1. Feuer, Lewis S., Marx and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1959), p. 398Google Scholar; Emphasis added.

2. For the controversy over the precise time of its composition and the extent of its revision, see Cohen, Arthur A., The Communism of Mao Tse-tung (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 22–28Google Scholar;

3. Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 336. Emphasis added. Many years later, Mao wrote a series of 33 comments on Stalin's, Economic Problems of Socialism (1952)Google Scholar; He began with the following highly critical remarks: “From the beginning to end, this book of Stalin's has not touched upon superstructure. It has not considered man. It saw things but not man.… The standpoint of Stalin's last letter [‘Reply to Comrades A. V. Sanina and V. G. Venzher,’ dated 28 September 1952] is almost totally wrong. The basic error is his distrust of the peasantry.” Map Tse-tung ssuhsiang wan sui (no place of pub.: 1967), p. 156. Some of the ideas of Nicos Poulantzas and Antonio Gramsci parallel Mao's emphasis on the superstructure and political and ideological line over economic base. This will be developed in another paper.

4. For a Marxist view of the importance of Mao's distinction between the principal contradiction and secondary contradiction, and the distinction between principal aspect and secondary aspect within a contradiction, see Althusser, Louis, For Marx (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), pp. 193–96Google Scholar;

5. These phrases are borrowed from Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Culture (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 216–20Google Scholar;

6. Stuart Schram and Benjamin Schwartz did more than any other China scholars to develop and popularize this development of Marxism in China. Schram, Stuart, The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung (New York: Praeger, 1969)Google Scholar; Revised edit., pp. 171–74. The Chinese text can be conveniently found in Mao Tse-tung ch'i, Vol. VI, pp. 259–62.

7. Schram, , Political Thought, p. 172Google Scholar;

8. Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 316.

9. Althusser, Louis, For Marx (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), p. 183Google Scholar;

10. Ibid.

11. Womack, Brantly, “Theory and practice in the thought of Mao Tse-tung,” in Hsiung, James, The Logic of Maoism (New York: Praeger, 1974), p. 15Google Scholar;

12. In this article, Mao emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice and emphasizes that theory is based on practice and in turn serves practice. Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 297.

13. I am indebted to Dr Theresa Chu for this formulation.

14. Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 336.

15. In this paper, we shall not discuss the campaign to “criticize Lin Piao and Confucius” and the movement to “study the historical experience of the struggle between the Confucian and Legalist schools.”

16. Article by Ning, Kao, in Kuang-ming jih-pao, 14 11 1976, p. 1Google Scholar;

17. Kuang-ming jih-pao, 2 December 1976, p. 3.

18. Ning, Kao in Kuang-ming jih-pao, 14 11 1976Google Scholar;

19. The English translation can be found in Peking Review, 28 February 1975, p. 5. The term “only” as well as the original Chinese phrase is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as “must be” or as “merely” restricted, but not eliminated. It is perhaps highly significant that Mao issued his instructions on the study of theory on the same day after he had listened to Chou's report on the preparatory work on convening the Fourth National People's Congress. On 23 and 24 December he warned Ch'ing, Chiang, “Don't form a faction. Those who formed factions will fall down.” Hung ch'i, No. 2 (1977), pp. 13–14Google Scholar;

20. Peking Review, 28 February 1975, p. 5.

21. “Mao Tse-tung ssu-hsiang wan-sui” (April 1967). This compilation is different from the now generally available Chinese version with the same title. (Current Background, 891 p. 49.)

22. Ch'un-ch'iao, Chang, “On exercising all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie,” Peking Review, 4 04 1975, p. 7Google Scholar; Chang did not tell us how Marx and Lenin conceived of a socialist society and how this conception is related to his own conclusion. Chang is later accused of claiming that the “thought of Chang Ch'un-ch'iao” represents the fourth milestone in the development of Marxist thought, following Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung. Chang's concern with equality and “bourgeois right” went back at least as far as 1958. An article of his on the subject was republished from 13 October 1958 in the Jen-min jih-pao. The editor noted that “Chang's article is basically correct but somewhat one-sided.” This article with the editor's note is reproduced in Pan-ku (Hong Kong), 04 1975, pp. 6–8Google Scholar;

23. Ibid. Emphasis added. Politically speaking, this is very skilful writing which links his new formulation with Mao's familiar formula. But, in terms of Marxist theory, it raises more questions than it answers. Chang's opponents later pointed out that Chang's article did not once mention the development of socialist production. Kuang-ming jih-pao, 30 November 1976, p. 4. Another and simpler statement is the following one: “[I] n the process of production, the relations between people and the form of distribution are determined by and react upon the system of ownership, and they played a decisive role under given conditions.” “Dictatorship of the proletariat and the renegade Lin Piao,” Peking Review, 27 June 1975, p. 8.

