TALKS AT

THE YENAN FORUM

ON
ART AND LITERATURE

\
)
MAO TSE-TUNG

TALKS AT
THE YENAN FORUM
ON
ART AND LITERATURE

FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS

PEKING 1960
 First Edition 1956
Second Edition 1960

PUBLISHER'S NOTE

The present English translation of Talks at the

Yen an Forum on Art and Literature has been made
from the Chinese text given in the second edition
of the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung. Volume
III, published by the People's Publishing House,
Peking. in May 1953. It is a careful revision of
the first English edition published in February 1956,
and endeavours to give a more adequate rendering
of the Chinese text.

Printed in the People's Republic of China

 INTRODUCTION TO THE DISCUSSION
(May 2, 1942)

Comrades! You are invited today to exchange views

and ascertain the proper relationship between artistic
and literary activities and revolutionary activities in
general , to determine what is the proper path of de-
velopment for revolutionary art and literature and how
they can give better help to other revolutionary activi-
ties, so that we can overthrow our national enemy and
accomplish the task of national liberation.
In our struggle for the liberation of the Chinese peo-
ple there are various fronts, two of which are: the
civilians' front and the soldiers' front, or the cultural
front and the military front. To defeat the enemy we
must rely primarily on armed troops. But this is not
enough; we also need a cultural army which is abso-
lutely indispensable for our own unity and the defeat
of the enemy. Since the May 4 Movement of 1919 this
cultural army has taken shape in China and has con-
tributed to the Chinese revolution by gradually reduc-
ing the domain and weakening the influence of feudal
culture and of comprador culture which serves im-
perialist aggression. To oppose the new culture the
Chinese reactionaries can now only resort to "pitting
quantity against quality"; in other words, though they
1
are unable to produce anything of merit they have
plenty of money and can well afford to turn out an
immense quantity of stuff. On the cultural front, art
and literature have formed an important sector and done
good work since the May 4 Movement. During the ten
years' civil war, much progress was made in revolu-
tionary art and literature. Although this movement
and the revolutionary war headed in the same general
direction, their practical activities lacked co-ordina-
tion, because the two brother armies participating in
them were cut off from each other by the reactiona-
ries. It is a very good thing that since the outbreak
of the War of Resistance, revolutionary artists and writ-
ers are coming in increasing numbers to Yenan and
other anti-Japanese base areas. But to arrive at these
base areas is not the same as to identify oneself com-
pletely with the people here. In pushing forward the
revolutionary work, it is necessary to identify oneself
completely with the people. The express purpose of
our meeting today is to make art and literature a com-
ponent part of the whole revolutionary machine, to
make them a powerful weapon for uniting and educat-
ing the people and for attacking and destroying the
enemy, and to help the people to fight with one heart
and one mind. What are the problems to be solved
to achieve this objective? In my opinion, they are the
standpoint, the attitude and the public of the artists
and writers, and how they should work and study.
Standpoint: We take the standpoint of the proletariat
and the mass of the people. For members of the Com-
I

2
munist Party, this means that they should adopt the
standpoint of the Party , abide by the spirit and the
policy of the Party. Are there any of our artists and
writers who still lack a correct or clear understanding
of this point? I think there are. Quite a number of
our comrades have often deviated from the correct
standpoint.
Attitude: Our specific attitudes towards specific
things arise from our standpoint. For instance: Should
we praise or should we expose? This is a question of
attitude. Which of these two attitudes should we
adopt? My answer is: Both ; it all depends on whom
you are dealing with. There are three kinds of peo-
ple: our enemies, our allies in the united front and our
own people, that is, the masses and their vanguard. To-
wards these three kinds of people there should be three
different attitudes. With regard to our enemies, the
Japanese imperialists and all other enemies of the peo-
ple, the task of revolutionary artists and writers is to
expose their cruelty and deceit, point out their inevi-
table defeat and encourage the anti-Japanese army and
people to overthrow them by fighting resolutely with
one heart and one mind. In our attitude towards our
various allies in the united front, we should strengthen
unity and at the same time make criticisms, and
there should be different kinds of unity and different
forms of criticism. We support their resistance to
Japan and commend their achievements. But we ought
to criticize them if they do not put up an active resis-
tance. Against anyone who opposes communism and
3
the people and becomes increasingly reactionary, we
must adopt an attitude of uncompromising struggle.
As to the mass of the people, we should of course hon-
our them, their efforts, their struggles, their army and
their party. However, the people also have short-
comings. There is a hang-over of petty-bourgeois
ideology among many proletarians and backward ideas
are found in both the peasantry and the urban petty
bourgeoisie; these are the burdens hampering them in
their struggle. We should spend a long time and be
patient in educating them and helping them to remove
these handicaps and fight against their own shortcom-
ings and errors so that they can take big strides for-
ward. In the course of their struggles they have remould-
ed or are remoulding themselves, and our art and
literature should depict this process. We should not take
a one-sided view and make the mistake of ridiculing
them or taking a hostile attitude towards them unless
they persist in their errors. Our artistic and literary
productions should enable them to unite, to advance
and to fight with one heart and one mind , discarding
what is backward and promoting what is revolutionary;
they certainly should not do the opposite.
The public: The question here is: For whom are our
artistic and literary works produced? In the Shensi-
Kansu-Ningsia Border Region and the anti-Japanese
base areas in North and Central China, the problem is
different from that in the Kuomintang-controlled areas
and particularly from that in Shanghai before the War
of Resistance. In pre-war Shanghai the public for
4
 revolutionary art and literature consisted mainly of a
section of the students, office workers and shop assis-
tants. In the Kuomintang-controlled areas the scope
has been somewhat extended since the outbreak of the
War of Resistance, but these people still remain the
main public because the authorities have prevented
the workers, peasants and soldiers from gaining access
to revolutionary art and literature. Here in our base
areas the situation is entirely different. The public is
made up of workers, peasants, soldiers and revolution-
ary cadres. There are students too, but they are either
ex-cadres or would-be cadres and therefore different
from the students of the old type. The public for our
art and literature consists of cadres of all kinds, sol-
diers in the armed forces, workers in the factories and
peasants in the villages who all want to read books
and newspapers if they have become literate and if not,
to enjoy plays, see pictures, sing songs and hear music.
The cadres, for instance, far from being few in number
as you might suppose, outnumber considerably the
readers of a new book published in the Kuomintang-
controlled areas. There one edition of a book usually
runs to only two thousand copies and three editions
total only six thousand, while here in Yenan alone
there are more than ten thousand cadres who can read.
Moreover, many of them are well-steeled revolutiona-
ries who have come from all parts of the country and
will go to work in different places, hence the great
importance of their education. For the cadres, our
artists and writers must make special efforts.
5
 Since the public for our art and literature is made
up of workers, peasants, soldiers and their cadres, the
problem arises of how to get to know them and un-
derstand them thoroughly. A great deal has to be done
in order to understand thoroughly all kinds of people
and all sorts of things in the Party organizations and
government bodies, in the villages and factories and
in the Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies. It is
the job of our artists and writers to work in their
own fields, but their first and foremost duty is to un-
derstand the people and understand them thoroughly.
How did our artists and writers stand in this re-
gard in the past? I would say that they lacked thor-
ough knowledge and understanding and therefore the
field to display their prowess. What is meant by lack
of thorough knowledge? They lacked a thorough
knowledge of the people. They were acquainted nei-
ther with their subjects nor with their public; in fact
they were even perfect strangers to both. They were
not intimate with the workers, peasants, soldiers and
their cadres. What is meant by lack of understanding?
They did not understand the language. They lacked
an adequate knowledge of the rich and lively language
of the people. Many writers, standing aloof from the
people and leading a dull and empty life, are of course
unfamiliar with the people's language and not only use
an insipid language in their writings, but often coin
awkward expressions quite alien to popular usage.
Many comrades love to talk about mass appeal, but
what does that mean? It means that the ideas and
feelings of our artists and writers should be fused with
6
those of the mass of the workers, peasants and soldiers.
In order to do so we should conscientiously study the
language of the people. If we find much of the
language of the people unintelligible, how can we talk
about artistic and literary creation? Lack of field to
display one's prowess refers to the fact that one's
high-falutin ideas meet with no response from the
people. The more you try to prove yourself ex-
perienced, to display your prowess, to put yourself
over, the less likely are the people to be impressed.
If you want to be understood by and identified with
the people, you must make up your mind to undergo
a long and even painful process of remoulding.
I might mention here my own experience in under-
going a change of heart. As a student and having ac-
quired at school the habits of a student, I used to feel
it undignified to do any manual labour, such as carry-
ing my own luggage in the presence of a crowd of
fellow students who could not fetch and carry for
themselves. At that time it seemed to me that the
intellectuals alone were clean while the workers and
peasants were rather dirty. I could put on the clothes
of other intellectuals because I thought them clean,
but would not put on clothes belonging to a worker
or peasant because I thought them dirty. The revolu-
tion brought me into the ranks of the workers, peas-
ants and soldiers in the revolutionary army, and grad-
ually I became familiar with them and they with
me. It was then and only then that a fundamental
change occurred in the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois
7
feelings implanted in me by the bourgeois schools. I
came to feel that the unremoulded intellectuals were
unclean as compared with the workers and peasants
who are the cleanest people, cleaner than the bour-
geois and petty-bourgeois intellectuals, even though
their hands are blackened by work and their feet
smeared with cow dung. This is what is meant by a
change of heart, a transformation of the feelings of
one class into those of another. If our artists and
writers of the intelligentsia want the people to give a
warm reception to their works, they must change and
remould their ideas and feelings. Otherwise they will
be ill-adapted to their task and do nothing worth-
while.
The last problem is that of study, I mean the study
of Marxism-Leninism and of society. One who con-
siders himself a Marxist revolutionary writer, es-
pecially a Communist writer, must have a knowledge
of Marxism-Leninism. Some comrades, however, do
not even take the fundamental Marxist viewpoint. For
instance, a fundamental Marxist viewpoint is that ex-
istence determines consciousness, that is, the objective
reality of class struggle and national struggle deter-
mines our thoughts and feelings. Some of our com-
lades, however, reverse the proper order of things and
maintain that everything ought to start from love.
Now as for love, in a class society there can be only
class love; but these comrades are seeking a love that
transcends the classes, love in the abstract as well as
freedom in the abstract, truth in the abstract, human
nature in the abstract, and so on. This shows that
B
these comrades have been deeply influenced by the
bourgeoisie. They must thoroughly rid themselves of
this influence and study Marxism-Leninism with an
open mind. True, artists and writers must learn how
to produce artistic and literary works, but the science
of Marxism-Leninism is a required course of study for
all revolutionaries, not excepting artists and writers.
Artists and writers should also make a study of so-
ciety, that is, a study of the various classes in society,
their mutual relations and respective conditions, their
external features and what they feel and think. Only
when these things are clearly grasped will our art
and literature have a rich content and a correct
orientation.
I raise these problems today by way of introduction
and hope you will all give your opinions on these and
other related questions.

