Peking Review

[heiss93]

Articles from Peking Review During the Mao Era



http://massline.org/PekingReview/index.htm
http://www.bjreview.com.cn/special/50th/node_15425.htm

Starting in 1959 and continuing to the present, the People’s Republic of China has published a weekly English-language news magazine originally called “Peking Review”, and beginning with issue #1 in 1979 renamed “Beijing Review” after the Pinyin transliteration system was adopted. This archive is a collection of many of the more important articles on politics, philosophy, and political economy that appeared in that magazine, mostly from the Mao era. While some of these articles sound somewhat stylized and doctrinaire today, there is still much of value in them for those who read them carefully.
All the articles are complete and unaltered. However, in a few cases non-essential photographs accompanying the articles have been omitted; their reproduction quality is often not high in any case. The articles are unsigned unless otherwise noted. During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution years (peak period: 1966-1969) the Chinese editors adopted the practice of putting quotations from Mao, Lenin, Marx, Engels and Stalin in bold type, and this practice continued into the late 1970s. Where this was done in the original we have followed the same convention here.
So far there are over 150 articles in this archive, but we will gradually be adding many more, especially from the Cultural Revolution period. We will also be adding a contents page for each issue (which however will not precisely follow the varying format in the original magazines). If you know of specific articles you would like to see included in this archive, or have other suggestions, or if you find scanning errors that should be corrected, please let us know at: [email protected]
Additional note: The Marxist Internet Archive is, with our permission, copying over the articles we post here to their site. See: http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/peking-review/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/peking-review/index.htm). (They have slightly changed the appearance of the articles to match their standard, and are usually not including the pictures which accompany the articles.) Almost all of the articles below are now also posted there. In addition they have posted three articles which are not yet available here:



“Premier Pham Van Dong Supports Chinese Government Proposal” (Letter to Chou En-lai), from 1963, issue #34.
Chou En-lai: “Speech at the Grand Banquet Celebrating [the] Second Anniversary of Sihanouk’s Coming to China”, from 1972, issue #12.
Chin Hua: “Human Cognizance and Utilization of Energy Resources is Never-Ending — Refutation of ‘Exhaustion of Energy Resources’”, from 1976, issue #4.

[Small Geezer]

I got a couple of Hua Guofeng era Peking reviews. Theres a big long article on Tito's visit to China. With a piece by Tito where he's talking left. They are pretty shit, really. I'm sure the Mao era ones are better though.

[heiss93]

The Theory of Two Points

by Hsueh Li



[This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #2, Jan. 14, 1972, pp. 9-10.]

The article “Commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Communist Party of China” by the editorial departments of “Renmin Ribao,” “Hongqi” and “Jiefangjun Bao” (see “Peking Review” No. 27, 1971) called on our Party members and cadres to “follow the theory of two points, not the theory of one point.” Some readers have asked for an explanation. We publish the following article for their reference. —Ed.

