Li Shenming: A Study on the Methodology for the Correct Evaluation of Mao Zedong
How is one to correctly understand and recognize Mao Zedong? Michel Foucault, the French philosopher, social theorist, and "historian of systems of thought" who was once a member of the French Communist Party, said: "It is impossible at present to write history without using a whole range of concepts directly or indirectly linked to Marx's thought and situating oneself within the horizon of thought defined and described by Marx." What did Foucault mean by "Marx's thought"? In March 1913, Lenin stated: "The Marxian doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or any defence of bourgeois oppression." The author believes that from our current spatio-temporal intersection, the "Marx’s thought" Foucault spoke of can, in a broad and essential sense, be understood as the entire theoretical system of Marxism. This includes the thoughts of Marx and Engels, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, the Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.
Why quote Foucault here rather than the Marxist classics? One important reason is that while world socialism has shown signs of resurgence today, it remains overall at a low ebb. Many people—especially in academic circles—refuse to even listen to Marxism, repeatedly declaring it out of fashion or claiming it has been refuted and eliminated. Foucault wields considerable influence globally, including in China, particularly within the academy and among certain young people. The direct purpose of quoting him is to draw greater attention, importance, and systematic study toward the works of the Marxist classics. Lenin explicitly pointed out: "The 'materialist conception of history' is a synonym for social science." Marx and Engels "paid particular attention not to the materialist theory of knowledge but to the materialist conception of history." "Marx's historical materialism was one of the greatest achievements of scientific thought." In essence, Foucault’s words mean that only by examining major events and important figures in the history of the Party and the state from the elevated height, broad vision, and expansive mind of the Marxist worldview and methodology—that is, historical materialism—is it possible to leap beyond various fetters, including the personal and domestic grievances of individuals. Only then can we disperse the mists and prejudices of the idealist conception of history and religious ethics, and return the essential content and essential truth of our brilliant history back to history itself, and back to its major events and important figures.
How should we apply the worldview and methodology of historical materialism to correctly understand the major events and important figures in our Party and national history—specifically the life and thought of Comrade Mao Zedong, the great leader of the Chinese people? Marx said: "To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself." General Secretary Xi Jinping has noted: "If a theory is not thorough, it is difficult to convince people." To this end, over a period of more than ten years, the author has conscientiously compiled and studied the relevant discourses of Marxist classic writers on using the historical materialist worldview and methodology to evaluate important historical figures. I have the following modest insights to share; should there be any errors, I welcome the criticism and corrections of all readers, including those with differing opinions.
I. The science of history is the only science; history is everything to us. The important figures in the history of the Party and the state are the primary markers and vital components of our arduous yet glorious history.
In January 1844, Engels pointed out: "We do not dream of doubting or despising ‘the revelation of history’; history is everything to us"; "we demand that the content of history be returned to history; but we see in history not the revelation of 'God', but the revelation of man and only of man"; "in order to believe in the importance and greatness of human things, it is not necessary to stamp them with the seal of ‘Divine.’ On the contrary, the more 'Divine'—that is, the more unhuman—a thing is, the less we shall be able to admire it." Regarding Engels' demand that "the content of history be returned to history," the author believes that through the seasoned experience of historical trials, true Chinese Communists and the broad masses of the people have not treated Mao Zedong as a deity to be blindly worshipped or enshrined. Nor have they been influenced in the slightest by the Confucian culture of "ritual" [1] established by Confucius when he edited the Spring and Autumn Annals, which dictates "concealing the faults of the honorable, the kin, and the virtuous" [2]. Instead, they adhere to the principle of "seeking truth from facts" repeatedly emphasized by Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Xi Jinping. On the premise of acknowledging that Mao Zedong had lapses and even—as he himself said—committed errors, they admire, love, and remember him with heartfelt sincerity and conviction. They all deeply desire to brush away the filth and dust that certain hostile domestic and foreign forces have deliberately cast upon Mao Zedong. They wish to restore to history, to the people, and to Mao Zedong himself the true man who—between 1893 and 1976—was born, lived, and fought for 83 years on this earth, specifically upon the Huaxia [3] land with its 5,000-year-old brilliant civilization. Similarly, regarding Engels’ statement that "history is everything to us," it is in this sense that Mao Zedong is "everything" to us. To negate Mao Zedong is to negate all the glorious history and the fundamental foundation created by our Party leading the people through arduous struggle.