SUMMING UP THE DISCUSSION

(May 23, 1942)

Comrades! We have met three times during this

month. In the pursuit of truth, we have carried on
heated debates in which scores of Party and non-Party
comrades have spoken, uncovering the problems in-
volved, and putting them in specific terms. I think
the whole artistic and literary movement will benefit
from this.
In any discussion, we should start not from defini-
tions, but from actual facts. We shall be following
9
the wrong method if we first look up definitions of
art and literature in the textbooks and then use them
to determine the direction of the present artistic and
literary movement or to judge current views and con-
troversies. We are Marxists and have learned from
Marxism that in our approach to a problem we should
start not from abstract definitions but from objective
facts and, by analysing these facts, determine our orien-
tation, our policy and method. We should do the same
in our present discussion of art and literature.
What are the facts facing us? The facts are: the War
of Resistance that China has been fighting for five
years; the world-wide anti-fascist war; the vacillation
of China's big landlords and big bourgeoisie in the War
of Resistance and their policy of ruthless oppression
of the people; the great contributions to the revolution
made in the last twenty-three years since May 4, 1919
by the movement of revolutionary art and literature
and its many shortcomings; the anti-Japanese demo-
cratic base areas of the Eighth Route and New Fourth
Armies, where large numbers of artists and writers
have aligned themselves with the armed forces, and
with the workers and peasants; the difference in cir-
cumstances and tasks between the artists and writers
in our base areas and those in the Kuomintang-
controlled areas; and the controversies which have
arisen over art and literature in Yenan and other anti-
Japanese base areas. These are the undeniable facts in
the light of which we have to examine our problems.
10
 What then is the crux of the matter? In my opinion
there are two fundamental problems: to work for the
people and how to work for the people. If these two
problems are not solved, or are only solved inade-
quately, our artists and writers will not be able to
adapt themselves to the circumstances or fit them-
selves for their tasks, but will come up against a series
of difficulties from within and without. My summing-
up will centre round these two problems and touch
upon some others related to them.

The first problem is: For whom are our art and
li tera ture in tended?
This problem, as a matter of fact, was solved long
ago by Marxists, and especially by Lenin. As far back
as 1905 Lenin emphatically pointed out that our art
and literature should "serve the millions upon millions
of working people".' It might seem that for our com-

1 In "The Party's Organization and the Party's Literature",

Lenin described the characteristics of proletarian literature as
follows:
"This will be a free literature because neither covetousness
nor careerism but rather the idea of socialism and feelings
for the working people will draw ever fresh forces into its
ranks. This will be a free literature because it will serve
millions and tens of millions of working people who constitute
the strength and future of the country. This will be a free
literature because it will fructify the latest events in the
revolutionary thought of mankind with the experience and

11
rades working in art and literature in the anti-Japa-
nese base areas this i no longer a problem and further
discussion is unnecessary. But actually this is not the
case. Many comrades have by no means arrived at a
clear understanding of this problem. Consequently
their sentiments, their works, their actions and their
views concerning the guiding principles of art and lit-
erature have failed more or less to meet the demands
of the people or the needs of actual struggles. Among
the large numbers of cultured people, of artists, writers
and people engaged in artistic and literary pursuits in
general who, together with the Communist Party and
the Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies, have partici-
pated in the great struggle for liberation, there may of
course be some opportunists who will not remain with
us long, but the great majority are energetically work-
ing for the common cause. Thanks to the efforts of
these comrades, our achievements in literature, drama,
music and art have been considerable. Many of them
began their work after the outbreak of the Anti-
Japanese War; others started working for the revolu-
tion long before the war, and they underwent many
hardships and exercised much influence upon the mass
of the people by their actions and their works. Why,
then, should I say that even some of these comrades

daily work of the socialist proletariat, creating a permanent

inter-relationship between the experience of the past (scientific
socialism, which completed the development of socialism from
its primitive, utopian forms) with the experience of the pres-
ent (the present day struggle of our worker comrades)." (Lenin,
Collected Works, Russian ed., Moscow, 1947, Vol. X, pp. 30-31).

