界”吗?这是中国的赫鲁晓夫“吃小亏占大便宜”的投机商的市侩哲学原封不动的翻版。党内最大的走资本主义道路当权派一九六○年二月接见民建会、工商联常务委员时,对资产阶级的代表人物献策说:“全心全意为人民服务,个人利益就会来。”②②这句话相当精练地总结了这个资产阶级野心家几十年“做人”的经验,概括了这个无产阶级的叛徒人生哲学的“精髓”。什么“为人民服务”,什么“集体利益”,在他们这一小撮人统统是假的、骗人的,装出来给别人看的,是手段;而捞取“个人利益”、个人权力、个人享受则是真的,是目的,是丑恶灵魂的本质。这是资产阶级反革命两面派混进革命内部夺取权力的诡计。现在用来毒害青年一代,这种软刀子杀人的罪恶我们难道能容忍吗?

  《理想》一书不是还欺骗青年说:“我们共同的世界观和共同的思想方法”“就是从客观实际出发的态度,是就是、非就非的态度”②③吗?这也是从中国的赫鲁晓夫那里贩来的货色。在阶级社会中,是、非都有鲜明的阶级标准,所谓“实际”,首先就是阶级斗争的“实际”:你站在无产阶级一边,还是站在资产阶级一边?你站在帝国主义一边,还是站在革命人民一边?你站在马列主义、毛泽东思想一边,还是站在修正主义一边?你站在以毛主席为首的无产阶级司令部一边,还是站在反革命的资产阶级司令部一边?用抽象的“是非”来掩盖人们看问题时的阶级立场,是出卖灵魂的机会主义者的“共同的”特性。一九四九年五月,中国的赫鲁晓夫在报告他在天津向资产阶级屈膝跪拜的丑行时,恬不知耻地说:“资本家反映说我们的报纸不好,我说的确有点不大好,我也承认这个错误,……以后应该采取:是就是,非就非,好就好,坏就坏,……资本家有好就说好,工人不好就说不好”②④。你看他多么“从实际出发”啊!“资本家有好就说好”“工人不好就说不好”,这是多么“公平”的法官啊!这个工贼的“是非”是多么鲜明啊!这个资产阶级的恶奴才对自己的主子的“好”处是多么念念不忘啊!他训斥工人“不好”的那种恶狠狠的神态又是多么清晰啊!而《理想》一书作者对某氏的出卖灵魂的哲学,真是背得熟透了啊!

  《理想》一书把“辩证唯物主义”歪曲成“存在第一、思维第二,客观第一、主观第二”②⑤。完全抹杀人的主观能动作用,完全抹杀物质变精神、精神变物质的飞跃,完全抹杀实践──认识──再实践──再认识的人们认识发展的辩证过程。这决不是什么“辩证唯物论”,而是反动的形而上学。无产阶级认识客观世界的唯一目的,就在于按照事物本身的发展规律去改造客观世界。取消了改造客观世界,取消了革命,取消了推动历史前进的奋斗,“客观第一”岂不成了一纸空文!但仅仅这样批判,还是不够的,须知他之所以要宣传这种机械唯物论或庸俗唯物论,就是要宣传一种随波逐流、随时可以出卖无产阶级利益的机会主义,为资产阶级服务。不是吗?资产阶级也是一种“客观存在”,也可以从资产阶级出发,听资产阶级的话,以资产阶级利益为标准,“是就是,非就非”,于是搞资本主义复辟也可以冒充“实事求是”“辩证唯物主义”出现了。拆穿西洋镜,就是这么一个把戏。