Between 1845 and 1846, Marx and Engels wrote: "We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men." "What we need to study deeply is the history of men, because almost the whole of ideology consists either in a distorted conception of this history or in a complete abstraction from it." In October 1889, Engels noted: "You must realize that there is still much work to be done in the theoretical field... Only clear theoretical analysis can indicate the correct path through a labyrinth of facts." In the spring and summer of 1894, Lenin pointed out: "Marx considers the whole value of his theory to lie in the fact that it is 'in its essence critical and revolutionary'." To truly absorb the experience and lessons of our Party and state’s countless hardships and incomparable glory, we must correctly understand all the major events and important figures in our history. We must correctly understand Mao Zedong and all his comrades-in-arms, while also understanding the bloody, painful lessons and the significant negative figures in our history. Without understanding figures like Chiang Kai-shek or Khrushchev, it is impossible to have a relatively correct and complete understanding of Mao Zedong. The birth and development of the great leaders of the proletariat and of Marxism itself took place amidst intricate and complex struggles. Precisely for this reason, to truly understand the thought of Marx and Engels, one must also understand the French petty-bourgeois thinker and co-founder of anarchism, Proudhon; the patriarch of opportunism in the German labor movement, Lassalle; and the Russian anarchist and enemy of Marxism, Bakunin. To truly understand Lenin’s thought, one must also understand figures like Bernstein, one of the leaders of Second International revisionism who openly revised Marxism from a reformist position after Engels' death in 1895, and Kautsky, the German Democrat, traitor to Marxism, and another leader of Second International revisionism. Of course, this "correct understanding" primarily involves clarifying the "top priorities of the Party" and the "top priorities of the country" [4] in their essential nature.
Some believe that "details determine success or failure," and thus some comrades worry that as time passes and human affairs change, certain "historical details"—deliberately distorted or forged by some—will become "irrefutable historical facts" forever. This concern is not without merit. Regarding key historical details, we should strive to restore the original, true face of history, as this helps us look through the phenomena to further recognize the essence of things. Therefore, I maintain that any comrade who understands history, especially major and critical historical details, has a responsibility to leave the truth of history and its key details to history and the people. On the other hand, the "correct understanding" we speak of does not mean conducting exhaustive, endless, and trivial textual research on every single detail of history. First, this is not possible; second, it is not necessary. Some historical details—especially critical, real ones—will be forever obscured in the mists of history due to intentional concealment or unintentional misremembering. However, as long as one applies the worldview and methodology of historical materialism to "grasp the main idea" [5], one can often make a clear theoretical analysis without needing a multitude of trivial details. There will be signs to find, clues to observe, and preceding or succeeding phenomena to reflect upon. It is like standing on the summit of the Kunlun Mountains and looking down upon the ravines below; various historical obscurities do not hinder our judgment of the essential truth of history, its major trends, or the merits and demerits of important historical figures. History and the people will pay special attention to the essence and the merits of major figures and events; ultimately, they will analyze them clearly and record them plainly. Emperor Taizu of Song’s fear of the official court historians [6] is also a very rational "iron law" of history. History has proven, and will continue to prove, that great men like Mao Zedong stand like the towering Kunlun Mountains, while those who disregard facts and wantonly fabricate rumors to attack them are but a handful of yellow earth at their feet.
II. It is often a fact in history that at the beginning, truth is not in the hands of the majority, but in the hands of a minority; social practice is the sole criterion for testing truth, and it is also the sole criterion for judging the merits and demerits of important historical figures.
