* I would like to thank Robert Bradley, Gordon Bennett and James Townsend for their comments. Much of the research for this paper was done under the auspices of the International Asian Studies Program at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and at Universities Service Centre. Research in Hong Kong was supported by a grant from the Mellon Foundation.

1. A new, 1978 designation for an authoritative spokesman. 14 “special commentator” articles had already appeared in various periodicals by 11 May. A number of these received emphatic, first-page treatment in Jen-min jih-pao (People's Daily), but “ Practice is the only standard” was on p. 2.

2. This speech was described with great enthusiasm and excitement in Jen-min jih-pao on 3 June, and after running Hua's and Yeh Chien-ying's speeches at the conference, the text of Teng's was published on 6 June.

3. “To-ch'ü chieh-p'i ‘szu jen pang’ tou-cheng ti ch'üan sheng-li” (“Seize complete victory in the struggle to expose the ‘gang of four’”), Jen-min 4 October 1978; “T'ien-ts'ai lun ho shih-chien lun ti tou-cheng” (“The struggle between the theory of genius and the theory of practice”), ibid. 30 October 1978.

4. Hsin, Ch'i, “Chung-kung wan-ch'eng-le chi chuan-pien” (“The Chinese Communists complete a sharp turn”), Ch'i-shih nien-tai (The Seventies), No. 2 (02 1979), pp. 7–17Google Scholar.

5. Ibid. p. 8.

6. Peking Review, No. 52 (29 12 1978), pp. 6–16Google Scholar.

7. Ibid. p. 15.

8. Ibid. pp. 8, 14 and 16.

9. See for instance Mu, Tso et al. , “Pu hsu ‘szu jen pang’ yung ‘fa-ch'üan chung-hsin lun’ lai ts'uan-kai wu-ch'an chieh-chi chüan-cheng hsia chi-hsu koming ti li-lun” (“Don't allow the ‘gang of four’ to use the ‘theory of the centrality of legal rights’ to usurp the theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat), Ching-chi yen-chiu (Economic Research), No. 3 (03 1978), pp. 11–15Google Scholar.

10. The key slogan which is attacked is “chü-chü shih chen-li” (“every word is truth”). See for instance, “Ch'ih Lin Piao so-wei ‘chü-chü shih chen-ti’” (“Reject Lin Piao's so-called ‘every word is truth’”), Jen-min, 29 August 1978, p. 2.

11. Tsou, Tang, “Mao Tse-tung thought, the last struggle for succession, and the post-Mao era,” The China Quarterly (CQ), No. 71 (09 1977), pp. 498–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. It should be remembered, however, that Teng also had friendship with Mao going back to the Kiangsi Soviet days. He was first publicly criticized as a rightist by the “28 Bolsheviks” in 1933, and at that time it was for being on Mao's side of a factional dispute. MacFarquhar, Roderick in his The Origins of The Cultural Revolution I (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974)Google Scholarclaims that Teng was pushed forward by Mao in the 1950s.

13. “Hsüeh hao wen-chien chua-chu kang” (“Study documents well and grasp the main outline”), Hung-ch'i (Red Flag), No. 3 (03 1977), pp. 15–18Google Scholar.

14. This speech was given in 1956 but officially published only in late December 1976. An earlier text had been available from Red Guard publications. See Schram, Stuart, “Chairman Hua edits Mao's literary heritage: on the ‘Ten Great Relationships,’” CQ, No. 69 (03 1977), pp. 126–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. This conflict is seriously over-emphasized by Ch'ih, Ch'en “Chung-kung nei-pu ti i ch'ang ta pien-lun” (“A big debate among the Chinese Communists”), Cheng-ming, No. 10 (08 1978), pp. 11–13Google Scholar. He does not give the year of publication of the “Study documents well and grasp the main outline” article, implying that it was 1978, and he does not mention that the documents promoted were Mao's 1956 speech and Hua's Tachai speech. On the other hand, Chen's article was the earliest one to pinpoint the ideological rift within the post-Mao leadership.

16. “Study documents well,” p. 18.

17. The “Ten major relationships” is a perfect case in point, because according to a usually informed source, Hu Ch'iao-mu was a major collaborator with Mao in writing this 1956 speech. See T'ien-chang, Sung, “Pei-ching shih fou p'i Mao?” (“Is Peking Criticizing Mao?”), Cheng-ming, No. 11 (09 1978) p. 6Google Scholar.

18. Under the “gang of four” Hung-ch'i had devoted a special section to anti-Teng essays.

19. The first campaign lasted from winter 1976 to spring 1977, and the second started in March 1977 and lasted until the beginning of 1978. Actually, though, the exposé of “gang of four” crimes has continued.