  陶铸不是还眉飞色舞地向青年说:“世界上有男的,有女的,就会有恋爱”②⑥吗?这立刻使人想起中国的赫鲁晓夫一句荒谬的“名言”,“一条牛加一条牛仍是牛……但是一条公牛加一条母牛就形成了新的关系,一个男人加一个女人便成了夫妻的关系。一切东西都必须是矛盾的统一体。”②⑦在他们这一伙人看来,人和人的关系就是公牛同母牛的关系。在阶级社会里,人们是按阶级划分的、按阶级关系结合的。男女关系也不例外。鲁迅在《硬译与文学的阶级性》一文中就说过:“饥区的灾民,总不会去种兰花,象阔人的老太爷一样,贾府的焦大,也不爱林妹妹的。”这个基本事实,被他们抹杀了,践踏了。他们这种庸俗透顶的语言,不能够损害马克思主义阶级分析一根毫毛,只能反映出他们一伙心目中的相互关系及其“修养”,就是“公牛加母牛”“男人加女人”之类资产阶级的丑恶不堪的东西。君不见大谈“修养”的那一伙人,无一不是腐烂已极的伪君子吗?

  书中说,“一个人在几十年的生活中”决定其“成功与失败”,“就在于主观与客观的是否一致”②⑧,你在国民党统治下究竟是怎样奴颜婢膝地把“主观”同“客观”去“一致”的,这“几十年”的“成功”中又是怎样同美帝国主义、国民党反动派、反革命资产阶级“一致”的,难道还不该拿到光天化日下来吗?

  对无产阶级刻骨仇恨的“感情”

  一九五九年五月,正当修正主义分子彭德怀抛出他疯狂地复辟资本主义黑纲领的前夕,陶铸在《太阳的光辉》一文中,摆出一付“海瑞”的架式,公开地、恶毒地咒骂我们伟大的社会主义事业、伟大的党、伟大的领袖。他一面说,人们以“东方红,太阳升”“来形容我们伟大事业的朝气勃勃”,“以太阳来歌颂我们的党和领袖 ”;一面公然借攻击“太阳”的“过失”,指桑骂槐地说:“当大暑天骄阳似火,晒得人们流汗的时候,人们就会埋怨,说太阳的光和热发射得过份了。而且大家都知道并且也都指出过,太阳本身上还有黑点。”②⑨

  “太阳本身上还有黑点”。这不是赤裸裸地咒骂我们的党和伟大的领袖吗?在你眼睛里,岂但是“黑点”,社会主义简直就是漆黑一团。用资产阶级的眼睛看问题的人,光明和黑暗是颠倒的。他们比瞎子还要瞎。在这位修正主义者看来,“太阳”的社会主义光辉晒得那些走资本主义道路的当权派受不了,现形了,“流汗了 ”,“过份了”,这就是“太阳”的“过失”所在。其实,这正是“太阳”伟大的地方。那些躲在阴暗角落里的牛鬼蛇神、臭虫虱子、细菌病毒,只有让它们见一见 “太阳”的光和热,才会死亡;真正的劳动人民,正是在太阳光辉下锻炼得坚强起来的。不晒太阳,不流汗,身体怎么会健壮起来?咒骂“太阳”的“光和热”,其实就是咒骂无产阶级“过火了”,咒骂社会主义、人民公社“过份了”,这是十足的资产阶级的黑话,正好暴露自己是见不得阳光的鬼物。

  陶铸不是在《松树的风格》中赞美“松树”“在夏天它用自己的枝叶挡住炎炎烈日”③⑩吗?毛泽东思想的阳光是抵挡不住的,硬要向光明宣战,只能使自己从黑暗中堕落进更黑暗的地方去。

  值得注意的是:一九六五年《理想》再版时,“以太阳来歌颂我们的党和领袖”这句话,忽然改成了“以太阳来歌颂我们伟大的、光荣的、正确的党。”这真是欲盖弥彰,绝妙地自我暴露出作贼心虚的贼子心肠!你删去“领袖”二字,岂不正说明了,一九五九年到一九六二年,你写这篇文章和出版这本书时,矛头是针对伟大的领袖的吗?如若不然,何必慌慌张张地删去?你在“党”前面添上“伟大的、光荣的、正确的”,岂不正说明了,一九五九年到一九六二年,你写这篇文章和出版这本书时,认为中国共产党不是伟大的、光荣的、正确的了吗?如若不然,何必急急忙忙地添上?心中有鬼,脸上变色,就这样手忙脚乱了。一九五九年五月,陶铸不是在汕头一次报告中大喊“要学习海瑞的风格”以配合彭德怀的进攻吗?看来这个“海瑞”的“风格”并不那么“高”,本事也很拙劣。然而这一改,配合彭德怀一伙,反党反社会主义反毛主席的罪行,却是不打自招,铁证如山,无可抵赖了。