From September 1876 to June 1878, Engels pointed out: "As long as a mode of production is in the rising stage of its development, it is enthusiastically welcomed even by those who come off worst from its corresponding mode of distribution." "As long as this mode of production remains normal for society, a feeling of satisfaction with the distribution will, on the whole, prevail; and if a protest then rises, it comes from the ranks of the ruling class itself (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen), and finds no response among the exploited masses. Only when the mode of production in question has already described a goodly part of its downward curve, when it has half outlived itself, when the conditions of its existence have to a large extent disappeared, and its successor is already knocking at the door — it is only then that the increasingly unequal distribution appears as unjust; it is only then that people appeal from the facts which have had their day to so-called eternal justice." For this very reason, Lenin said in October 1912: "One should recall Engels’ memorable words: 'What is economically false may be true in terms of world history.'" Lenin immediately followed this by saying, "Engels uttered that profound principle in connection with utopian socialism... That socialism was 'false' in the sense that it maintained that surplus value was unfair from the standpoint of the laws of exchange. The theoreticians of bourgeois political economy were right, in the economic sense, in opposing that socialism, because surplus value arises from the laws of exchange quite 'naturally,' quite 'fairly.' But utopian socialism was right in terms of world history." These two discourses from Engels and Lenin already contain a major principle-based thought: namely, that major social principles and truths are sometimes held in the hands of a minority. In the spring of 1845, Marx pointed out: "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question." Lenin said: "The standpoint of life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge"; and "There is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete." In July 1937, Mao Zedong said: "Only social practice can be the test of the truth of human knowledge of the external world." "The criterion of truth can only be social practice." In January 1940, Mao Zedong again stated: "There is but one truth, and the question of who has discovered it is determined not by subjective boasting but by objective practice. Only the revolutionary practice of millions of people can be the yardstick for measuring truth." In January 1962, Mao said: "Many times, the opinions of the minority turn out to be correct. History frequently offers such facts: at the beginning, truth is not in the hands of the majority, but in the hands of the minority." In November 1963, in his "Comments on and Revisions to the Draft of the Fifth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU," Mao Zedong specifically inserted the sentence: "Social practice is the sole criterion for testing truth." Please note that whenever Mao Zedong spoke of the criterion for testing truth, he always used the four characters for "social practice" (shehui shijian), not just the two characters for "practice" (shijian). The author believes that when the great discussion on "Practice is the Sole Criterion for Testing Truth" unfolded nationwide in 1978, the word "social" was omitted; had it not been omitted, the full title should have been the great discussion on "Social Practice is the Sole Criterion for Testing Truth." In March 1911, when discussing revolutionary democrats like Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov — leaders of the 1861 "populist" revolutionary movement in Russia — Lenin said: "The revolutionaries of 1861 were isolated figures and, to all appearances, suffered total defeat. In fact, it was they who were the great figures of that epoch, and the further we are removed from that epoch, the more clearly do we perceive their greatness and the more obvious is the pettiness and feebleness of the liberal reformers of those days." This is to say, only by thoroughly applying the materialist viewpoint and placing a stated truth into the long river of history—the practice of millions upon millions of the masses—can it undergo the merciless testing of whether it is true or false, a merit or a fault. Regarding the eternal merits and faults of any important historical figure, time, history, practice, and the people will ultimately provide a peerlessly just assessment. This underscores that history, written by the magnificent practice of millions of people, is "iron-faced and selfless" [7], and will surely, in the end, record the truth in "vermilion and azure" [8] with fairness and impartiality.
In his speech at the symposium commemorating the 130th anniversary of Comrade Mao Zedong’s birth, General Secretary Xi Jinping highly appraised Mao Zedong from the very beginning, stating: "Comrade Mao Zedong was a great Marxist, a great proletarian revolutionary, strategist, and theorist; he was the great pioneer of the Sinicization of Marxism and the great founder of the cause of China’s socialist modernization; he was a great patriot and national hero of modern China, the core of the first generation of the Party's central collective leadership, a great man of a generation who led the Chinese people in fundamentally changing their own destiny and the landscape of the country, and a great internationalist who made major contributions to the liberation of the oppressed nations of the world and the cause of human progress." Here, the new evaluations of Mao Zedong added by General Secretary Xi Jinping on behalf of the Party Central Committee, the entire Party, the entire army, and the people of all ethnic groups nationwide primarily include two points: first, that Mao Zedong was the "great founder of the cause of China’s socialist modernization"; second, that Mao Zedong was a "great internationalist who made major contributions to the liberation of the oppressed nations of the world and the cause of human progress." These are the exceptionally just and impartial conclusions reached 47 years after Mao Zedong’s passing, having undergone the severe and harsh trials and testing of practice amid the turbulent storms and shifting winds at home and abroad. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s high appraisal of Mao Zedong has received the heartfelt support and praise of the entire Party, the army, and the people of all ethnic groups, as well as positive acclaim from people all over the world.