24. The most relevant quotations are drawn from Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme. Actually, Marx in precisely this work criticized “vulgar socialism” for considering and treating distribution as independent of the means of production and “hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution.” See Resnick, David, “Crude communism and revolution,” in American Political Science Review, 12 1977, p. 1137Google Scholar;

25. Lenin, observes: “It follows that under Communism, there remains for a time not only bourgeois right but even the bourgeois state – without the bourgeoisie!” Quoted in Peking Review, 28 02 1975, p. 9Google Scholar; Emphasis added.

26. “Dictatorship of the proletariat,” p. 8. According to the ultra-leftists, the relations between the people should be governed exclusively by the lofty spirit of “utter devotion to others without thought of self.”

27. Heng, Chih, “Conscientiously study the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat,” Peking Review, 02 1976, p. 8Google Scholar;

28. Chang, , “On exercising all-round dictatorship,” p. 7Google Scholar; To the extent that “control” and “own” are indistinguishable, that part of Chang's statement referring to “the control of leadership” is tautological.

29. Wen-yuan, Yao, “On the social basis of the Lin Piao anti-Party clique,” Peking Review, 7 03 1975, p. 9Google Scholar;

30. Kuang-ming jih-pao, 19 November 1976, p. 1. This is an awkward and literal translation of the Chinese phrase, “yu hsien-shih yi-i.” It can perhaps be loosely rendered as “has operational meaning.”

31. The term “key link” is used in the official English publication to translate the Chinese character, “k'ang.” The term “k'ang” can also be translated as “the main theme.” Mao, himself explained that “k'ang” is the “main theme.” Jen-min, 7 02 1977, p. 1Google Scholar;

32. Kuang-ming jih-pao, 14 November 1976, p. 1. Emphasis added.

33. Ch'ing, Chiang is reported to have said that “[M]ore than 75 per cent of the old cadres inevitably turn from members of the democratic faction into members of the faction of the capitalist readers.” Kuang-ming jih-pao, 14 12 1976, p. 4Google Scholar; (Article by Chang Chun-po.)

34. Ibid. 19 November 1976, p. 1. See also the revealing article under the by-line of the Theoretical Group of the Military Training Department of the General Staff in the Jen-min, 4 12 1976, p. 2Google Scholar;

35. Ibid. 19 November 1976, p. 1. In another statement, Mao said: “As I see it, those who criticize empiricism are themselves empiricists.” This statement is more critical of the ultra-leftists; but no data is given for this statement. It is not known whether it was really directed at the ultra-leftists. Jenmin, 28 November 1976, p. 1. Mao's criticism of the ultra-leftists found expression in an article under the by-line of Chun, Li in Hung ch'i, No. 6 (1975), p. 9Google Scholar; This article criticized both “empiricism” and “dogmatism.” Mao's support of the veteran Party leaders was also reflected in the article in the same issue which stressed stability and unity and the unified leadership of Party committees and governmental organs at all levels.

36. Hsueh-ping, Hung, “The essence of ‘theory of productive forces’ is to oppose proletarian revolution,” Peking Review, 19 09 1969, p. 7Google Scholar;

37. Ibid.

38. Ou, Hung, “Economic base and superstructure,” Peking Review, 15 08 1975, p. 7Google Scholar; Contrast this definition with the following sentence of Balibar, Etienne: “… it, the second form of antagonism is inside the economic base, typical of a determinate mode of production, and its terms are called, ‘the level of the productive forces,’ and ‘the relations of production’.” Althusser, Louis and Balibar, Etienne, Reading Capital (London: 1975), p. 203Google Scholar;

39. Kuang-ming jih-pao, 30 November 1976, p. 6.

40. Article under the by-line of the Great Criticism Group of the State Planning Commission, Hung ch'i, No. 12 (1976), p. 47Google Scholar;

41. Ta-kung poo (Hong Kong), 27 01 1977, p. 1Google ScholarPubMed;

42. Ibid. 3 December 1976, p. 2. Ch'un-ch'iao, Chang is charged with having said: “[D]o not fear a decrease in growth rate. It is all right to have a lower rate of growth.” Hua-chiao jih-pao (New York), 18 02 1977 p. 1Google Scholar;

43. Hung ch'i, No. 12 (1976), p. 48Google Scholar;

44. Hua-chiao jih-pao (New York), 02 1977, p. 1Google Scholar; For a different translation, see Peking Review, 11 February 1977, p. 13.