  一九五九年九月下旬,庐山会议开过了,彭德怀反党集团被揭露了出来,修正主义分子的猖狂进攻被彻底粉碎了。这位修正主义者在《胜利得来不易》一文中,不得不装模作样地对“一小部分人”的“热衷于我们工作中的缺点”③①表示了不满。可是,这“一小部分人”是谁呢?不就有你吗?不正是你在文章中命令报纸上必须 “刊登我们工作中的缺点和错误,尽管这是一个指头的问题,也应该刊登”③②吗?不就是你热衷于暴露社会主义的所谓“黑暗”“黑点”吗?这是赖不掉的。正因为有他一份,这篇文章中,他对这“一小部分人”表示了无限的同情,说什么“我们提起这些人,是希望他们转变立场,首先把身心都参加到社会主义建设的行列里来”③③。这是劝告破了产的右倾机会主义分子伪装成“转变立场”,混进革命的“行列”中来继续干反社会主义的勾当。

  对无产阶级咬牙切齿的仇恨,对资产阶级无微不至的爱护,这就是陶铸的“感情”。剥去伪装的画皮,站着的就是这么一个恶鬼。

  腐朽不堪的“文采”

  装腔作势的文风,歪七歪八念都念不通的文字,硬要自封有什么“文采”,真是丑死了!活象那些附庸风雅的土地主,明明一窍不通,硬要摇头晃脑哼哼几句八股调一样。

  虽然没有什么“文采”,书中却十分卖力地宣扬了整套整套的修正主义的文艺路线。陶铸忠实地执行了党内最大的走资本主义道路当权派的反动文艺纲领,同陆定一,周扬完全是一丘之貉。(⑵⑶)一九六○年春,旧文化部夏衍、陈荒煤等反革命修正主义分子在开所谓“全国新闻纪录电影创作会议”时,就把《思想·感情· 文采》这棵大毒草作为大会文件印发给大家“学习”。可见他们勾结之深。为了反毛主席的文艺路线,陶铸几乎把文艺界流传的各种反动论点,什么人性论、“写真实”论、“创作自由”论、“中间人物”论、“有鬼无害”论……,统统收罗进他的黑店中。下面略举一二,稍加驳斥:

  “共产党员是讲感情的……除了反革命分子以外,对一切人都要有感情。”③④在阶级社会里,只有阶级的感情,没有什么超阶级的感情。这里的“感情”指的是“ 爱”。“对一切人都要有感情”,就是现代修正主义的“要爱一切人”,就是要爱剥削阶级,爱叛徒,爱奴才,爱走资本主义道路的当权派,这是向反动派屈膝跪拜的最无耻的行径。

  “要充分发挥作家创作上的自由。作家的笔是他自己的,作家的思想也是他自己的,我们应该让作家独立创作。”③⑤这是赤裸裸的裴多菲俱乐部的反革命口号。没有抽象的自由,只有具体的自由。在有阶级的社会里,只有阶级的自由,没有超阶级的自由。一切文艺创作,都是为一定的阶级的政治服务的。没有也不可能有脱离阶级的政治而“自由”的文艺。任何一个人,包括作家,他的思想不管具有何种特殊的形式,都不是什么孤立的“自己的思想”,而是一定阶级思想的表现。是一定阶级的利益、愿望的表现,是一定社会阶级关系的反映。七亿中国人民有七亿种“自己的”思想吗?当然不是,基本上只有两种,一种是无产阶级的世界观,即毛泽东思想;一种是资产阶级的世界观,即形形色色的资产阶级个人主义。离开毛泽东思想的什么“创作自由”,什么“独立创作”,就是鼓动牛鬼蛇神“自由”地去攻击社会主义,宣传资本主义,而剥夺无产阶级革命派反击他们的一切自由,为资本主义复辟的罪恶勾当服务。什么“创作自由”,不过是死心塌地当资产阶级奴才的一块遮羞布罢了!