WHAT is the theory of two points? It is what we usually call materialist dialectics; it is the Marxist-Leninist theory of the fundamental law of the universe. In this regard, Chairman Mao has given a comprehensive and penetrating explanation in his On Contradiction. Here we only give a brief account of our understanding gained through study.
What is the law of the motion and development of the universe? A scientific answer was given to this question only after the emergence of the theory of Marxist philosophy. While dealing with the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, Marx pointed out in Capital that the law is “this inner and necessary connection between two seeming contradictions.” Marxism holds that all objective things have two opposite tendencies which are interdependent and struggle against each other. The interdependence and the struggle between the two determine the life of all things and push their development forward. Lenin said: “In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites.” He called it “the kernel of dialectics.” Chairman Mao has pointed out: “Marxist philosophy holds that the law of the unity of opposites is the fundamental law of the universe. This law operates universally, whether in the natural world, in human society, or in man’s thinking. Between the opposites in a contradiction there is at once unity and struggle, and it is this that impels things to move and change.”
The law of the unity of opposites is the Marxist world outlook and methodology. Marxist world outlook means regarding all things as the unity of opposites in accordance with the law of self-movement and development of objective things, and Marxist methodology means using this law to know and change the world. This methodology is what is usually called the dialectical method of analysis. Lenin described it as “the splitting in two of a single whole” and Chairman Mao termed it “one divides into two.”
In revolutionary practice, it is extremely important to use the Marxist world outlook and methodology correctly. Without grasping this scientific, dialectical method of analysis, it is not possible to have a correct knowledge of the world, still less to change it. That is why Chairman Mao has often taught our Party cadres that they should be good at using this scientific method of analysis. To facilitate their understanding, Chairman Mao has, in view of the different objects referred to, often expressed it in popular, lively and easily understandable terms—the more commonly used ones being the theory of two points, the theory of splitting in two and dual nature. Different as the terms are, they all mean the law of the unity of opposites.
In dealing with any question—such as appraising work, studying production problems, analysing the world situation or directing a revolutionary war—it is essential to adhere to the theory of two points and adopt the dialectical method of analysis.
Chairman Mao has taught us that “our attitude towards every person and every matter should be one of analysis and study” and that “it is necessary to make a clear distinction between right and wrong, between achievements and shortcomings.” Whatever work he undertakes, a genuine revolutionary can contribute to the revolution as long as he works in the interests of the people and carries out a correct line; his achievements should be considered primary and his shortcomings secondary. But a concrete analysis should also be made in appraising his work. While it is wrong to regard everything he has done as positive—only achievements and no shortcomings or mistakes—it is equally wrong to regard everything as negative—only shortcomings and mistakes but no achievements whatsoever.
Similarly, it is essential to take this analytical attitude towards difficulties and the bright future. There are many twists and turns on the road forward for the oppressed nations and peoples in their struggle against foreign imperialists and domestic reactionaries. In each step forward, they have to get over many obstacles. In these circumstances, it is necessary to see both the difficulties and the bright future. They must recognize difficulties, analyse them and combat them, and not lose sight of the bright future which can surely be won after making efforts and overcoming all difficulties.
Achievements and shortcomings, difficulties and the bright future—these are two aspects of a single process and are the unity of opposites. We would be blindly clinging to achievements and the bright future if we overlook our shortcomings and difficulties, and this would lead to complete failure in our work. On the other hand, we would equally be blindly clinging to shortcomings and difficulties if we overlook our achievements and lose sight of the bright future, and this would lead to passiveness and pessimism and eventual abandonment of struggle because of loss of hope in victory.
It is also necessary to adhere to the theory of two points in recognizing the reactionary forces. That is to say, it is necessary to take note of their dual nature. They represent the decaying classes and set themselves against the people of their own countries and of the whole world and therefore their doom is inevitable. Chairman Mao’s famous thesis “Imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers” was put forward in accordance with this principle.
On the other hand, it is also necessary to see that imperialism and all reactionaries are temporarily strong, because the state machine and even such things as nuclear weapons are still in their grip. In this sense, they are real tigers, man-eating tigers and therefore must be dealt with seriously.
Basing himself on an analysis of the dual nature of the reactionary forces, Chairman Mao stated that “strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously.” This is the proletarian strategic thinking of defeating the enemy.
Chairman Mao’s paper tiger thesis has been borne out by the history of the Chinese revolution as well as by revolutionary practice in many countries.
It is also necessary to adhere to the theory of two points in analysing the world situation. In his solemn statement People of the World, Unite and Defeat the U.S. Agressors and All Their Running Dogs! issued on May 20, 1970, Chairman Mao pointed out: “The danger of a new world war still exists, and the people of all countries must get prepared. But revolution is the main trend in the world today.” “The danger of a world war” and “revolution” are the two aspects of an “entity”—the world situation. What are the conditions regarding these two aspects? Chairman Mao pointed out: The former “still exists” and the latter is “the main trend.” This is the incisive conclusion Chairman Mao came to regarding the special features of class struggle in the world after observing and analysing the development of the world situation over the past 20 years and more and studying the change in the relative strength of the world’s revolutionary people on the one hand and U.S. imperialism and its lackeys on the other.
The 20-odd-year history since World War II is one in which the people of various countries have repeatedly waged bitter struggles against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, while the latter have been continuously launching wars of aggression and the former have been continuously fighting revolutionary wars to defeat the aggressors. By its wild attempt to dominate the world and its acts of aggression, interference and sabotage everywhere, U.S. imperialism has enabled the people of all countries to see its aggressive nature and inherent weakness more clearly and engage in revolutionary struggles against aggression and oppression. As the basic contradictions grow sharper and sharper and the political consciousness of the people in all countries steadily rises, the revolutionary movements of the world’s people are forcefully surging ahead. A new upsurge in the struggle against U.S. imperialism is developing vigorously throughout the world.
Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution; this has become an irresistible trend of history which shows the main trend of development in the world situation today.
The world is changing in a direction increasingly favourable to the people of all countries. This is one aspect, a principal aspect. But we must also see the other aspect—the aggressive nature of imperialism will not change. Never reconciled to its defeat, U.S. imperialism has not for a moment relaxed its arms expansion and war preparation efforts and has not in the least given up its aggressive ambitions. Lenin said: “Modern war is born of imperialism.” As long as imperialism exists, there will be no tranquillity in the world. The danger of a new world war still exists. This is another trend in the development of today’s world. It is dangerous if we see only the raging flames of the revolution without noticing the enemies sharpening their swords and think we can lower our vigilance because of the excellent situation.
To uphold the theory of two points, it is imperative to oppose the theory of one point. The latter means idealist metaphysical methodology; it means thinking in terms of absolutes and a one-sided approach to a problem. As Chairman Mao has pointed out: “The metaphysical or vulgar evolutionist world outlook sees things as isolated, static and one-sided.” If one takes this viewpoint towards the world, one will see the objective world either as irrelevant or as rigid and immutable and will mistake one part of phenomenon for the whole. This idealist world outlook and methodology runs counter to the law of development of objective things. When one adopts this viewpoint to analyse the situation, handle his work and direct a battle, one is bound to fail.
Whether one can uphold the theory of two points and overcome the theory of one point is not simply a question of method but a question of world outlook. The theory of two points belongs to the proletarian world outlook and the theory of one point belongs to the world outlook of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes. Without exception, the thinking of the people living in class society is stamped with the brand of a class and is invariably influenced by the political orientation of the class they belong to. Although some people are not from the exploiting classes, they are unavoidably affected by the idealism and metaphysics universally existing in class society. Therefore, everyone in the revolutionary ranks should see to it that the idealist and metaphysical viewpoint is eliminated from his mind and that he should make constant efforts to remould his subjective world while changing the objective world. Only in this way can the theory of two points be upheld and the theory of one point overcome.