20. Peking Review, No. 1 (6 01 1978), p. 10Google Scholarn.

21. Ch'i Hsin, “The Chinese Communists complete a sharp turn.”

22. See Kuang-ming jih-pao, 21 March 1979, p. 2.

23. Hsin, Ch'i, “The Chinese Communist complete a sharp turn,” p. 15Google Scholar.

24. Ibid.

25. See Ch'ih, Ch'en, “Hung-ch'i tsa-chih ch'i-kuai ti ch'en mo” (“Hung-ch'i magazine's strange silence”), Cheng-ming, No. 13 (11 1978), pp. 16–17Google Scholar.

26. See “T'an-t'an ch'ou-hsiang k'en-ting, chu-t'i fou-ting ti wen-t'i” (“Discussing the problem of ‘approval in general but concrete rejection’”), Jen-nan jih-pao Special Commentator, Jen-min 22 September 1978, p. 2. Also t'ing, Sung Chen “Lun kao chu Mao Tse-tung szu-hsiang ti ch'i chih” (“On raising high the banner of Mao Tse-tung's Thought”), Jen-min 27 10 1978, p. 3Google Scholar.

27. This article was not published until 6 October, the second anniversary of the purge of the “gang of four.”

28. This particular point had already been suggested in the “academic” press in March 1978. Liang, Hsiao, “K'o-hsüeh chi-shu wei-shen-ma pu shih shengch'an li?” (“Why aren't science and technology productive forces?”), Ching-chi yen-chiu, No. 3 (03 1978), p. 23Google Scholar. Despite this early introduction, Kuang-ming Jih-pao reported on 23 September that while people were accepting foreign technology, many still suspected that using western management techniques was too bourgeois. Hsüeh-mo, Chang, “T'an-t'an hsueh-hsi tzu-pen chu-i kuo-chia ti ch'i-yeh kuan-li” (“Discussing the study of enterprise management in capitalist countries”). Kuang-ming jih-pao, 23 09 1978, p. 4Google Scholar.

29. For instance there was a meeting in Canton involving over 170 cadres which lasted one month and attempted a Yenan-style rectification on the basis of “seeking truth from facts.” Jen-min, 6 October 1978.

30. There was a philosophy conference in June (Jen-min, 7 July 1978), and an economics conference in August (Ibid., 2 September 1978).

31. The criticism of Piao, Lin and the “gang of four” had been linked as early as 31 01 1978 (Chieh Szu “Fan-tui hsing-shih chu-i” – “Oppose formalism,” Jen-min, p. 3)Google Scholarand had been semi-authoritative since 18 May (Shen T'ao-sheng, “‘Szu jen pang ’yü Lin Piao “—”The ‘gang of four’ and Lin Piao,” ibid., p. 1).

32. The major article on this theme is “Tien-ts'ai lun ho shih-chien lun ti tou-cheng” “The struggle of the theory of genius and the theory of practice”), Jen-min jih-pao Special Commentator, Jen-min, 30 October 1978, p. 2. This article may have been written some months earlier because it refers to problems still existing “more than a year after the fall of the ‘gang of four,’” whereas 6 October 1978, was the second anniversary of their fall.

33. Ibid.

34. The counter-slogan was “two arrows shot at the same time” – implying that there was no systemic connection between Lin and the “gang” – was attacked in Jen-min jih-pao, 4 October 1978.

35. “Lin Piao, ‘szu jen pang’ ti liu-tu fei su-ch'ing pu k'o” (“The detri-mental effects of Lin Piao and the ‘gang of four’ must be eliminated”), Jen-min, 7 October 1978, p. 2.

36. The most prominent dismissal of October, that of Wu Teh as mayor of Peking, was probably not directly related to this campaign. Wu was criticized primarily for his complicity in the T'ien An Men incident of 5 April 1976, and more generally for being “feng p'ai” – of the “wind faction.” The “feng p'ai” was criticized as early as 6 January 1978 in Jen-min jih-pao.

37. The following information on personnel shifts is primarily from Ch'i Hsin, “The Chinese Communists complete a sharp turn.”

38. Ibid. p. 9.

39. P'eng Teh-huai, Tao Chu, Po I-po and Yang Shang-k'un are mentioned by name.

40. “As for the shortcomings and mistakes in the actual course of the (Cultural) revolution, they should be summed up at the appropriate time as experience and lessons so as to unify the views of the whole Party and the people of the whole country. However, there should be no haste about this. Shelving this problem will not prevent us from handling all other problems left over from past history in a down-to-earth manner …” ‘communiqué,’ p. 15.

41. The disappointment in agricultural performance has been expressed in the press. According to Hsin, Ch'i, “The Chinese Communists complete a sharp turn,” p. 16Google Scholar, agricultural difficulties have caused authorities to double their estimates of the necessary state investment in agriculture during the 10-Year Plan. The same source alleges that 77% of enterprises did not meet the 1978 goal of matching their previous peak performance.