  “生活是多方面的,不拘一格,不要划一个框框。”③⑥这就是那个“反题材决定论”,其目的是在反对“框框”的借口下,反对革命作家努力去反映社会主义时代的阶级斗争,反对努力去歌颂工农兵,反对努力塑造无产阶级的英雄人物。“生活是多方面的”,其实主要是两个方面,一方面是无产阶级革命派和广大劳动人民在毛主席革命路线指引下的推动历史前进的革命斗争生活,一方面是资产阶级反动派抵抗历史前进的腐朽反动生活。我们应当以真正意识到自己历史责任的无产阶级革命派的斗争生活为主体,为方向,为歌颂和描绘的中心,通过这样的典型的英雄人物,来反映我们这个史无前例的英雄时代,来反映毛泽东思想的伟大力量和伟大胜利。那些资产阶级的反动腐朽生活,只能作为批判、鞭挞、揭露的对象,决不能作为创作的主要的“方面”。“不拘一格”,总有一格,你心目中的“生活”,其实就是你赞不绝口的《三家巷》中那些资产阶级的下流情绪和靡靡之音,是一些在历史的垃圾堆中霉烂了的渣滓,这难道还不清楚吗?

  文艺作品只要“真实地反映了现实,……我看,它的作用有时也不在社论与报告之下。”③⑦这又是胡风“写真实”论原封不动的翻版。任何文艺作品所塑造的形象中,都表现着作者的政治的倾向性,表现着作者的阶级的爱和憎,没有什么抽象的、旁观的“真实地反映了现实”。无产阶级革命派是彻底的唯物主义者。彻底的唯物主义者是无所畏惧的。只有站在无产阶级立场上,才能够从本质上真实地反映出历史的进程。资产阶级、修正主义的反动文艺歪曲工农兵、歪曲现实,则是它们反动的历史唯心主义世界观的必然结果。提倡抽象的“写真实”,就是要反对文艺宣传毛泽东思想,反对文艺用共产主义精神教育人民,抹杀和掩盖文艺的阶级性,替那些美化剥削阶级、丑化无产阶级的大毒草找一个“理论”根据。这已经是资产阶级文艺武库中最破烂最陈腐的货色了。

  “可以看好的方面,也可以看坏的方面,……要允许作品中写缺点……不要给人家一个印象,似乎要歌颂人民公社,就要把人民公社说得一下子好得很了。”③⑧这就是“暴露黑暗”论,这是毛主席早就痛斥过的“光明与黑暗并重,一半对一半”的反动理论的翻版。我们应当区别生活中的主流和支流。只有抓住主流方面,才能典型地反映出社会前进的本质。支流只能作为主流的一种陪衬,作为表现本质的一种手段,作为全局的次要的侧面,作为前进过程中局部的、暂时的曲折,不能当作生活的主要内容。我们应当以写光明为主,以歌颂社会主义革命和建设的伟大胜利即毛泽东思想的伟大胜利为主,以反映无产阶级革命战士震天撼地的英雄气概和斗争智慧为主,以塑造我们时代的工农兵英雄形象为主,而不是什么“好的方面”“坏的方面”一半对一半。写人民公社,当然要充分歌颂人民公社的优越性,难道还需要把各种发展过程中的缺点错误统统罗列出来吗?有一支歌,叫“人民公社就是好”,难道还需要同时再加上一句“人民公社有缺点”吗?夸大、渲染和恶毒地捏造那些局部的、个别的现象,这是帝国主义、修正主义和资产阶级进行造谣诽谤的老谱,这位老右派不过依样画葫芦罢了。以歌颂光明为主需要回避矛盾吗?需要回避敌人的挣扎和反扑吗?需要降低冲突尖锐性吗?不需要。社会是在阶级斗争中前进的,无产阶级的革命力量总是在同资产阶级反革命力量剧烈斗争中开辟前进的道路的,只有通过对阶级矛盾、阶级斗争典型的历史概括,才能够深刻地而不是表面地、雄伟地而不是贫弱地把光明、胜利、英雄人物写出来。陶铸的“暴露黑暗”论,将同他黑暗的灵魂一起,被革命人民扫进历史的垃圾堆里去。