12
have not found a clear answer to the question: For
whom are art and literature intended? Is it possible
that there are people who still maintain that revolu-
tionary art and literature are intended not for the
people but for the exploiters and oppressors?
It is true that there are art and literature intended
for the exploiters and oppressors. The art and litera-
ture for the landlord class are feudal art and litera-
ture. Such are the art and literature of the ruling
classes of China's feudal epoch. Even today such stuff
still has considerable influence in China. The art and
literature for the bourgeoisie are bourgeois art and
literature. People like Liang Shih-ch'iu;' whom Lu
Hsun criticized, may talk about art and literature
as transcending the classes, but in fact they all
uphold bourgeois art and literature in opposition to
proletarian art and literature. The art and literature
intended for the imperialists, as represented by the
works of Chou Tso-jen, Chang Tze-p'ing'' and their
like, are collaborationist art and literature. So far
as we are concerned, art and literature are intended
for the masses, and not for any of the above-mentioned
types of people. We have said that China's new cul-
ture at the present stage is an anti-feudal, anti-imperi-
alist culture of the people under the leadership of the

1 A member of the counter-revolutionary National Socialist

Party. He propagated the literary theory of the American
reactionary bourgeoisie, stubbornly opposed the revolution and
denounced revolutionary literature.
2 Two writers who became collaborators when the Japanese
invaders occupied Peking and Shanghai in 1937.

13
proletariat. Anything that truly belongs to the peo-
ple is now of necessity under the leadership of the pro-
letariat. Nothing under the leadership of the bour-
geoisie can possibly belong to the people. Naturally
the same applies to the new art and literature which
form part of the new culture. While we should take
over the rich legacy and keep up the fine tradition of
Chinese and foreign art and literature, we must do so
with our eyes upon the people. We do not refuse to
make use of the artistic and literary forms of the past,
and when we reshape them and fill them with new
content, they also become things which serve the rev-
olution and the people.
Who, then, are the people? The overwhelming ma-
jority constituting more than 90 per cent of our total
population are the workers, peasants, soldiers and the
urban petty bourgeoisie. So our art and literature are
first of all for the workers, the class which leads the
revolution. Secondly, they are for the peasants, the
most numerous and steadfast allies in the revolution.
Thirdly, they are for the armed workers and peasants,
the Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies and other
people's armed forces, which are the main forces of
the revolutionary war. Fourthly, they are for the
working people and the intelligentsia of the urban
petty bourgeoisie who are also our allies in the revolu-
tion and are capable of lasting co-operation with us.
These four kinds of people form the overwhelming
majority of the Chinese nation and are consequently
the mass of the people.
14
 Our art and literature should be intended for these
four kinds of people. To serve them we must take
the standpoint of the proletariat instead of that or the
petty bourgeoisie. Today writers and artists who cling
to their individualist petty-bourgeois standpoint can-
not truly serve the mass of revolutionary workers,
peasants and soldiers, but will be interested mainly in
the small number of petty-bourgeois intellectuals. This
is the reason why some comrades are unable to find
a correct answer to the question: For whom are our
art and literature intended? Here I am not refer-
ring to their theory. No one in our ranks advocates the
theory or says in plain words that the workers, peasants
and soldiers are less important than the petty-bourgeois
intellectuals. Here I am speaking of their deeds and
actions. Do they in their deeds and actions regard the
petty-bourgeois intellectuals as more important than
the workers, peasants and soldiers? I think they do.
Many comrades are concerned with studying the
petty-bourgeois intellectuals, analysing their psychol-
ogy, giving effective expression to their life and ex-
cusing or even defending their shortcomings, rather
than guiding the intellectuals to get closer, together
with themselves, to the workers, peasants and soldiers,
join in their actual struggles, give expression to
their life and educate them. Many comrades who
are petty-bourgeois in origin and intellectuals them-
selves, seek friends only in the ranks of the intellec-
tuals and concentrate their attention on studying and
describing them. This would be quite proper if their
studies and descriptions were made from a proletarian
15
standpoint. But this is not the case, or at any rate
not completely. They take the standpoint of the petty
bourgeoisie and their works are a form of self-expres-
sion of the petty bourgeoisie', as can be seen in quite a
number of our artistic and literary productions. They
often express great sympathy for the intellectuals of
petty-bourgeois origin, they sympathize with or even
praise their shortcomings. On the other hand, they
seldom come into contact with the workers, peasants
and soldiers, do not understand or study them, do not
have close friends among them and do not show much
skill in depicting them; if and when they do depict
them, the result is merely petty-bourgeois intellectuals
in the clothing of working people. In certain respects
they also love the workers, peasants and soldiers and
the cadres springing Irom them; but in some respects
and at times they do not love them: they do not ap-
preciate their emotions, their manners, their budding
art and literature such as wall newspapers, murals,
folk songs, and folk tales. To be sure they sometimes
like these things too, but only because these things
have novelty value, or because they can borrow from
them to embellish their own works, or because cer-
tain backward features appeal to them. At other times
they openly despise things of this kind and prefer what
belongs to the petty-bourgeois intellectuals or even
the bourgeoisie. The feet of these comrades are still
planted squarely on the side of the petty-bourgeois
intellectuals, or, to put it more elegantly, their inner-
most soul is still the domain of the petty-bourgeois
intelligentsia. Thus they have not found the answer
16
or at any rate, an unequivocal answer to the ques-
tion: For whom are art and literature intended? I
have in mind not only the newcomers to Yerian, but
also many who have been to the front and worked
for a number of years in our base areas and in the
Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies.
A complete solution of this problem will require a
long time, maybe eight or ten years. But, no matter
how long it takes, we must find the solution, and it
must be unequivocal and complete. Our artists and
writers must fulfil this task; they must gradually
shift their standpoint over to the side of the workers,
peasants and soldiers, to the side of the proletariat by
going into their midst and plunging into the actual
struggle and by studying Marxism and society. Only
in this way can we have art and literature that are
genuinely lor the workers, peasants and soldiers, and
genuinely proletarian.
For whom are art and literature intended? This is
a fundamental question, a question of principle. Hith-
erto the controversies, divergences, conflicts and dis-
cord among some of our comrades have not arisen on
this fundamental issue of principle but on secondary
issues or even issues that do not involve any prin-
ciple. On this question of principle, however, the dis-
putants have shown little divergence but have in al-
most perfect agreement tended to some extent to look
down on the workers, peasants and soldiers and isolate
themselves from the people. I say "to some extent"
because, generally speaking, those comrades are not
like the Kuomintang in its disdain of the workers,
17
peasants and soldiers and its isolation from the people,
but all the same the tendency is there. Unless
this fundamental question is answered, it will be dif-
ficult to answer many other questions.
Take, for instance, the question of sectarianism in
artistic and literary circles, which is also a question
of principle. Only by putting forward and effectively
carrying out such slogans as "Serve the workers and
peasants!" "Serve the Eighth Route and New Fourth
Armies!" and "Go into the midst of the people!" can
we get rid of sectarianism; in no other way can the
problem be solved. Lu Hsun once said:
The necessary condition for the united front is
a common aim. . .. The discord in our front shows
that we are not agreed on the aim, some working
only for small groups and others working in fact
for themselves. If we all aim at serving the mass
of workers and peasants, our front will of course
be united.'
The same problem cropped up in Shanghai in Lu Hsun's
time just as it now crops up in Chungking. In such
places it is difficult to solve the problem completely,
because the authorities there oppress the revolutionary
artists and writers and deprive them of the freedom
to go into the midst of the workers, peasants and sol-
diers. But here among us the situation is entirely
different. Here revolutionary artists and writers are
encouraged to work and mix freely with the workers,

1 Lu Hsun, "My View on the Alliance of Left-Wing Writers",

Complete W01'ks, Chinese ed ., Vol. IV.