45. Kuang-ming jih-pao, 22 November 1976, p. 2. See also ibid. 6 December 1976, p. 3.

46. Article under the by-line of the Big Criticism Group of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Kuang-ming jih-pao, 20 01 1977, p. 1Google Scholar;

47. Hua-chiao jih-pao (New York), 28 02 1977, p. 1Google Scholar;

48. Kuang-ming jih-pao, 23 November 1976, p. 1. Article by the Great Criticism Group of the Ministry of Education.

49. Ta-kung pao, 16 January 1977, p. 2. Article by the eminent physicist Dr Chou Pei-yuan. Science and higher education by their very nature contain an element of elitism. In the name of checking and destroying elitism, the ultra-leftists were also destroying science and higher education.

50. One of the most revealing articles giving a retrospective account of the attacks by the ultra-leftists is Chi, Kuo, “Foreign trade: why the ‘gang of four’ created confusion,” Peking Review, 25 02 1977, pp. 16–18Google Scholar;

51. Hsiao-wen, Kung, “Teng Hsiao-p'ing and the twenty articles,” Hsueh-hsi yü p'i-p'an, No. 6 (1975), p. 15Google Scholar;

52. Ibid. p. 16.

53. Article under the by-line of Chuang Nan, ibid. No. 3 (1976), p. 6.

54. According to the retrospective account after the purge of the “gang of four,” Mao reiterated the basic principle of “three do's and three don'ts,” i.e. “[P] ractice Marxism-Leninism and not revisionism; unite and don't split; be open and above board and don't intrigue and conspire.” He added a warning to Chiang Ch'ing and her followers: “[D]on't function as a gang of four, don't do it any more, why do you keep doing it?” This account also quotes Mao's, instruction that “if this problem of functioning as a gang of four is not settled in the first half of this year, it should be settled in the second half; if not this year, then next year; if not next year, then the year after.” Joint editorial, 25 October 1976, transl. in Peking Review, 29 10 1976, p. 15Google Scholar; See also Ch'i-shih nien-tai (Hong Kong), 02 1977, p. 10Google Scholar;

The Chinese sentence can be rendered as either “should be settled” or “can be setttled.” If the latter translation is used, it suggests that Mao was trying to counsel restraint on the veteran Party leaders while issuing a warning against the “gang of four.” At that time, Mao's, view on unity is expressed in Hung ch'i, No. 6 (1976), pp. 1–9Google Scholar; Apparently, Teng was also taking advantage of the severe criticism of Chiang Ch'ing at the Politburo meetings during July–September of 1975 for her interview with Roxane Witke in 1972 to push forward his programme. Ch'i-shih nien-tai, March 1977, p. 7.

55. The process of drafting this document lasted six months with the final draft completed 25 October. It was intended to be discussed at a national conference at the end of October. But the conference was never held and the draft was stillborn. See Kung, , “Teng Hsiao-p'ing and the twenty articles,” p. 19Google Scholar;

56. Article under the by-line of Li, Kang and Feng, Yen, Hsueh-hsi yü p'i-p'an, No. 4 (1976), p. 24Google Scholar; See also Ch'i-shih nien-tai, March 1976, p. 12.

57. Hsueh-hsi yü p'i-p'an, No. 4 (1976), p. 25Google Scholar;

58. For a detailed report of the contents of these three documents, see the article by Hsin, Ch'i, in Ch'i-shih nien-tai, 03 1977, pp. 9–12Google Scholar; This article was written on the basis of the documents circulated in China after the fall of the “gang of four.” The full texts of the “General programme,” and “Certain problems in accelerating industrial development” are reproduced in the appendix of Hsin, Ch'i, Ssu-jen-p'ang ssu-chien tan-so (Hong Kong: The Seventies Publishing Company, 1977)Google Scholar; as are excerpts from the “Outline report.” Ming pao published a text of the twenty articles, by instalments, on 21–29 May 1977.