Overcoming Empiricism

— Notes on studying Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”

by Ni Chih-fu


[This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #43, Oct. 27, 1972, pp. 5-7. A footnote states: “The author, formerly a drilling machine operator of Peking’s Yungting Machinery Plant, is now deputy secretary of the Party committee and vice-chairman of the revolutionary committee of the plant. He is a Member of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.”]

FOLLOWING Chairman Mao’s teaching “Read and study seriously and have a good grasp of Marxism,” I have stepped up my efforts to study several works by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and Chairman Mao’s works in a planned way over the past two years. Recently I have studied Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism and I have come to realize more deeply than ever that it is all the more necessary for me, formerly an ordinary worker and now holding some leading posts, to redouble my efforts to study revolutionary theory, overcome empiricism and enhance my consciousness of the struggle between the two lines. Only in this way can I become a conscious and sober-minded proletarian revolutionary and firmly advance under the guidance of Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line.

Two Opposing Theories of Experience

Chairman Mao has pointed out: “Idealism and mechanical materialism, opportunism and adventurism, are all characterized by the breach between the subjective and the objective, by the separation of knowledge from practice.” (On Practice.) Bogdanov and other swindlers like him who had sneaked into the Party in Russia were such opportunists. In his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin concentrated his efforts on trenchantly exposing this characteristic of theirs. While these scoundrels opposed revolutionary practice, negated the materialist theory of experience and advocated the idealist theory of experience, they also opposed the revolutionary theories, viciously slandered dialectical materialism as “mysticism” and “dogmatism” and racked their brains to replace materialism and Marxism with idealism and revisionism. In this respect, they were by no means isolated cases; Liu Shao-chi and other political swindlers did exactly the same. While working overtime to trumpet the so-called theory of “genius,” they opposed the materialist viewpoint that man’s talent originates from practice; at the same time, they frantically attacked Marxism-Leninism as outdated and vainly attempted to separate the revolutionary theories from the revolutionary masses so as to lead them astray and deceive them. All this shows that while we wage struggles against opportunism, we must uphold the viewpoint of giving first place to practice and oppose idealist apriorism, and at the same time attach importance to the guiding role of the revolutionary theories and guard against and overcome empiricism so as to avoid landing ourselves in idealism and metaphysics.
Marxism maintains that experience comes from practice in class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment. “All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.” (On Practice.). This is true from my own experience. An example is the chun drill bit.* (http://massline.org/PekingReview/PR1972/PR1972-43a.htm#n1) This has not dropped from the skies, nor is it innate in our minds. It is the outcome of some one thousand experiments made by members of our research group who have had over a dozen years of experience at the bench and who have drawn on the advanced experience at home and abroad. In other words, it was created on the basis of the practical experience of the drilling machine operators.
Similarly, I have learnt much from my own experience. I became a child labourer at 11 in a factory owned by a foreign capitalist in Shanghai. Toiling like a beast of burden, I barely eked out a living. I had my fill of sufferings from harsh oppression by foreign capitalists and the exploiting classes. It was under the leadership of Chairman Mao and the Communist Party that we drove away the imperialist pirates and overthrew the reactionary Kuomintang rule and the evil exploitation system. We workers have since become masters of our own destiny and are now living a happy life under socialism. Nurtured and educated by the Party, I quickly raised my political consciousness. My proletarian feelings—deep hatred of capitalism and ardent love for socialism—are not inborn but are the result of my personal experience. Prolonged practice in class struggle and the struggle for production has enabled me to realize that direct experience is very valuable because it is first in order in the process of cognition. Without direct experience, our knowledge would be like trees without roots and water without a source. In order to correctly know and transform the world, we revolutionaries must respect practice and experience.
In opposing the materialist line with regard to knowledge, all idealists invariably do all they can to negate the objective reality of the contents of experience. In order to disguise themselves and deceive others, they often resort to the old trick of holding up the banner of “experience” but actually interpreting experience from an idealist point of view. This was exactly what Bogdanov and his ilk did. They babbled that experience and consciousness were “identical concepts,” the “psychical” and the sum total of sensations, and so on and so forth, that they did not originate in practice and had no objective contents, but came of themselves subjectively. So in appearance they were talking about “experience,” but in reality their distortions and adulterations had turned experience into something idealistic. Lenin incisively exposed and criticized their trick of playing with the concept of “experience” when he pointed out that “there is no doubt that both the materialist and idealist ... lines in philosophy may be concealed beneath the word ‘experience.’” (Materialism aad Empirio-Criticism.) It can thus be seen that adherence to the objective reality of the contents of experience is the prerequisite for upholding the materialist line on cognition.