18
peasants a nd sold iers and give n full fr eedom to go into
their midst and create gen uine ly r evolutionary art and
literature. With us h ere, then, the probl em is ne aring
solution. But to be nea rin g the solution is not the
same as arriving at a complete and unequivocal solu-
tion and it is precisely for this complete and
unequivocal solution that we must, as we have already
said, study Marxism and society. By Marxism we
mean not Marxist catchwords, but livin g Ma rx ism
which has practical be arings on th e life and str uggle
of the people. When Marxist catchwords are trans-
formed into Marxism in real life, there will be no
more sectar-ianism. And then not only will the
problem of sectarianism be solved but many other
problems as well.

II

Having solved the problem of whom to serve, we

come now to the problem of haw to serve. As OUI'
comrades put it: Should we devote ourselves to ele-
vation! or to popularization?
In the past some comrades to some extent or even
very much despised and neglected popularization and

I "Elevation" is used to translate the Chinese term t'j-kao

which as employed in this connection does not seem to have
an exact English equivalent. It means, as can be seen from
the context, the raising of standard or level in literary
appreciation, criti cism and creation.

19
unduly stressed elevation. It is right to stress eleva-
tion, but it is wrong to stress it exclusively in disregard
of any other factor and to excess. The lack of clarity
and thoroughness in the solution of the problem of
whom to serve shows itself also in this connection.
Since they have not solved that problem, these com-
rades naturally fail to find the proper criterion for
what they mean by elevation and popularization, let
alone an understanding of the proper relation between
the two. Since our art and literature arc primarily
intended for the workers, peasants and soldiers, popu-
larization means diffusion of art and literature among
them while elevation means the raising of their artistic
and literary standards. What should we popularize
among them? The stuff needed and readily accepted
by the feudal landlord class? By the bourgeoisie? Or
by the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia? No, none of these
will do. We must popularize what is needed and can
be readily accepted by the workers, peasants and sol-
diers themselves. Consequently the duty of learning
from the workers, peasants and soldiers precedes the
task of educating them. This is even more true of
elevation. There must be a level from which to elevate.
When we lift a bucket of water, for instance, are we
not lifting something that lies on the ground rather
than hangs in mid-air? What then is the level from
which the standard of our art and literature is to be
raised? From the feudal level? The bourgeois level?
Or the level of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia? No.
It can only be raised from the level of the workers,
peasants and soldiers. And this means not that we
20
raise the workers, peasants and soldiers to the level
of the feudal class, the bourgeoisie or the petty-
bourgeois intelligentsia, but that we raise them up
along their own line of ascent, along the line of
ascent of the proletariat. Here again the task of
learning from the workers, peasants and soldiers
comes in. Only by making the workers, peasants and
soldiers our point of departure can we have a correct
understanding of elevation and popularization and
find the proper relation between the two.
What in the last analysis is the source of all art and
literature? Ideological expressions in the form of ar-
tistic or literary work are the product of the human
brain reflecting the life of a given society. Revolu-
tionary art and literature are the products of the brains
of revolutionary artists and writers reflecting the life
of the people. In the life of the people there lies a
mine of raw material for art and literature, namely,
things in their natural state, crude but at the same time
the most lively, rich and fundamental; in this sense,
they throw all art and literature into the shade and pro-
vide for them a unique and inexhaustible source. This
is the only source; there can be no other. Some may ask:
Is there not another source in the books, in the artistic
and literary works of past ages and foreign countries?
As a matter of fact, these works are not the source but
the stream; they are the products which our predeces-
sors and the foreigners created out of the artistic and
literary raw material they lit upon in the people's life
of their own times and in their own countries. We
must take over all the fine artistic and literary legacy
21
and critically assimilate from it what is useful to us
and learn from its example when we try to work over
the artistic and literary raw material found in the life
of the people in our own times and in our own country.
It makes a difference whether or not one has such
examples to learn from, a difference which explains
why some works are refined and others crude, some
polished and others rough, some superior and others
inferior, some smoothly and others laboriously
executed. Therefore we must not reject the legacy
of the ancients and the foreigners, even though
it is feudal or bourgeois, or refuse to learn from
them. But inheritance of a legacy and learning from
examples should never take the place of our own crea-
tive work, for nothing can take its place. The most
sterile and harmful doctrinairism in art and literature
consists in uncritically borrowing and copying from
our predecessors and foreigners.
All revolutionary artists and writers of China, all
artists and writers of promise, must for long periods
of time unreservedly and whole-heartedly go into the
midst of the masses, into the midst of the workers,
peasants and soldiers: they must temper themselves
in the flames of struggle and go to the only, the broad-
est and richest source to observe, learn, study and
analyse various persons, various classes and various
communities, all the vivid patterns of life and struggle
and all the raw material of art and literature before
they can proceed to creative work. Otherwise, for all
their labour, they will have nothing to work on and
will become the kind of "phoney artists or writers"
22
whose example Lu Hsun, in his will, so earnestly cau-
tioned his son not to follow.'
Though man's social life is the only source of art
and literature and is incomparably richer and more
vivid, the people are not satisfied with life alone and
demand art and literature. Why? Because, although
both are beautiful, life as reflected in artistic and lit-
erary works can and ought to be on a higher level and
of a greater intensity than real life, in sharper focus
and more typical, nearer the ideal, and therefore more
universal. Revolutionary art and literature should
create all kinds of characters drawn from real life and
help the people to make new history. For instance,
there are on the one hand the victims of hunger, cold
and oppression and on the other those who exploit and
oppress their fellow men, and this contrast exists every-
where and seems quite commonplace; artists and writ-
ers, however, can create art and literature out of such
daily occurrences by bringing them into organized
form and sharper focus and making the contradictions
and struggles typical of life and so awaken and arouse
the masses and impel them to unite and struggle to
change their environment. Without such art and lit-
erature, this task cannot be fulfilled or at least not so
effectively and speedily fulfilled.
What are popularization and elevation in art and
literature? What is the relation between the two?
Works of popularization, being comparatively simple
and plain, arc more readily accepted by the mass of
1 See Lu Hsun. "Death", Complete Works, Chinese ed.. Vol.
VI.
23
the people of today. On the other hand, works of a
higher artistic level demand a more subtle workman-
ship, and therefore it is harder to produce them and
also harder for them to become immediately popular
among the mass of the people at present. The prob-
lem facing the workers, peasants and soldiers today
is this: They are engaged in a ruthless and sanguinary
struggle against the enemy, they are illiterate and
uncultured as a result of the prolonged rule of the
feudal and bourgeois classes and therefore they badly
need a widespread campaign of enlightenment; they
eagerly seek culture, knowledge, art and literature
which meet their immediate needs, are readily accep-
table and can heighten their will to fight and their
confidence in victory and strengthen their unity, and
thus enable them to fight with one heart and one mind.
In meeting this primary need, we are not to "embellish
the brocade with embroidery" but to "offer fuel in
snowy weather". Under present conditions, therefore,
popularization is the more pressing task. To despise
and neglect it is wrong.
However, there is no sharp dividing line between
popularization and elevation. Even now it is pos-
sible to popularize some works of higher quality;
moreover the cultural level of the people will con-
tinue to rise. If popularization remains at the same
level, supplying month after month and year after
year such stuff as "Little Cowherd'',! or such reading