59. Ibid. pp. 147–48.

60. Hsueh-hsi yū p'i-p'an, No. 4 (1976), pp. 16–17Google Scholar; see also Hsin, Ch'i, Ssujen-p'ang ssu-chien tan-so, p. 151Google Scholar;

61. For a vivid description, see ibid.passim, particularly pp. 194–200.

62. Hsueh-hsi yü p'i-p'an, No. 4 (1976), p. 21Google Scholar;

63. According to Hsin, Ch'i, what Teng, actually said was “the proletariat's contingent returning to their own villages.” Ch'i-shih nien-tai, 03 1977Google Scholar;

64. Article under the by-line of Feng, Yen, in Hsueh-hsi yü p'i-p'an. No. 2 (1976), p. 3Google Scholar;

65. Hsueh-hsi yü p'i-p'an, No. 4 (1976), p. 23Google Scholar;

66. Ibid. p. 24.

67. Ibid.

68. Hsin, Ch'i, Ssu-jen-p'ang ssu-chien tan-so, p. 195Google Scholar;

69. Hung ch'i No. 1 (1976), p. 6Google Scholar; Peking Review, 2 January 1976, p. 9. The limitation of space does not allow me to mention other statements.

70. Jen-min editorial, reprinted in Kuang-ming jih-pao, 22 December 1976, p. 1.

71. Hua Kuo-feng's important speech at the Conference to develop Tachai-type counties held from mid-September to mid-October 1975, was not printed in Hung ch'i. It is now charged that Yao Wen-yuan was responsible for this decision and that the ultra-leftists criticized Hua's speech as placing too much emphasis on production and as having a touch of revisionism. Chang's disappointment and resentment were expressed in a poem widely publicized now.

72. Hung ch'i, No. 4 (1976), pp. 1Google Scholar; 15. The dash in the English version is a comma in the Chinese.

73. For example, in the important joint editorial by the Jen-min, Hung ch'i, and Chieh-fang-chün pao, Hung ch'i, No. 7 (1976), p. 3Google Scholar;

74. Chun, Hsiang, “The complete reversal of the relations between the enemy and ourselves,” Jen-min, 4 03 1977, p. 1Google Scholar; The theoretically interesting article by Feng, Chih, Kuang-ming jih-pao, 9 05 1977, p. 2 arrived too late to be included in this articleGoogle Scholar;

75. Hung ch'i, No. 7 (1976), p. 6Google Scholar; In the official translation, the phrase, “the bureaucrat class,” is used rather than the words, “the class of bureaucratic officials,” which has narrower empirical referents than the former. The official translation uses the phrase “sharply antagonistic” rather than the words “sharply opposed,” which is the more literal translation of the original Chinese phrase, and which connotes a more moderate tone. The officially published Chinese version includes two changes from the unofficial version distributed by the Red Guards. “Those persons” is changed to “[T]hose leading cadres who are taking the capitalist road.” And, the phrase “the imperative need for socialist revolution,” is added. These two changes add to the radicalism of Mao's statement.

76. Editorial Departments of the Jen-min jih-pao, Hung ch'i, and Chieh-fang-chün pao, “The Great Cultural Revolution will shine forever,” Peking Review, 21 May 1976, p. 7. Emphasis added.

77. See the picture of Mao, in his meeting with Prime Minister Kuan-yew, Lee of Singapore in Peking Review, 14 05 1976, p. 3Google Scholar; This picture caused a great deal of speculation abroad. Mao died less than four months after the appearance of this picture.

78. Mao said that “bourgeois right can only be restricted.” This is a clear difference in emphasis from the position of the ultra-leftists. All the recent articles published in China confirm this interpretation of the meaning of the term “fortified villages.”

79. For a more detailed discussion of the various points in this section, see the up-dated version of the Conference paper, dated 19 May 1977, which will appear in Japanese in Ajia Kuotari.

80. Jen-min, 14 11 1976, p. 2, article by Ching, TienGoogle Scholar; Kuang-ming jih-pao, 15 11 1976, p. 3, article by Ping, ChünGoogle Scholar; Jen-min, 17 November 1976, p. 1; Kuo-feng's, Hua speech to the Second Conference on Learning from Tachai, Peking Review, 1 01 1977, p. 40Google Scholar; Hung ch'i, No. 2 (1977), p. 15Google Scholar; and Kuangming jih-pao, 14 11 1976, p. 1, article by Ning, KaoGoogle Scholar;

81. Jen-min, 14 March 1977, p. 1.

82. Hung ch'i, No. 2 (1977), p. 16Google Scholar;

83. Communication from Edward Friedman.

84. Ta-kung-pao, 9 May 1977, p. 4.