Never Regard Experience as Absolute

Can we automatically do our work according to the materialist line on cognition when we have direct experience? No. We would commit mistakes of empiricism if we regard direct experience as something absolute and rigid—using partial experience as an unalterable formula and applying it everywhere, using old experience to look at new things which have developed and changed, or overrating our partial experience and underrating or even denying the correct experience of others and the masses. And the result would be that we still could not make a clean break with the idealist theory of experience advertised by Bogdanov and his like and would consciously or unconsciously sink into the quagmire of idealism.
All things in the world are interconnected and at the same time different from one another. In practice, we should not only pay attention to the general character of things. More important, we should pay attention to the individual character of everything, that is, the particular contradiction it contains which distinguishes it from other things, so as to take appropriate measures to solve the contradiction accordingly. This is what we mean by using the right key to open the lock. Likewise, we cannot use one prescription to cure all diseases. As to experiences gained from one thing, some may be applicable to other things, others may be partly applicable and still others may be completely inapplicable. To neglect the particularity of contradictions and mechanically apply old experience is empiricism.
For instance, I used to bore holes on steel, so I was quite familiar with the characteristics of processing all types of steel, but did not know much about the properties of cast iron and copper. Once when I was asked to process such metals, I took for granted that they were more or less the same as steel, so I worked in the same way as I processed steel parts. As a result, the first drill bit got burnt in no time and the second one was broken before it had bored deep. What was the reason? It was simply because I one-sidedly stuck to the old experience I had gained in drilling steel and regarded partial experience as something absolute. Since I took no notice of the specific properties of cast iron and copper and did not use different methods to resolve qualitatively different contradictions, I divorced the subjective from the objective and thus ran into snags.
Everything in the world is changing and manifests itself at a certain stage in the process of its development. Therefore our thinking should not overstep the given stage of development of the objective things and we should not do at present what can only be done in the future, dreaming of accomplishing everything at one stroke. Nevertheless, as the objective things change, our thinking must change accordingly, so that we will not lag behind the development of the objective reality and not use “old experience” to solve new problems. We say that past experience is correct because it is gained through practice. But if we cling to it when conditions have changed, then such experience becomes something subjective.
Since I took up a leading post in the factory, I have been confronted with many problems every day. Being an old hand in this factory, I subjectively thought that I was well acquainted with its conditions, political as well as in production, and that with my past experience I could adequately deal with any problem. But contrary to what I had imagined, I failed to do some of my work satisfactorily though I tried hard. The reason for this was that the conditions had been constantly developing and changing and that new problems different from those in the past kept cropping up, while I was still accustomed to doing things in the old way and my thinking was lagging behind reality. To remedy this situation, I later paid attention to carrying out investigations and study, and strove to improve my methods of work, freeing myself from routine work so as to devote more time and energy to problems relating to the political orientation and line. In this way, I gained greater initiative in my work.
The realm of practical activity is extremely wide, but the scope of an individual’s practice is always limited. While we attach importance to direct experience gained from personal practice, we should also treasure the creations of the masses, be good at making investigations and study, and learn with an open mind from other people’s experience. Only thus can we do our work well.
Recalling how the chun drill bit was invented and innovated, I came to a deep understanding that practice by the masses is a veritable sea of wisdom. It was only after we had conscientiously studied and investigated the masses’ inventions and innovations in drilling and absorbed nourishment from their rich experiences that we were able to make the five comparatively big changes on the chun drill bit. One cannot have direct experience in everything. Actually most knowledge comes from indirect experience. If anyone believes only in himself and sets his personal experience against the masses’ and direct experience against indirect, he will also commit empiricist errors. Chairman Mao has said: “It is also necessary to learn with an open mind from other people’s experience, and it is sheer ‘narrow empiricism’ to insist on one’s own personal experience in all matters, and, in its absence, to adhere stubbornly to one’s own opinions and reject other people’s experience.” (Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War.)
In order to push their revisionist political lines, all opportunists, from Bogdanov in Russia to political swindlers like Liu Shao-chi in China, always frenziedly opposed materialism and advocated idealism. Empiricism is a manifestation of subjectivism and formalism. Ideologically, it runs counter to the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. This is the ideological root cause why empiricists often blindly follow “Left” or Right opportunists. Following the victory of Marxism in theory, revisionists resort more and more to rumours and sophistry to deceive the people. As Lenin said: “An ever subtler falsification of Marxism, an ever subtler presentation of anti-materialist doctrines under the guise of Marxism—this is the characteristic feature of modern revisionism in political economy, in questions of tactics and in philosophy generally, equally in epistemology and in sociology.” (Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.) Under these circumstances, because those people with empiricism neglect the guiding role of Marxism in revolutionary practice, pay no attention to studying revolutionary theory, are complacent over occasional successes and glimpses of the truth, are intoxicated with narrow, non-principled “practicalism” and with being brainless “practical men” with no future, and lack firm and correct political orientation, they are easy ideological captives of political swindlers who are sham Marxists.