1 A popular Chinese operetta with a cast of only two char-

acters. a cowherd and a village girl. With its songs reworded

24
material as "man, hand, mouth, knife, cow, goat",' will
not the teacher and the taught remain at the same
level? What is such popularization worth? The peo-
ple need popularization to start with, and then eleva-
tion and further elevation. Popularization is popu-
larization for the people and elevation is elevation for
the people. Elevation does not take place in mid-air,
nor behind closed doors, but is based on populariza-
tion. It is at one and the same time conditioned by
and gives orientation to popularization. In China the
revolution and revolutionary culture develop unevenly
and spread only gradually; while in one place popu-
larization and elevation on the basis of popularization
may have been carried out, in other places even popu-
larization may not have begun. Thus the lessons
drawn from experiences of popularization leading to
elevation in one place may serve as a guide in another
place to avoid the repetition of the same trials and
errors. Internationally, the helpful experiences of
foreign countries, especially of the Soviet Union, can
serve as our guide. Thus our elevation is based on
popularization while our popularization is guided by
elevation. Far from being an obstacle to elevation,
popularization in our sense affords a basis for our
work of elevation on a limited scale at present, and
creates the necessary conditions for our work of eleva-
tion on a much more extensive scale in the future.
for the purpose of anti-Japanese propaganda, it was immensely
popular in the early days of the War of Resistance.
1 In Chinese, these are simple characters of few strokes,
usually given in the first lessons of old primers.

25
 Besides the elevation that directly answers the needs
of the people there is the elevation that answers their
needs indirectly, the elevation needed by the cadres.
The cadres, being advanced members of the people,
are generally better educated and need a higher level
of art and literature; it would be a mistake to ignore
this need. Anything done for the cadres is done wholly
for the people, because it is only through the cadres
that we can give education and guidance to the peo-
ple. If we depart from this objective, if what we give
to the cadres cannot help them to educate and guide
the people, then our work of elevation will be like
random shooting, a departure from our fundamental
principle of serving the people.
To sum up: through the creative labour of revolu-
tionary artists and writers the raw material of art and
literature in the life of the people becomes art and
literature in an ideological form in the service of the
people. There are, on the one hand, the more advanc-
ed art and literature developed on the basis of elemen-
tary art and literature and needed by the more ad-
vanced section of the people or primarily by the cadres
and, on the other, elementary art and literature pro-
duced under the guidance of the more advanced art
and literature which often meet the urgent needs of
the overwhelming majority of the people of today.
Whether advanced or elementary, Our art and litera-
ture are intended for the people, primarily for the
workers, peasants and soldiers, created for them and
enjoyed by them.
26
 Now that we have solved the problem of the proper
relation between popularization and elevation, the
problem of the proper relation between specialists and
popularizers can be readily settled. Our specialists
not only serve the cadres, but also - and chiefly-
serve the people. Our writers should pay attention
to the wall newspapers of the people and the report-
age writings in the armed forces and the villages.
Our dramatists should pay attention to the small
troupes in the armed forces and the villages. Our
musicians should pay attention to the songs of the
people. Our artists should pay attention to the fine
arts of the people. All these comrades should keep
in close touch with the popularizers of art and
literature among the people, help and guide them
and learn from them, and through them draw inspira-
tion from the people to enrich and invigorate their art
so that what they produce with their special skills will
not be empty, lifeless fantasies detached from the
people and from reality. Specialists are very valuable
to our cause and should be respected. But they should
also be reminded that no revolutionary artist or writer
can produce any work of significance unless he is in
close touch with the people, gives expression to their
thoughts and feelings, and becomes their loyal spokes-
man. Only by speaking for the people can he educate
them and only by becoming their pupil can he become
their teacher. If he regards himself as the master of
the people, or as an aristocrat who lords it over the
"lower orders", then the people will have no use for
27
him, however talented he may be, and there is no
future for his work.
Is this utilitarianism? Materialists are not opposed to
utilitarianism in general, but to the utilitarianism of
the feudal, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes and
to those hypocrites who attack utilitarianism in words
but embrace the most selfish and shortsighted utili-
tarianism in deeds. In this world there is no utili-
tarianism which transcends the classes; in a class so-
ciety utilitarianism is either of this or of that particular
class. We are proletarian, revolutionary utilitarians
and we take as our point of departure the uniting of
the present and future interests of the great majority,
more than 90 per cent, of the people of the country;
therefore we are revolutionary utilitarians who pursue
interests of the broadest scope and the longest range,
not narrow utilitarians who are concerned only with
what is limited and immediate. If, for instance, you
reproach the people for their utilitarianism, and yet
for the benefit of an individual or a clique you insist
upon placing on the market and advertising among the
people a work pleasing only to a few but useless or
even harmful to most people, then you are not only
insulting the people but blinded by your own
conceit. A thing is good only when it brings real
benefit to the people. Your work, which caters only
for a few for the time being, may be as good
as "The Spring Snow", but it is the "Song of the
Rustics"l that appeals to the people; and if you simply
1 This and "The Spring Snow" were songs of the third
century B.C. sung by the people of Ch'u, one of the largest states
28
denounce instead of trying to improve the taste of the
people, you will be wasting you!" words. The problem
now is how to integrate "The Spring Snow" with the
"Song of the Rustics", to integrate elevation with popu-
larization. If the two are not integrated, then the
most artistic product of any kind of specialist skill will
only serve the most narrow utilitarian end; one may
flatter oneself and call this art pure and noble, but
the people will not agree.
Having solved the problem concerning the funda-
mental principle of serving the workers, peasants and
soldiers and how to serve them, we have also solved
such problems as whether to depict the bright or the
dark side of life and how to achieve unity among our
artists and writers. If we are all agreed upon the
fundamental principle, then it must be adhered to by
our artists and writers, in our schools of art and litera-
ture, in our artistic and literary publications and or-
ganizations, and in all our artistic and literary activi-
ties. It is wrong to deviate from this principle, and
anything at variance with it must be duly corrected.

III

Since our art and literature are intended for the

people, we can proceed to discuss a problem of inner-

in ancient China. When a singer sang "The Spring Snow"

only a few dozens would join in the chorus, but when he
sang the "Song of the Rustics". thousands of people joined in.

29
Party relations, the relation between the Party's artis-
tic and literary 'a ctivity and the Party's activity as a
whole, and a problem of the Party's external rela-
tions, the relation between the Party's artistic and lit-
erary activity and non-Party artistic and literary ac-
tivity, the problem of the united front in art and
literature.
Let us consider the first problem. In the world
today all culture, all art and literature belong to def-
inite classes and follow definite political lines. There
is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art which
stands above classes or art which runs parallel to or
remains independent of politics. Proletarian art and
literature are part of the whole cause of the proletarian
revolution, in the words of Lenin, "cogs and screws in
the whole machine".' Therefore the Party's artistic
and literary activity occupies a definite and assigned
position in the Party's total revolutionary work and
is subordinated to the prescribed revolutionary task of
the Party in a given revolutionary period. Any op-
position to this assignment will certainly lead to dual-
ism or pluralism, and in essence amounts to Trotsky's

1 In "The Party's Organization and the Party's Literature"

Lenin said: "The cause of literature should form a part of
the entire cause of the proletariat and become one of the 'cogs
and screws' in the great united, social-democratic machine
operated by the whole awakened vanguard of the working
class." (Lenin, Collected Works, Russian ed., Moscow, 1947,
Vol. X. p. 27.)