  要识别赫鲁晓夫式的野心家

  从以上的几个方面,人们不难看出,陶铸完全是一个漏网的大右派,是一个修正主义者,是以中国的赫鲁晓夫为代表的资产阶级反动路线忠实的执行者和宣传者,是一个混进来的反革命两面派。对于书中贩卖的那一套国民党的反动哲学和其他毒素,要进行彻底的消毒。

  陶铸是一个赫鲁晓夫式的野心家。他顽固地坚持资本主义的政治方向。他极端仇恨社会主义,他日夜向往资本主义。从政治上、文化上到生活上,他的“理想”都是在中国搞资本主义复辟。他头脑中装满了从叛徒哲学到“士为知己者死”之类剥削阶级反动的世界观。但是为了在无产阶级专政之下不被揭露,他不得不包上一点革命的外衣来伪装自己。此人极不老实。两面三刀,夸夸其谈,忽而慷慨激昂,忽而转弯抹角,是他的惯常的表演。但是,只要在走社会主义道路还是走资本主义道路这个根本问题上,用毛泽东思想的照妖镜照一照,这种伪装就立刻会拆穿,原形就会毕现。这两本书,不就是走资本主义道路的铁证吗?

  凡是赫鲁晓夫式的野心家,都是篡党的阴谋家。他们为了反对以毛主席为首的无产阶级司令部,反对毛泽东思想,反对无产阶级革命派,千方百计用各种阴谋手法扩大一小撮修正主义分子手中的权力,无耻地自我吹嘘。陶铸抛出这两本书,不但是为资本主义复辟作舆论准备,也是扩大他们一小撮修正主义分子权力的一种手段。书中有一篇文章,叫做《西行记谈序言》,这《西行记谈》原来叫做《随行记谈》,就是他带着几个黑秀才“随”着他出去四处游荡,然后他信口开河议论一番,黑秀才们就当作圣旨一样“记”下来,加以修饰,在报上发表。“记谈”,就是“记”他的“谈”话。这样,居然“共得二十七篇”!居然都拿出去发表!居然由他本人定名、作序、题字!这不是明明自己想当“南霸天”吗?《理想》及《思想》,在宣传那些反动观点时,充满了这类炫耀权力的自我吹嘘。他是要用这些“作品 ”,作为向无产阶级司令部夺权的舆论准备。陶铸从地方到中央之后,手伸得那样长,向无产阶级夺权的狂热在几个月中暴露得那样突出,不择手段地招降纳叛,收买已被革命人民揭露的坏人,抗拒以毛主席为首的党中央,打击革命派,以致任何两面派的手法也掩盖不住这种反革命野心。从这个反面教员中,我们不是可以找到识别赫鲁晓夫式人物的一个重要教训吗?