Overcoming Empiricism by Conscientious Study

The fundamental way to overcome empiricism is to study Marxism conscientiously. In his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin summed up the historical experience of the struggle over ideology and political line within the Party in Russia and repeatedly explained the importance and necessity of studying Marxist theory. To criticize the Machists in Russia, he quoted copiously from Marx’s and Engels’ main philosophical works, dealing fatal blows at the idealist theory of experience of Bogdanov and his like, thereby setting a brilliant example for us theoretically and in practice. In order to criticize empiricism theoretically, we must study philosophy. Chairman Mao has said: “Those experienced in work must take up the study of theory and must read seriously; only then will they be able to systematize and synthesize their experience and raise it to the level of theory, only then will they not mistake their partial experience for universal truth and not commit empiricist errors.” (Rectify the Party’s Style of Work.) A worker-cadre like me has deep class sentiments for the Party and Chairman Mao as well as experience in my work, but simple class sentiments cannot replace consciousness in the struggle between the two lines and pure practical experience cannot replace Marxism-Leninism. If I should overlook the importance of studying Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, which is a summing-up of the experience of the world revolution and the Chinese revolution, I cannot avoid committing empiricist errors.
Although direct experience gained from practice reflects certain reality of the objective world, it is only perceptual knowledge and the reflection is superficial, partial and incomplete. “Without comparatively complete knowledge it is impossible to do revolutionary work well.” (Rectify the Party’s Style of Work.) To transform incomplete knowledge into comparatively complete knowledge, it is necessary to conscientiously study revolutionary theory, use the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, view and method to sum up one’s direct experience, especially the experience in class struggle and the struggle between the two lines, and to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge through reconstruction—discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside. In this process, the correct standpoint, view and method are especially important. A leap in cognition cannot be realized without the Marxist standpoint, view and method. If one looks at things from the empiricist viewpoint, he will not be able to distinguish the dross from the essential, but will reverse falsehood and truth. And of course he cannot correctly learn from the experience—both positive and negative—in class struggle and the struggle between the two lines. It is only by studying conscientiously to gradually grasp the viewpoints of dialectical materialism and historical materialism that one can know the essence of things in a deep and comprehensive way, grasp the law of objective things, and enhance consciousness and avoid blindness in work.
Lenin said: “By following the path of Marxian theory we shall draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever exhausting it); but by following any other path we shall arrive at nothing but confusion and lies.” (Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.) Class struggle and the struggle between the two lines will exist for a long time. New contradictions will arise after the old ones have been resolved, and after victory in one battle, one has to fight new battles. The changing movement of the objective world will never end, neither will our knowledge of truth in our practice. Therefore, we should make revolution and continue to study as long as we live.

_______________
* This refers to a new-type drill bit invented by Ni Chih-fu and the group he belongs to by toppling conventional theories on bit designing. The new bit has increased efficiency and service life by two to fivefold and three to fourfold respectively. The fruit of collective wisdom, it is named after the Chinese character chun which means group or the masses.

[heiss93]

Has Absolute Music No Class Character?

by Chao Hua of the Arts Department of the Central Institute for Nationalities



[This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #9, March 1, 1974, pp. 15-17.]