30
formula: "politic; - Marxist; art - bourgeois". We do
not want to stress unduly the importance of art and
literature, but we are also against underestimating it.
Art and literature are subordinate to politics, but in
turn exert a great influence on politics. As a part
of the whole cause of the revolution, as the cogs and
screws in the whole machine, revolutionary art and
literature are necessary and indispensable, though in
comparison with some other parts, less important, less
essential, secondary. If we had no art and literature
even in the broadest and most general sense, then the
revolutionary movement could not be carried on to
victory. It would be a mistake not to realize this.
Furthermore, in saying that art and literature are
subordinate to politics, we mean class politics and mass
politics, not the so-called politics of a few statesmen.
Politics, whether revolutionary or counter-revolution-
ary, represent the struggle of one class against an-
other, not the activity of a few individuals. Revolu-
tionary struggles on the ideological and artistic fronts
must be subordinate to the political struggle because
only through politics can the needs of the class and
the people be expressed in concentrated form. A rev-
olutionary statesman or political expert who has mas-
tered the science or art of revolutionary politics is
merely a leader of millions of mass-statesmen with the
task of collecting their ideas and, after judicious sift-
ing and summing-up, handing them back for the peo-
ple to accept and act upon; he is not the aristocratic
"statesman" who draws up plans out of touch with
31
reality, fondly imagining that he has a monopoly of
wisdom. This is the essential difference between the
statesmen of the proletariat and those of the decad ent
bourgeoisie. That is why there is perfect harmony
between the political character of our art and litera-
ture and the truthfulness of their presentation. It
would be a mistake not to recognize this point and
cheapen the politics and statesmanship of the prole-
tariat.
Let us consider next the question of the united front
in art and literature. Since art and literature are
subordinate to politics and since China's first and fore-
most political problem today is resistance to Japan,
Party artists and writers must first of all unite on this
issue with all non-Party petty-bourgeois artists and
writers who sympathize with the Party, and all bour-
geois and landlord-class artists and writers who sup-
port the resistance. We should also seek unity on the
issue of democracy, but as some anti-Japanese artists
and writers do not accept this, the range of unity will
be more limited. Then again, we must seek unity on the
issues peculiar to artistic and literary circles, those of
method and style, but as we are for socialist realism,
to which certain other people object, the range of
unity may be further limited. Thus unity can be
achieved on one issue while struggle and criticism take
place on other issues. As all issues are at the same
time separate and inter-related, even on the issue form-
ing the basis of unity, such as resistance to Japan,
there are at the same time struggle and criticism. In
a united front, unity to the exclusion of struggle and
32
struggle to the exclusion of unity are wrong policies,
for instance, the lines of Right capitulationism and
tailism or "Left" exclusivism and sectarianism follow-
ed by some comrades in the past. 'The same is true
of art and literature as of politics.
Petty-bourgeois artists and writers in China consti-
tute an important force in the united front of art and
literature. In spite of their many ideological and artis-
tic shortcomings, they are, comparatively speaking,
in favour of the revolution and comparatively close
to the working people. Therefore it is especially im-
portant to help them to overcome their shortcomings
and win them over to the front that serves the work-
ing people.