42. “Communiqué of the Third Plenum.”

43. At various times the “gang of four” has been called pragmatist, bourgeois, idealist, fascist, feudal, fake left real right, etc. In most criticisms, an understandable argument is given for assigning the author's favourite term of abuse, but the question of which of these terms is the most accurate description is not raised.

44. “K'o yen chi-kou tang ti kung-tso i k'o yen wei chung-hsin” (“The Party in scientific and technological organizations ought to take science and technology as the central task”), Jen-min jih pao, 20 October 1979, p. 1.

45. Peking Review, No. 12 (24 03 1978), pp. 9–18Google Scholar.

46. Previously it had been the Social Sciences Division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

47. Most of the information about the Academy comes from Hsun, Chou, “Chung kung shih-hui k'o-hsueh yen-chiu hsien-chuang chi ch'ien-ching” (“The present situation and outlook for Chinese Communist social science research”), Ch'i-shih nien-tai (The Seventies), No. 12 (12 1978), pp. 42–50Google Scholar. It is corroborated by articles in Kuang-ming jih-pao throughout the year, and by DeAngelis, Alexander, “The establishment of the Chinese Academy of Social Science,” China Exchange Newsletter, Vol. 6. Nos. 3–4 (06–08 1978)Google Scholar. I also rely on an interview by Victor Falkenheim at the Academy in October and an informal seminar I had at the Canton Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Research Institute in December.

48. Chien Po-tsan was attacked early in the Cultural Revolution for his theory of ruling class “concessions.” See Hung-t'ao, Szu-ma, “P'ing Chien Po-tsan ti Chung-kuo shih kang-yao” (“Criticize Chien Po-tsan's Outline of Chinese History”), Jen-min, 1 06 1966Google Scholar. Chien was rehabilitated in the autumn of 1978. See Hung-lin, Li, “Chien Po-tsan t'ung-chih shih-nien chi” (“The 10th anniversary of the death of Chien Po-tsan”), Li-shih Yen-chiu, No. 9 (09 1978), pp. 27–47Google Scholar.

49. Actually, the slogan, “Let a hundred flowers blossom” was first used in 1951Google Scholar.

50. yuan, Pen k'an p'ing-lun, “P'i-pan ‘szu jen pang’ ti wen-hua chuan-cheng chu-i, chi-chi k'ai-chan pai chia cheng-ming” (“Condemn the ‘gang of four's’ cultural dictatorship, actively develop a hundred schools of thought contending”), Che-hsueh yen-chiu, No. 4 (04 1978), pp. 9–12Google Scholar. The next issue of Chehsüeh yen-chiu revealed indirectly on p. 3 that the “commentator” was Teng Li-ch'un, a vice-president of the Chinese Academy of Social Science.

51. Ibid. p. 11.

52. Ti, Ai, “Tsan-yang li-chieh ‘pai hua ch'i fang, pai chia cheng-ming’ ti fang-chen?” (“How should the policy, ‘let a hundred flowers blossom, let a hundred schools of thought contend’ be understood?”), Che-hsiieh yen-chiu No. 10 (10 1978), pp. 60–62Google Scholar.

53. Yang, Chou, “Che-hsueh shih-hui k'o-hsüeh ti fa-chan kuei-hua ho pai hua ch'i fang, pai chia cheng-ming ti kang-chen” (“The development plan for philosophy and social sciences and the ‘let a hundred flowers blossom, let a hundred schools of thought contend’ orientation”), Che-hsüeh yen-chiu, No. 10 (10 1978), pp. 2–11Google Scholar.

54. Ibid. p. 8.

55. Ibid. p. 9.

56. zWen, Chang, “Social Sciences: A Hundred Schools of Thought Contend,” Peking Review, No. 14 (6 04 1979), p. 12Google Scholar.

57. Mu-ch'iao, Hsieh, “Lun she-hui chu-i chi-t'i so-yu-chih” (“On the socialist collective ownership system”), Ching-chi yen-chiu, No. 10 (10 1978), pp. 2–9 and, p. 6Google Scholar.

58. See, for instance, Wen, Chang, “Hsüeh-zsu Tzu-pen Lun chung kuan-yü sheng-ch'an li ti lun-shu” (“Study the discussion of productive forces in capital”), Che-hsüeh yen-chiu, No. 3 (03 1978), pp. 49–60Google Scholar.

59. Tse-hou, Li, “Kuan-yü K'an-te ti ‘wu tsu-t'i’ hsüeh-shuo” (“On Kant's doctrine of the Ding an sich), Che-hsüeh yen-chiu, No. 6 (06 1978), pp. 43–53Google Scholar. Li has also recently published articles on Yen Fu, the T'aipings, and aesthetic theory in Li-shih yen-chiu, Jen-min jih-pao, and Kwang-ming jih-pao.