WITH the deepening of the movement to criticize Lin Piao and rectify the style of work and new victories being continually won in the struggle-criticism-transformation in the realm of the superstructure, an excellent situation prevails in the country. But the class struggle and the two-line struggle on the art and literary front remain very sharp and complex. The recent weird contention that so-called absolute music has no social content but simply expresses contrasting and changing moods is a sign of a return to the revisionist line in art and literature.
Should the reactionary nature of this erroneous view be exposed or not? This is a cardinal issue of right and wrong and we cannot treat it casually. It involves the question of whether or not the Marxist-Leninist theory of class struggle should be recognized as a universally applicable truth, whether or not the proletarian dictatorship should be exercised in the ideological realm, and whether the Marxist critical attitude should be adopted towards the bourgeois arts or whether they should be “taken over wholesale” as the revisionist fallacies of Chou Yang and his like advocated; it involves the question of whether the proletarian revolution in art and literature can be carried through to the end.
Absolute music in general refers to instrumental music without a descriptive title as to theme or content and it usually is designated by its musical form or tempo. For example, “Symphony in F Major,” “Concerto in C Minor,” “Largo,” “Allegro” and so on.
Bourgeois theorists have long spouted that absolute music is a form of “pure music,” devoid of social content and class nature. They fallaciously contend that music is “simply fantasy, not reality” and that “music is music, and nothing else.” The modern revisionists, while paying lip-service to music’s ties with social life, actually blur the class distinction between proletarian and bourgeois music by describing absolute music as “of the people,” “realistic” and so forth. Why should both the bourgeoisie and the revisionists concoct all sorts of arguments to obscure the class character of art? It is because bourgeois ideology, including bourgeois art and literature, serves to prop up the capitalist system. They dare not openly acknowledge the exploiting class character of their art and literature. Instead, to disguise the essential substance of capitalist exploitation they pose as representatives of the whole people in order to deceive the labouring masses.
Marxist-Leninists hold that all works of music, both absolute and programme music, as a form of ideology “are products of the reflection in the human brain of the life of a given society.” Music without titles descriptive of their theme or content is by no means merely “a form of the flow of sounds.” Not giving their works a descriptive title is only a means by which composers cover up the class content of their works. In fact, a composer clearly has in mind what he wants to praise or oppose and what content and mood he means to convey, when he is composing absolute music.
When the German bourgeois composer Beethoven (1770-1827) was asked the meaning of his Sonata No. 17, a composition without a descriptive title, he replied: “Please read Shakespeare’s The Tempest.” That play, we know, preaches the bourgeois theory of human nature. Of course, the means of expression of music are different from those of literature. Music uses melody, rhythm and harmony to evoke scenes, tell a story or convey emotion, thereby expressing quite plainly or relatively subtly and deviously the composer’s world outlook, ideas and feelings. But in any case, the social and class content, thoughts and feelings so expressed can never be abstract, unintelligible “fantasy,” for they can be grasped by applying the Marxist theory of knowledge and method of class analysis.
Take for instance the representative work Symphony in B Minor (the Unfinished Symphony) by Schubert (1797-1828), an Austrian bourgeois composer of the romantic school. The class feelings and social content it expresses are quite clear, although it has no descriptive title. This symphony was composed in 1822 when Austria was a reactionary feudal bastion within the German Confederation and the reactionary Austrian authorities not only ruthlessly exploited and oppressed the workers and peasants, but also persecuted and put under surveillance intellectuals with any bourgeois democratic ideas. Petty-bourgeois intellectuals like Schubert saw no way out of the political and economic impasse, and lacking the courage to resist they gave way to melancholy, vacillation, pessimism and despair, evading reality and dreaming of freedom. This work of Schubert’s expressed these class feelings and social content. The opening phrase is sombre and gloomy. The whole symphony continues and expands on this emotion, filling it with petty-bourgeois despair, pessimism and solitary distress. At times the dreaming of freedom does come through but this, too, is escapist and negative.
Absolute music composed in Europe in the 18th and l9th centuries are products of the European capitalist society, upholding the interests of the bourgeoisie and serving the capitalist system. The content and the ideas and feelings with which they are saturated have an unmistakably bourgeois class nature. Marx pointed out: “Capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” And it is this blood and dirt that bourgeois music extols. Although certain compositions were to some extent progressive in the sense of being anti-feudal, they failed to mirror proletarian thoughts and feelings of their time; and they are, of course, still more incompatible with our socialist system today under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then why dismiss their class content and extol them? Yet even today there are some who would feed our young people on these musical works uncritically and intact. Where would this lead our young people?
Some devotees of bourgeois absolute music often try to cover up its class nature by holding forth in empty terms on the contrasting, changing moods it presents. This is a reactionary viewpoint of the bourgeois theory of a common human nature transcending classes. For these moods are none other than those of delight and anger, joy and sorrow which vary, as do all men’s ideas and feelings, according to the times and society people live in and the class they belong to. Lu Hsun mercilessly repudiated this bourgeois trash that all men share common emotions and feelings. He said: “Of course, it is human nature to know delight and anger, joy and sorrow but the poor are never worried about losing money on the stock exchange, an oil magnate cannot know the trials of an old woman collecting cinders in Peking, and victims of famine will hardly grow orchids like rich old gentlemen....” Are there any feelings that are not stamped with the brand of a class?
“Joy” can be presented in sharply contrasted ways. Thus the music for the despotic landlord’s birthday celebrations in the third scene of the modern revolutionary dance-drama Red Detachment of Women uses frivolous melody and erratic rhythm to expose the landlord’s wanton extravagance and profligacy built on the suffering of the working people. In contrast, the magnificent stirring music of the dance by soldiers and civilians in the next scene presents the brilliant sunshine and jubilation in the revolutionary base. Did these two musical passages project the same emotions?
Again, take the subject of “sorrow.” The grief of a feudal monarch after his overthrow is expressed in the verses written by Li Yu, the last king of the Southern Tang kingdom in the 10th century, as he hankered in captivity after his former decadent life in the palace.

Carved balustrades, jade flagstones still remain,
But those rosy cheeks are gone.
How great my lord’s grief?
Endless as the spring river flowing to the east!

But the proletarian fighter Lu Hsun portrayed sorrow of a very different kind when he wrote:

A host of dark, gaunt faces in the brambles,
Yet who dare shake the earth with lamentation?
I brood over our whole far-stretching land
And in this silence hear the peal of thunder.