IV

One of the principal methods of struggle in the

artistic and literary world is criticism. Art and literary
criticism should be developed and, as many comrades
have rightly pointed out, our work in this respect has
been quite inadequate. Such criticism presents a
complex problem and requires a great deal of special
study. Here I shall stress only the basic problem of
criteria in criticism. I shall also comment briefly on
certain other problems and wrong ideas put forward
by some comrades.
There are two criteria in art and literary criticism:
political and artistic. According to the political cri-
terion, all works are good which strengthen unity and
resistance to Japan, encourage the people to be of one
33
heart and one mind and oppose retrogression and pro-
mote progress; on the other hand, all works are bad
which undermine unity and resistance to Japan, sow
dissension and discord among the people and oppose
progress and drag the people back.
How can we tell the good from the bad - by the
motive (subjective intention) or by the effect (prac-
tical results on society)? Idealists stress motive and
ignore effect, while mechanical materialists stress ef-
fect and ignore motive; in contradistinction to both,
we dialectical materialists insist on the unity of mo-
tive and effect. The motive of serving the people is
inseparable from the effect of winning their approval,
and we must unite the two. The motive of serving
the individual or a small clique is not good, nor can
the motive of serving the people be good if it does not
produce the effect of winning their support and bene-
fiting them. In examining the subjective intention of
an artist, that is, whether his motive is good and
proper, we do not judge by his professions but by the
effect of his activities, mainly his works, on society
and the people. Social practice and its effect are the
criteria for judging the subjective intention or the
motive.
We reject sectarianism in our criticism and, on the
general principle of unity for resistance to Japan, we
must permit the appearance of all artistic and literary
works expressing every kind of political opinion. But
at the same time we must firmly uphold our princi-
ples in our criticism, and adhere to our standpoint and
severely criticize and repudiate all artistic and literary
34
works containing anti-national, anti-scientific, anti-
popular and anti-Communist views, because such
works proceed from the motive and produce the effect
of undermining unity and resistance to Japan.
According to the artistic criterion, all works are good
or comparatively good that are of a high artistic
quality, and bad or comparatively bad that are of a low
artistic quality. Of course, this distinction also de-
pends on social effect. As there is hardly an artist
who does not consider his own work excellent, our
criticism ought to permit the free competition of all
varieties of artistic works; but on the other hand, these
works should be correctly assessed according to artis-
tic criteria so that we can gradually raise art of a
lower level to a higher level, and transform art which
does not meet the requirements of the struggle of the
people into art that does.
There are thus a political criterion and an artistic
criterion. How are the two related? Politics is not
the equivalent of art, nor is a general world outlook
equivalent to the method of artistic creation and crit-
icism. We believe there is neither an abstract and
absolutely unchangeable political criterion, nor an
abstract and absolutely unchangeable artistic criterion,
for every class in a class society has its own poli tical
and artistic criteria. But all classes in all class socie-
ties place the political criterion before the artistic. The
bourgeoisie always rejects proletarian artistic and lit-
erary works, no matter how great their artistic
achievement. The proletariat too must treat the art and
literature of the past according to their attitude to the
35
people and whether they are progressive in the light
of history. Some works which are completely reac-
tionary from the political point of view may yet be of
some artistic merit. But the more artistic such a work
may be, the greater harm will it do to the people, and
the more reason for us to reject it. The contradiction
between reactionary political content and artistic form
is a common characteristic of the art and literature
of all exploiting classes in their decline. What we
demand is unity of politics and art, of content and form,
and of the revolutionary political content and the
highest possible degree of perfection in artistic form.
Works of art, however politically progressive, are inef-
fective if they lack artistic quality. Therefore we are
opposed equally to works with wrong political
approaches and to the tendency of poster and slogan
style which is correct only in political approach but
lacks artistic power. We must carry struggle on two
fronts in art and literature.
Both these tendencies exist in the minds of many of
our comrades. Those who tend to neglect artistic
quality should strive to cultivate it. But as I see it,
the political side is at present the greater problem.
Lack of elementary political knowledge on the part of
some comrades has given rise to all kinds of confused
ideas. Let me give a few instances found in Yenan.
One example is "the theory of human nature". Is
there such a thing as human nature? Of course there
is. But there is only human nature in the concrete, no
human nature in the abstract. In a class society there
is only human nature that bears the stamp of a class;
36
human nature that transcends classes does not exist.
We uphold the human nature of the proletariat and
of the mass of the people, while the landlord and bour-
geois classes uphold the human nature of their own
classes as if - though they do not say so outright - it
were the only kind of human nature. The human na-
ture boosted by certain petty-bourgeois intellectuals is
also divorced from or opposed to that of the mass of
the people; what they call human nature is in sub-
stance nothing but bourgeois individualism, and con-
sequently in their eyes proletarian human nature is
contrary to their human nature. This is the theory of
human nature advocated by some people in Yenan as
the so-called basis of their theory of art and literature.
It is utterly mistaken.
There is another view: "The fundamental point of
departure for art and literature is love, the love of man-
kind". Now love may serve as a point of departure,
but there is still a more fundamental one. Love is a
concept, a product of objective practice. Fundamentally,
we do not start from a concept but from objective
practice. Our artists and writers who corne from the
intelligentsia love the proletariat because the impact
of society has made them feel that they share the same
fate with the proletariat. We hate Japanese imperial-
ism because the Japanese imperialists oppress us. There
is no love or hatred in the world that has not its cause.
There has not been any such all-embracing love of
mankind since the division of mankind into classes. All
the ruling classes in the past liked to advocate this love,
and so did many of the so-called sages and wise men,
37
but nobody has ever put it into practice for the very
good reason that it is impracticable in a class society.
Genuine love of mankind will be born only when class
distinctions have been eliminated throughout the
world. It is the classes that have caused the division
of society into many antagonistic sections and it will be
only after their elimination, certainly not now, that
love of all mankind can exist. We cannot love our
enemies or social evils; our aim is to eliminate both.
How can our artists and writers fail to understand this
common sense view?
Others say: "Art and literature have always de-
scribed the bright as well as the dark side of things
impartially and equally." This statement contains a
number of confused ideas. Art and literature have
not always done so. Many petty-bourgeois writers
have never found the bright side and have devoted
their works to exposing the dark side, the so-called
literature of exposure; some have even made it their
special mission to preach pessimism and misanthropy.
On the other hand, Soviet literature during the period
of socialist reconstruction portrays mainly the bright
side. It also describes weaknesses and bad characters,
but such descriptions are not included for the sake of
equal treatment of both sides but only to accentuate
the brightness of the whole picture. Bourgeois writers
in periods of reaction portray the revolutionary masses
as ruffians and the bourgeois as saints, thus reversing
the bright and dark sides. Only truly revolutionary
artists and writers can correctly solve the problem
whether to extol or to expose. The fundamental task
38
of all revolutionary artists and writers is to expose all
dark forces which endanger the people and to extol
all the revolutionary struggles of the people.
It is also said that "the task of art and literature has
always been to expose". This sort of argument, like
the previous one, arises from lack of knowledge of the
science of history. We have already shown that the
task of art and literature does not consist solely in ex-
posure. For the revolutionary artists and writers the
objects to be exposed can never be the people, but
only the aggressors, exploiters and oppressors and the
evil effects of their activities on the people. The
people have their shortcomings too, but these are to
be removed by means of criticism and self-criticism
within the ranks of the people themselves, and one of
the most important tasks of art and literature is to
conduct such criticism and self-criticism. We should
not regard such criticism as "exposure" of the people.
Our fundamental problem is how to educate the people
and raise their level. Only counter-revolutionary
artists and writers describe the people as born fools
and the revolutionary masses as tyrannical mobs.
Others say: "This is still a period of the feuilleton,
and the style of Lu Hsun still meets the needs." Living
in a realm of reaction and deprived of freedom of
speech, Lu Hsun was entirely right in choosing as his
weapons scorching satire and freezing irony in the form
of feuilletons. We too must make the fascists, the
Chinese reactionaries and everything endangering the
people the butt of our remorseless satire; but in the
Border Region of Shensi-Kansu-Ningsia and the anti-
39
Japanese base areas in the enemy's rear, where coun-
ter-revolutionaries alone are deprived of freedom and
democratic rights, our revolutionary writers who are in
full enjoyment of these things must no longer write
feuilletons simply in the style of Lu Hsun. Here we
can shout at the top of our voices, and need not resort
to ambiguous and veiled expressions which tax the
understanding of the mass of the people. In dealing
with the people themselves as distinct from their ene-
mies, Lu Hsun even in his feuilleton period did not
ridicule or attack the revolutionary masses and the rev-
olutionary parties, and employed a style entirely dif-
ferent from that of his feuilletons against the enemy.
We must, as we have already said, criticize the short-
comings of the people, but we do so from their stand-
point and out of a sincere desire to protect and educate
them. If we treat our comrades like enemies, then we
are taking the standpoint of the enemy. Are we then
to give up satire altogether? No. Satire is always nec-
essary. But there are different kinds of satire, satire
of our enemies, satire of our allies and satire of our-
selves - each of them reflects a different attitude. We
are not opposed to satire in general, but we must not
abuse it.
Still others say: "We are not given to praise and
eulogy; works which extol the bright side of things
are not necessarily great, nor are works which depict
the dark side necessarily worthless." If you are a
bourgeois artist or writer, you will extol not the pro-
letariat but the bourgeoisie, and if you are a proletarian
artist or writer, you will extol not the bourgeoisie but
40
the proletariat and the working people: you must
do one or the other. Those works which extol the
bright side of the bourgeoisie are not necessarily great
while those which depict its dark side are not neces-
sarily worthless, and those works which extol the bright
side of the proletariat are not necessarily worthless,
while those works which depict the so-called dark side
of the proletariat are certainly worthless. Are these not
facts recorded in the history of art and literature? Why
should we not extol the people who make the history
of mankind? Why should we not extol the proletariat,
the Communist Party, the New Democracy and so-
cialism? Of course, there are persons who have no
enthusiasm for the people's cause and stand aloof, look-
ing with cold indifference on the struggle and the vic-
tory of the proletariat and its vanguard, and take
pleasure only in singing endless praises of themselves,
and perhaps a few persons in their own coterie. Such
petty-bourgeois individualists are naturally unwilling
to praise the heroic deeds of the revolutionary people
or to heighten their courage in struggle and confidence
in victory. They are the corrupters in the revolution-
ary ranks; the revolutionary people have indeed no
use for such "singers".
Another opinion has also been expressed: "It is not
a matter of standpoint; the standpoint is correct, the
intention is good, and the understanding is sound, but
the expression is faulty and produces a bad effect." I
have already spoken about the dialectical materialist
view of motive and effect. Now I want to ask: Can
the effect be separated from the standpoint? Anyone
41
who bases his actions only on his motive and disregards
the effect is very much like a doctor who hands out
prescriptions and does not care how many patients die
of them. Or what of a political party which keeps on
making pronouncements but does nothing about carry-
ing them out? Is its standpoint correct? Are its in-
tentions good? Of course, anyone can be mistaken in
estimating beforehand the effect of a certain action;
but are his intentions really good if he adheres to the
old course of action even when its bad effects have
become evident? In judging an artist or a writer,
we must look at the practice and the effect, just as
in judging a political party or a doctor. Anyone who
has a truly good intention must take the effect into
consideration, sum up his experiences and study the
proper methods or, in the case of artistic creation, the
means of expression. Anyone who has a truly good in-
tention must criticize with the utmost candour the
shortcomings and mistakes in his work and make up
his mind to correct them. That is why the Communists
have adopted the method of self-criticism. Only such
a standpoint is correct. It is only through such a pro-
cess of conscientious and responsible practice that we
can arrive at a gradual understanding and firm grasp
of the correct standpoint. If we refuse to proceed
along this line in our practice, then, for all our com-
placent assertion to the contrary, we really have no
understanding of the correct standpoint.
We have also heard people say: "To advocate the
study of Marxism is a repetition of the mistake of using
dialectical materialist formulas in our creative work,
42
and this will stifle our creative impulse." We study
Marxism in order to apply the dialectical materialist
and historical materialist viewpoint in our approach to
the world, to society and to art and literature, but not
in order to turn our works of art and literature into
philosophical discourses. Marxism includes realism in
artistic and literary creation, but cannot replace it,
just as it includes atomics and electronics in physics
but cannot replace them. Empty, cut-and-dried doc-
trinaire formulas will certainly destroy our creative
impulse; indeed they destroy Marxism itself. Doctri-
naire Marxism is not Marxist but anti-Marxist. But
will not Marxism destroy any creative impulses? It
will; it will certainly destroy the creative impulses
that arise from feudal, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois
ideology, from liberalism, individualism and nihilism,
from art-for-art's sake, from the aristocratic, decadent
and pessimistic outlook-indeed any creative impulse
that is not rooted in the people and the proletariat. So
far as proletarian artists and writers are concerned,
should not these creative impulses be destroyed? I
think they should; indeed they must be utterly de-
stroyed and while they are being destroyed, new
things can be built up.