  陶铸是一个卑劣的实用主义者。他有一张投机商人的嘴巴。为了推销修正主义,为了攻击和反对所谓“教条主义”即马克思列宁主义、毛泽东思想,忽而显出极右,然而装作极“左”,以腐蚀、迷惑和欺骗那些不坚定的中间群众,以保护自己不被揭露。陶铸在到中央宣传部担任领导工作以后,他是党内头号走资本主义道路当权派镇压革命群众的忠实执行者。他竭力反对毛主席《炮打司令部》这张伟大的大字报。他竭力保护那些牛鬼蛇神。可是当群众起来批判资产阶级反动路线时,他摇身一变,立刻以极“左”的无政府主义的面貌出现,大叫大喊:“在文化大革命中,怀疑一切是正确的”,“每个司令部都不知是什么司令部……我是主张普遍轰!”“任何人都可以反对”!他大大“创造性”地“发展”了“打击一大片,保护一小撮”的资产阶级反动路线。看来“左”得出奇,其实是形“左”实右,其目的还是混淆无产阶级司令部和资产阶级司令部的区别,把矛头引向以毛主席为首的无产阶级司令部,使一小撮走资本主义道路当权派能在混乱声中蒙混过关。什么“ 怀疑一切”,统统是用来对付无产阶级司令部的。“怀疑一切”,就不怀疑他自己;“打倒一切”,就不打倒他自己,你说怪也不怪!?请同志们注意:现在有一小撮反革命分子也采用了这个办法,他们用貌似极“左”而实质极右的口号,刮起“怀疑一切”的妖风,炮打无产阶级司令部,挑拨离间,混水摸鱼,妄想动摇和分裂以毛主席为首的无产阶级司令部,达到其不可告人的罪恶目的,所谓“五·一六”的组织者和操纵者,就是这样一个搞阴谋的反革命集团。应予以彻底揭露。受蒙蔽的、不明真相的青年人要猛省过来,反戈一击,切勿上当。这个反革命组织的目的是两个,一个是要破坏和分裂以我们的伟大领袖毛主席为首的党中央的领导;一个是要破坏和分裂无产阶级专政的主要支柱──伟大的中国人民解放军。这个反革命组织,不敢公开见人,几个月来在北京藏在地下,他们的成员和领袖,大部分现在还不太清楚,他们只在夜深人静时派人出来贴传单,写标语。对这类人物,广大群众正在调查研究,不久就可以弄明白。对这类人物,只要用毛主席教导我们的阶级分析的方法,看一看他们对待资产阶级和无产阶级的态度,看一看他们支持谁、反对谁的政治倾向性,看一看他们的历史,便可以从变化不定的形象中发现一只反革命的黑手。他们越是要掩盖已经暴露的部分,貌似特别“过火”或“公平”,便越是更充分地暴露自己野心家的面貌,如陶铸这个修正主义者,明明是贼,偏要装圣贤,明明是极右的公开宣布同资产阶级“心连心”,偏要忽而跳到极“左”的“怀疑一切”。然而矛头却始终对着无产阶级革命派,这就把他野心家的面貌揭露得一清二楚了。

  阶级斗争的深入,无产阶级革命派的胜利,迫使敌人不断改变自己的斗争策略。当一种反革命阴谋被识破后,敌人又会使出另一手,交替而用之。然而这些败类是逃不过明察秋毫的毛泽东思想的。在当前胜利的形势下,我们必须十分注意斗争的大方向,十分注意维护以毛主席为首的无产阶级司令部,十分注意执行毛主席和党中央统一的作战部署,十分注意掌握政策和策略,十分注意团结大多数,十分注意不让陶铸式的人物从右的方面或“左”的方面或同时从两方面搅乱了我们的阵线。左派犯错误,右派利用,历来如此。在大批判中,通过总结阶级斗争的历史经验,我们是应当更深刻地懂得这一点的。

  《红楼梦》第五回里有一首曲子,叫做“聪明累”,头两句是:“机关算尽太聪明,反误了卿卿性命!”一切反毛泽东思想的自以为“聪明”的赫鲁晓夫式的野心家,在暗底里玩弄了许多“机关”,一直到陶铸发明的“著名”的“换头术”(即为了反对八届十一中全会决议,在照片上突出第二号党内最大的走资本主义道路当权派,就把他的头像剪下来装到另一个人的身上),可算登峰造极了,但到头来不过是搬起石头砸自己的脚,为自己垮台创造了条件。武汉地区一小撮走资本主义道路当权派,也是这样一种头脑简单、思想反动的蠢人。玩弄阴谋的人是没有好下场的,广大群众一起来,什么坏事也隐藏不了。反对毛主席无产阶级革命路线的修正主义坏蛋们必然垮台,这就是历史的判决。这一小撮赫鲁晓夫式的野心家,无论如何挣扎,如何诡辩,决计逃不过这个历史的判决。