This indignant denunciation of the savage oppression of the people by the Japanese invaders and Kuomintang reactionaries conveys the class hatred and national enmity of millions of working people. This militant lamentation has nothing at all in common with the grief of a feudal monarch over the loss of his kingdom. To claim that one melody could be used to express these two diametrically opposed feelings would be sheer charlatanry.
As for empty talk about “bright,” “healthy” melodies, devoid of class content, this is the metaphysical approach which the revisionists usually resort to when peddling their bourgeois wares. Chou Yang once brayed that the American bourgeoisie whom Walt Whitman extolled was “the new man,” “healthy, broad of mind, with high ideals, a pair of working hands, and eternally optimistic” and that that “shiny example” was “worthy of emulating and copying.” But we are aware if the proletariat really were to “emulate” and “copy” the bourgeoisie, then what awaits us is not “bright skies” but the darkness of the dungeon.
The bourgeoisie may well believe that the works of the 18th-century Austrian bourgeois composer Mozart embody “bright” and “healthy” sentiments. But we working people know clearly that these sentiments cannot compare with the exuberant and impassioned feelings expressed by the chorus The Sun Rises in the seventh scene of The White-Haired Girl. Brimming over with jubilation, this chorus extols Chairman Mao, the red sun in the hearts of the Chinese people, as well as the Communist Party, and evokes the soul-stirring scene “of the land of hibiscus glowing in the morning sun” and the emancipation of the downtrodden peasants. No bourgeois music can even remotely compare with this unrestrained healthy burst of joy evoked by this chorus.
Chou Yang and company also raved that “music is a universal language,” in order to concoct a theoretical basis for their attempt to peddle the wholesale Westernization of music. In fact, every class speaks its own language and there is no such thing as a so-called universal language transcending classes. The Internationale which rings throughout the world is the common language of the proletariat only. The bourgeoisie trembles at the sound of this melody. Lenin aptly said: “In whatever country a class-conscious worker finds himself, wherever fate may cast him, however much he may feel himself a stranger, without language, without friends, far from his native country—he can find himself comrades and friends by the familiar refrain of the [I]Internationale.”
For over eighty years this stirring song has inspired workers of all countries to unite to smash the old world and fight for the realization of communism. All reactionaries, however, regard this battle-song of the proletariat as a fearful menace and do all in their power to prevent The Internationale from circulating among the people. Hence, do the reactionaries share a common language with the proletariat?
Liu Shao-chi, Lin Plao, Chou Yang and their gang, however, shared a common language with the bourgeoisie and all reactionaries at home and abroad, for these renegades, like all imperialists, revisionists and reactionaries, opposed proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship and vainly tried to restore capitalism in China. This was like the futile efforts of Confucius, the mouthpiece and defender of ancient China’s slave-owning class, who, grieving that “the rites were lost and music was ruined,” tried desperately to propagate reactionary music aimed at benumbing and enslaving the people while frantically attacking the new rising folk music in order to preserve the collapsing slave system.
Like the other forms of art, music has always been an instrument of class struggle, and on the art and literary front the class struggle and the two-line struggle have always been extremely acute. In the course of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the movement to criticize Lin Piao and rectify the style of work, great victories have been won on this front and intellectuals have made much progress, but the pernicious influence of revisionist wares peddled by Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao, Chou Yang and company for a long time, such as “art and literature of the whole people” and “art and literature to nourish people,” is deep-seated and still far from being eliminated. Some people talk about bourgeois classical music with great relish, are mesmerized by it and prostrate themselves before it, showing their slavish mentality for all things foreign. They are nihilists with regard to national art. Their reverence for foreign things is actually reverence for the bourgeoisie. If this erroneous thinking of extolling foreign things and belittling Chinese things is not criticized and repudiated, then proletarian art and literature will not be able to develop and Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line in art and literature cannot be implemented.
We do not exclude foreign things indiscriminately. We should conscientiously study the revolutionary theory developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. We should learn from the revolutionary experience of the working class and revolutionary people, of all countries and learn from and acquire advanced sciences and technology. We should critically assimilate certain techniques from classical bourgeois music, but we must not uncritically swallow anything and everything. And we must never throw ourselves at the feet of bourgeois artists. As Engels said: “The characterization of the ancients no longer suffices today.” We must adhere to the principle of “making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China,” learn from the experience in creating the model revolutionary theatrical works and turn out proletarian music and art worthy of our time.
Comrade Chou En-lai pointed out in the political report to the Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China that “we should attach importance to the class struggle in the superstructure, including all spheres of culture” and that “we should continue to carry out well the revolution in literature and art.” The historical experience of the class struggle on the art and literary front shows that the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes cannot be buried and done away with by a criticism or two. We must conscientiously study the documents of the Tenth Party Congress, implement the spirit of the Tenth Party Congress, take the Party’s basic line as the key link, further deepen the movement to criticize Lin Piao and rectify the style of work and link them to reality in criticizing revisionism and bourgeois world outlook; we must continue to advance along the revolutionary path pointed out by Chairman Mao, and we must never go backwards. We must be on guard and resist a return of the revisionist line in art and literature. We must resolutely defend and develop the fruits of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and carry the proletarian revolution in art and literature through to the end!