60. See yuan, Pen-pao p'ing-lun (Commentator), “Chia-ch'iang che-hsüeh kung-tso t'ung tzu-jan k'o-hsüeh kung-tso ti lien-meng” (“Strengthen the alliance of philosophical work with that of the natural sciences”), Che-hsüeh yen-chiu, No. 3 (03 1978), pp. 45–49Google Scholar. Also Chi-tse, Wen, “Tsai hsiang k'ohsüeh chi-shu hsien-tai-hua chin chün chung, che-hsüeh kung-tso che yao tso hsieh shen-ma?” (“What should philosophy workers do in advancing troops towards modernization of science and technology?”), Che-hsüeh yen-chiu, No. 5 (05 1978), pp 5–7Google Scholar.

61. See Kuang-t'ung, Ni, “Hsien-tai wu-li-hsüeh chung ti tse-liang ho jen-shih-lun wen-t'i” (“Problems of measurement and epistemology in modern physics), Che-hsüeh yen-chiu, No. 5 (05 1978), pp. 5–7Google Scholar.

62. The Chinese identify these positions with materialism and idealism respectively, following Engels, but it should be noted that as described thus far St Thomas Aquinas was a realist.

63. See “Kuan-yü chen-li piao-chun ti wen-t'i” (“On questions about the standard of truth”), a collection of answers to readers' questions. Che-hsüeh yen-chiu, No. 8 (08 1978), pp. 16–20Google Scholar. Some of the questions are also discussed elsewhere.

64. Ibid. p. 17.

65. Pien-cheng wei-wu chu-i chlang-tso (Forum on Dialectical Materialism), published in September 1978 as a book by Joint Publishing Co.

66. Sheng, Hang, “Chien-ch'ih liang tien lun fan-tui i tien lun” (“Support the theory of two points, oppose the theory of one point”), Kuang-ming jih-pao, 6 06 1978Google Scholar; Lin, Ch'iu, ‘Shih-wu tou yu liang tien hsing-chih ke pu-hsiang-t'ung” (“All things have two points, each essence is different”), Kuang-ming jih-pao, 13 06 1978Google Scholar.

67. Sheng, Han, “Wei chen-li erh tou-cheng” (“Fight for truth”), Kuang-ming jih pao, 8 09 1978Google Scholar.

68. Chün, Li, “Pu neng pa k'o-kuan chen-li ho k'o-kuan hsien-shih hun wei i fan” (“Objective truth and objective reality cannot be confused”), Kuang-ming jih-pao, 20 08 1978Google Scholar, reprinted in Jen-min jih-pao, 29 August 1978. Answered by Tso, Fu “Tui-yü i p'ien wen-chang ti i-chien” (“On the views of one essay”), Jen-min, 5 09 1978Google Scholar. Rebuttal by Chün, Li “Tsai t'an k'o-chüan chen-li ya k'o-tsuan hsien shih” (“Again on objective truth and objective reality”), Kuang-ming jih-pao, 15 09 1978Google Scholar, not reprinted in Jen-min jih-pao.

69. In one place Fu quotes a fairly well-known passage from Engels' Anti-Duehring completely out of context.

70. However, the only article I know of on the dispute did not seem to find any. Hsin, Li, “Pei-ching Hang pao ti i pi-chan” (“An editorial war between Peking's two papers”), Tung-hsiang, No. 1 (10 1978), p. 34Google Scholar.

71. See Chung-kuo ch'ing-nien (Chinese Youth) Special Commentator, “ Tso pao-wei ho fa-yang she-hui ch'iu-i min-chu ti chan-shih” (“Protect and develop fighters for socialist democracy”), Jen-min, 22 October 1978, p. 3.

72. Hsin, Ch'i “The Chinese Communists complete a sharp turn,” p. 15Google Scholar.

73. Wei, Tu “Shih-chien pu shih chien-yen chen-li wei-i piao-chün” (“Practice is not the only standard for evaluating truth”), Ch'i-shih nien-tai, No. 2 (02 1979), pp. 18–20Google Scholar.

74. “Communiqué,” p. 15. This confirmed Tsou's, Tang prediction of 1977, “Mao Tse-tung Thought,” p. 524Google Scholar.

75. Womack, Brantly, “Theory and practice in the Thought of Mao Tse-tung,” in Hsiung, James (ed.), The Logic of Maoism (New York: Praeger, 1974), pp. 1–33Google Scholar.

76. “Hu-nan tzu-hsiu ta-hsüeh ch'uang-li hsuan-yen” (“Opening announcement of the Hunan Self-Education University”), Minoru, Takeuchi (ed.), Mao Tse-tung Chi (Collected Works of Mao Tse-tung), Vol. 1, p. 83Google Scholar.

77. See Munro, Donald, The Concept of Man in Contemporary China (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1977), pp. 54–55Google Scholar.