  无产阶级文化大革命的洪流滚滚向前。毛泽东思想的闪闪金光照耀着全中国、全世界。中国的无产阶级革命派是勇敢的,中国的革命的人民是勇敢的。我们一定要把这场大革命进行到底。来自一小撮走资本主义道路当权派的反扑、攻击、造谣、挑拨,来自帝国主义、各国反动派和现代修正主义者的种种诬蔑、歪曲、诽谤、叫喊,决不能阻止我们的前进,只能够证明他们自己无比的愚蠢和日暮途穷。同志们,举起双手欢呼这涤荡中国大地的大风雨吧!毛泽东思想是无敌的。人民的力量是无穷无尽的。革命的新生事物是不可抗拒的。人们将会看见:经过文化大革命这段伟大而曲折的道路后,一个空前强大、巩固和统一的无产阶级专政的伟大的社会主义中国,将如巨人般屹立在世界的东方,给予二十世纪的吃人魔鬼们以更沉重的打击。

  注:

  ①《理想,情操,精神生活》,中国青年出版社一九六二年版,第77页。

  ②同上,第61—63页。

  ③《关于人民内部矛盾和百花齐放百家争鸣问题》,《如何正确地处理广东人民内部矛盾》,一九五七年五月四日及五日《南方日报》。

  ④《理想,情操,精神生活》,中国青年出版社一九六二年版第5页。

  ⑤同上,第20页。

  ⑥《文艺报》一九六五年11期,第3页。

  ⑦《理想,情操,精神生活》,中国青年出版社一九六二年版,第51页。

  ⑧同上,第45页。

  ⑨同上,第112页。

  ⑩同上,第95页。

  ①①同上,第50页。

  ①②《思想·感情·文采》,广东人民出版社一九六四年版,第37—38页。

  ①③《理想,情操,精神生活》,中国青年出版社一九六二年版,第49页。

  ①④蒋介石:《国父遗教概要》,第二讲。

  ①⑤《理想,情操,精神生活》,中国青年出版社一九六二年版,第42—43页。

  ①⑥《毛泽东选集》第三卷,第868页。

  ①⑦《思想·感情·文采》,广东人民出版社一九六四年版,第21页。

  ①⑧陶铸一九六一年九月二十七日对广东“民主人士”的讲话。

  ①⑨毛泽东:《人的正确思想是从那里来的?》,人民出版社一九六四年版,第1页。

  ②⑩毛泽东:《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题》,人民出版社一九五七年版,第27页。

  ②①《理想,情操,精神生活》,中国青年出版社一九六二年版,第67页。

  ②②中国赫鲁晓夫:《同民建会中央、全国工商联领导人的谈话纪要》,(一九六○年二月十二日)。

  ②③《理想,情操,精神生活》,中国青年出版社一九六二年版,第68—69页。

  ②④中国赫鲁晓夫:《在北京干部会议上的讲话》,(一九四九年五月十九日)。

  ②⑤《理想,情操,精神生活》,中国青年出版社一九六二年版,第69页。

  ②⑥《文艺报》,一九六五年第11期,第6页。

  ②⑦中国赫鲁晓夫:《论党员在组织上和纪律上的修养》(一九四一年)

  ②⑧《理想,情操,精神生活》,中国青年出版社一九六二年版,第67页。

  ②⑨同上,第9页。

  ③⑩同上,第4页。

  ③①同上,第26页。

  ③②同上,第11页。

  ③③同上,第27页。

  ③④同上,第75页。

  ③⑤《思想·感情·文采》,广东人民出版社一九六四年版,第33页。

  ③⑥同上,第45—46页。

  ③⑦同上,第3页。

  ③⑧同上,第46—47页。

  (载《人民日报》一九六七年九月八日)

  毛泽东:对《评陶铸的两本书》一文的几段批语

  毛泽东

  1967.08.20,28

  文元同志:

  看了一遍,很好。题目似可改为《评陶铸的两本书》,小题目不要。此外,有些地方似太简略,宜于加以发挥。但文章已不短,再加或显得太长。究应如何,可与你的写作班子同志们一商,他们可能提出些好的意见。