v
What is the significance of these problems which
face us in Yenan artistic and literary circles? They
signify that in our artistic and literary circles incorrect
43
 styles in work still exist to a serious extent; that we
need a thoroughgoing and serious campaign to correct
them and to remove such defects as idealism, doctri-
nairism, utopianism, empty talk, contempt of practice
and aloofness from the people which are still found
among our comrades.
Many of our comrades remain confused about the
difference between the proletariat and the petty bour-
geoisie. Many Party members are Communists only
in the organizational sense; ideologically they are not
fully Communists or are not Communists at all. Those
who are not ideologically Communists still carry in
their heads many of the rotten ideas of the exploiting
classes and have not the slightest understanding of
proletarian ideology, communism, or the Party. They
say to themselves: "Proletarian ideology! Isn't it just
the same old stuff?" They have no idea that to ac-
quire this stuff is by no means easy; some people, for
instance, have never in their lives had the slightest
trace of a Communist about them, and are bound to
end up by leaving the Party.
Therefore, though the majority of our Party and in
our ranks are clean and honest, we must nevertheless
make a conscientious organizational and ideological
overhaul, so that we can better advance the revolution
and win earlier victory. But an organizational over-
haul presupposes an ideological overhaul, and we have
to combat non-proletarian ideas with proletarian ideas.
In artistic and literary circles in Yenan an ideological
struggle, which is entirely necessary, has already be-
gun. By various ways and means, including artistic
44
and literary means, intellectuals of petty-bourgeois
origin always stubbornly try to express themselves,
spread their own opinions, and demand that the Party
and the world should be remoulded in their image. In
these circumstances it is our duty to say to them blunt-
ly: "Comrades! Your stuff won't do! The proletariat
cannot compromise with you; to yield to you is to
yield to the big bourgeoisie and the big landlord class
and to risk the destruction of our Party and our coun-
try." Whom then should we take as the model? We
can only remould the Party and the world in the image
of the vanguard of the proletariat. We hope our com-
rades in artistic and literary circles will realize the se-
riousness of this great controversy and actively join in
this struggle, so that everyone of them will have a clean
bill of health and our whole Party will become truly
united and consolidated ideologically and organiza-
tionally.
As a result of ideological confusion many comrades
have failed to distinguish clearly between our revolu-
tionary base areas and Kuomintang-controlled areas
and have consequently made many mistakes. A num-
ber of comrades have arrived here from the garrets of
Shanghai:' in coming from such garrets to the revolu-
tionary base areas, they ha...e passed not only from one
region to another, but also from one historical epoch
to another. One is a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society
under the rule of the big landlords and big bourgeoisie,
1 In Shanghai, in those days, the impecunious artists, writers,
intellectuals, and small office employees mostly lived in cheap
and congested quarters.
45
while the other is a revolutionary society of New De-
mocracy under the leadership of the proletariat. Ar-
rival at our bases means coming under a regime of
the mass of the people, a regime unprecedented in the
thousands of years of Chinese history. Here we find
an entirely different set of people around us and an
entirely different public for our propaganda. The past
epoch is gone and gone for ever. We must therefore
unite unhesitatingly with the new mass of the people.
If, living among the new people, you comrades still, as I
said before, lack thorough knowledge and understanding
of them and thus lack the field to display your prowess,
then you will meet with difficulties not only when you
go to the villages, but right here in Yenan. Some com-
rades think that they would rather go on writing for
the readers in the "big rear",' as they understand the
conditions there well and can thus produce works of
"national significance". This view is entirely wrong.
The big rear is also changing and the readers there
expect authors in the revolutionary base areas to tell
them about new people and a new world, not to bore
them with the same old stories. Therefore the more
a work is intended for the people of the revolutionary
bases, the more national significance will it have. A.

! During the Anti-Japanese War people used to call the vast

areas under Kuomintang control in south-western and north-
western China which were not occupied by the Japanese. the
"big rear", as distinguished from the "small rear" - the anti-
Japanese base areas in the enemy rear under Communist
leadership.

46
Fadeyev's The Nineteen' only tells the story of a small
guerrilla unit and does not cater for the tastes of the
readers of the old world; yet it has produced a world-
wide effect, or at any rate, as all of you here well know,
a tremendous effect in China. China is going forward,
not backward, and it is the revolutionary base areas,
not any backward, retrogressive regions, that are lead-
ing her forward. This is the fundamental fact that
you comrades must first of all clearly recognize in the
course of the campaign to correct style in work.
Since we must adapt ourselves to the new epoch of
the people, we must find a complete solution to the
problem of the relationship between the individual and
the people. Lu Hsun's couplet should be our motto:
"With frowning brows I disdainfully defy the thou-
sands who point accusing fingers at me; with bowed
head I meekly submit like an ox for the child to ride
on."2 The thousands refer to our enemies, and we
will never yield to them no matter how fierce they
may be. The child refers to the proletariat and the
mass of the people. Every Communist, revolutionary,
revolutionary artist or writer should follow the exam-
ple of Lu Hsun and be the ox for the proletariat and
the mass of the people, "bending his back to the burden
until he breathes his last"," Before the intellectuals

1 Published in 1927 and translated into Chinese by Lu Hsun.

2 Lu Hsun, "In Mockery of Myself", Complete Works, Chi-
nese ed., Vol. VII.
3 A famous quotation from one of Chukeh Liang's memorials
to the throne. Chukeh Liang (A.D. 181-234), who lived in the

47
can unite with and work for the masses, they must go
through a process in which they and the people come
to know and understand each other. Although this
process may be and is sometimes bound to be full of
suffering and conflict, once you have made up your
minds you will be equal to the test.
What I have said today covers only some of the
fundamental problems of the direction of our artistic
and literary movement; many other specific problems
await further study. I believe that you comrades are
determined to go in this direction. I also believe that,
in the course of the campaign to correct style in work
and in your long period of study and work in the fu-
ture, you will be able to remould yourselves, change
the character of your work, create many excellent
things which will be warmly welcomed by the people.
and advance to a glorious new stage the artistic and
literary movement in our revolutionary base areas and
throughout the whole country.

Epoch of the Three Kingdoms, has become among the Chinese

a byword for statesmanship, wisdom and passionate loyalty
to a good cause.
 ~ ~
f±~'tt~~B!Wi~L~~~
*
*
~.zt!lIifi ~tlJlifi ( ~tJit )
1955iF 2 Fj~ -J'& 1960iF 8 Jl m=-llt(
II~: (Jrf)105G-65
0 004 0