(Translation of an article published in “Renmin Ribao,” January 14)


Criticize the Revisionist Viewpoint in Music

by Chu Lan



[This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #9, March 1, 1974, pp. 18-19.]

Following is the translation of a commentary entitled “Grasp the Essence, Deepen the Criticism” by Chu Lan which appeared in “Renmin Ribao” recently. —Ed.
THE mass struggle to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius is now developing in depth. The discussion on programme and absolute music and the criticism of the revisionist viewpoint which professes that bourgeois classical music has “no profound social content” are also being carried out in a more and more deep-going way. This is a sharp struggle in the field of art and literature between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and between Marxism and revisionism. The practice of struggle proves that it is most necessary to criticize this erroneous view. We must make this criticism a part of the struggle to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius and carry it through to the end!
In order to carry out criticism more profoundly, we must take class struggle and the two-line struggle as the key link and see through superficial appearances to grasp the essence of the revisionist viewpoint. Only in this way can we completely demolish the revisionist viewpoint and make it abhorrent.
Marxism teaches us that in examining a problem we should look at its essence. The essence of our problem is not whether musical works have titles or not. The main thing is the political content of the class they express and the political line of the class they serve. All bourgeois music, programme and absolute, are weapons to shape opinion to serve the bourgeoisie for seizing and consolidating political power. Numerous facts in the history of music show that absolute music, or music without titles, is merely a means by which bourgeois composers conceal the class content of their works. For certain political aims and to meet the needs of struggle, composers sometimes give descriptive titles to their works and sometimes not. But even if given a descriptive title, this can be disregarded and the work played in a manner far from what the title implies.
Are not impressionist and modernist musical works often designated with such titles as “pines,” “fountains” and “moonlight”? But analysis of them from a class viewpoint can clearly reveal the decadent, chaotic life and depraved sentiments of the bourgeoisie the weird cacophony represents. The music of the modern revisionists in particular, frequently under the guise of “revolutionary” titles, slanders and distorts in an unbridled way the revolutionary struggles of the people and heroic images of the working people, and vilely attacks the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system. It can thus be seen that whether a musical work has a descriptive title or not does not in the least change the political content and class essence it expresses, nor the objective social function it performs. Hence, the basic problem lies in the stand, viewpoint and method we adopt towards bourgeois works of music, including programme and absolute music. The crux of the contention is whether one takes the stand of the proletariat, upholds the Marxist class viewpoint and method of class analysis and, taking into account the historical development of class struggle of a specific period, critically analyses the class content of bourgeois music, or whether one takes the stand of the bourgeoisie and replaces concrete class analysis with empty talk about abstract concepts such as “contrasting and changing moods,” “healthy” and “bright,” which actually is publicizing the bourgeois “theory of human nature” and covering up the class essence of musical works to hoodwink and beguile the broad masses.
We must never abandon class analysis and engage in empty talk as to whether a piece of music has or has not any “profound social content.” In class society, all works of art have their concrete social content of a specific class. There is absolutely no such thing as social content that is abstract or above classes and neither is there such a thing as abstract “profundity.” The real aim in publicizing bourgeois musical works as having, “no profound social content” is to cover up the class content reflected in the music of the bourgeoisie. This can lead only to the revolutionary people lowering their vigilance against corruption by bourgeois ideology and facilitate bourgeois cultural penetration and provide a cover for the bourgeoisie to seize positions from the proletariat in the field of art and literature.
The appearance of the revisionist viewpoint denying the class character of musical works is no isolated, individual, accidental phenomenon. It is the concentrated expression of a tendency in society and in music circles today to make a fetish of foreign things and restore the old order of things. This tendency is reflected in the question of whether or not there is any social content in bourgeois music, both absolute and programme; it is also reflected in composing music, performing music and teaching music. And not only in music, but also in other fields of art. They differ in form only.
A reflection in music of the theory of “the dying out of class struggle” is the publicizing of the bourgeois theory of human nature, denying that music has a class character. We must thoroughly expose this and carry out serious criticisms against it.
The essence of the revisionist viewpoint in this question of absolute and programme music is the landlord-bourgeois theory of human nature. This theory of human nature which denies the class character of music is brought over from the European bourgeoisie and can also be traced back to the doctrine of Confucius, the ideological representative of the decadent slave-owning class of China. We must further criticize this revisionist viewpoint in the course of the struggle to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius.
Chairman Mao has pointed out: “The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very acute.” We must fully understand the protractedness of the struggle in this field. In our struggle to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius, we must combine it with the actual class struggle in the realm of ideology, particularly in art and literature (including music), carry out sustained revolutionary criticism of all revisionist views and ideological trends which are unfavourable to the development of socialist art and literature and, in the course of tempestuous struggles, further consolidate and develop the socialist positions in the field of art and literature.




Return to Peking Review article list (http://massline.org/PekingReview/index.htm)
MASSLINE.ORG Home Page (http://www.massline.org/)