  看过,极好。我只改了几个字,加了一段话,是否妥当,请酌定。建议在北京发表,前一天广播,以便同北京在同一天在全国各报发表。还要先送北京,在中央文革,中央碰头会,以三四天时间加以讨论。如有好的意见,加以吸收。

  还宜在二三个月写几篇批刘文章,你是否有时间担负起来。明后日拟和你一谈。

  中央首长谈姚文元的文章《评陶铸的两本书》

  周恩来 陈伯达 江青

  1967.09.07

  周总理:

  在这个期间,首先应该好好学习江青同志的讲话(指九月五日讲话)。现在大好形势中有些问题值得注意。这个问题应该很好的学习。第二个就是姚文元同志发表《评陶铸的两本书》,这是一个中心问题,大批判当中提出了一个新的问题,党中央出现了一个两面派陶铸,他实际上是刘邓的一伙。第三个,值得大家学习的,是《人民日报》转载《文汇报》的社论《无产阶级的党性和小资产阶级的派性》。各革命派,各革命群众组织都值得学习。这三篇东西推荐给大家学习,就是说对时事的认识,怎么紧跟毛主席的伟大战略部署,牢牢掌握革命斗争大方向,进行大批判。要进行这个大批判,就需要很好的学习这三篇。

  陈伯达同志:

  谈一下姚文元同志的文章,这是活学活用毛主席思想和观点,对陶铸系统批判的一篇。当然以后还有二、三篇。主席号召大批判。现在系统批判的文章还比较少。我们要打倒刘邓陶,就要从政治、思想、理论上进行系统的批判。姚文元同志的文章就是进行系统批判的样板。今后要围绕一些文章进行报道,要学习姚文元同志的文章,文章写得很好。写文章就是要抓住中心,要踏踏实实,质量要高,我们要用主席思想来报道批判文章,以姚文元同志的文章为榜样。

  戚本禹同志:

  姚文元同志的文章的发表是中央重要的战斗步骤。重要的会议你们参加了,中央首长的讲话是当前中央对文化大革命的方针和政策,姚文元同志的文章就是根据中央的方针政策写出来的,特别是根据江青、康生、伯达、总理、春桥同志的讲话写出来的,特别是江青同志接见安徽的形势讲话很重要。文化革命的主要问题是什么,主要是大方向,矛头指的谁,指对了就不断胜利。现在根据中央讲的,对大方向的干扰有两方面,就是从“左”和右的方面来动摇毛主席的司令部。这篇文章指出了 “左”和右两方面干扰的典型。陶铸是从极右到极“左”,是一个典型的代表人物,所以要抓住这个代表人物狠狠地批判,通过批判提高人民的思想政治觉悟,把人们引导到无产阶级革命路线上来。姚文元同志的文章很好,很扎实,这是大批判中的代表作。(姚文元同志插话:文章写了半年了,是中央文革小组集体智慧的结晶。)这篇文章是从批陶到批“五·一六”兵团这个反革命小集团。“五·一六”是陶铸极“左”的发展。

  江青同志:

  这篇文章是个重型炮弹,发出去以后,要有各种型号的炮弹,报馆电台要组织各种炮弹。文章出来后,要掀起革命大批判的高潮,在大批判中推进大联合,在批判走资派的基础上联合起来,在批“五·一六”的基础上联合起来,引导大家端正方向,引导到主席革命路线轨道上来,要批判极“左”,要批判极右。

  姚文元同志:

  这篇文章能在全国文化革命中起点作用,应归功于主席和主席思想、主席路线,尤其是中央文革小组同志们的集体劳动,特别是江青同志的帮助。我是一个小学生,作了些事情完全应该,应宣传主席,不应宣传我,决定广播是中央决定的。

  报纸要有革命的战斗的风格,要敢于用主席思想批判错误的东西,即是向主席学习,而且要见于宣传。我们都是主席的小学生。
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-03-24 13:50 | 1 楼
帖子浏览记录 版块浏览记录
中国文革研究网 » CR DOCUMENTS
 
 

Total 0.021914(s) query 4, Time now is:08-24 16:41, Gzip enabled
Powered by PHPWind v6.3.2 Certificate © http://wengewang.tk