III. The question of "for whom" is a fundamental question, a question of principle; it is also the fundamental and principled criterion for evaluating important figures.
From December 1847 to January 1848, Marx and Engels explicitly pointed out in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: "All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority." In April 1913, Lenin said: "When it is not immediately apparent which political or social groups, forces and figures are advocating certain proposals, measures, etc., one should always ask the question: 'Cui bono — who benefits?'" "It does not matter who directly advocates a particular policy." "In politics it does not matter so much who directly advocates certain views. What matters is who benefits by these views, these proposals, these measures." In November 1941, Stalin pointed out: "Reference is made to Napoleon, it being alleged that Hitler is acting like Napoleon and that he resembles Napoleon in every way. But... Hitler resembles Napoleon about as much as a kitten resembles a lion. For Napoleon relied on progressive forces against reactionary forces, while Hitler, on the contrary, relies on reactionary forces against progressive forces." In May 1942, Mao Zedong pointed out: "The question of 'for whom' is a fundamental question, a question of principle." In October 2022, in the report to the 20th CPC National Congress, General Secretary Xi Jinping placed "must put the people first" at the head of the "Six Musts" — the worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era — and pointed out very clearly: "The people-centered nature is the essential attribute of Marxism." Whether one seeks the interests of the vast majority or the interests of a tiny minority is the watershed and touchstone that distinguishes all true from false Marxism, true from false socialism, true from false Communist Parties, true from false proletarian leaders, and true from false Communists. In May 1994, Lei Jieqiong — the famous sociologist, then Vice Chairperson of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and 89-year-old Chairperson of the Central Committee of the China Association for Promoting Democracy — visited Mao Zedong’s former residence in Shaoshan. She stood longest before Mao Zedong’s bathrobe, which had over 70 patches. In a subsequent interview, Lei Jieqiong said: "Chairman Mao thought further ahead than us on many matters. This was the consensus of everyone in the car on the way to Shaoshan." After her visit, she saturated her brush with ink and wrote eight large characters in the guestbook: "He who is for the public is eternal; he who is for himself is transitory" (Gong zhe qian gu, si zhe yi shi). Lei Jieqiong also said: these eight characters "are the words I often want to say when I miss the old gentleman; my hand trembled a bit at the time, and the calligraphy was not good." "I remember also asking Secretary Gao to read the message left by a group of Communists from Hunan; it was very meaningful." The message from this group of Communists that Lei Jieqiong mentioned was: "Who had the greatest power? Comrade Mao Zedong. Yet throughout his life, he exercised his power to the maximum extent through — dedication. He dedicated six of his family members; he dedicated his entire life. He never made demands of the people, and he required his relatives and friends not to reach out to the people for favors. His answer to demands was 'serve the people whole-heartedly.' If every one of our Communist Party members and every one of the Party's leading cadres could take this point of Comrade Mao Zedong’s as a mirror, it would be a blessing for the country and a blessing for our Party!" It should be said that the message from this group of Communists speaks the shared heart’s desire of all Chinese Communists.
IV. The history of all hitherto existing civilized society is the history of class struggle; the method of class analysis is the basic method for studying history; historical science possesses class character and Party spirit; the evaluation of important figures likewise involves different class characters and different Party spirits; the vast masses’ love, reverence, and heart-felt defense of their great leader is by no means individual superstition; we must take a clear-cut stand in defending the Party's leader.
From December 1847 to January 1848, in the first chapter of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels pointed out in the very first sentence: "The history of all hitherto existing society (Engels later added as a supplement, with the exception of the history of the primitive commune) is the history of class struggles." In September 1879, Marx and Engels stated: "For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving power of history, and particularly the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is, therefore, impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement." In February 1907, Lenin pointed out: "The principle of the class struggle is the very foundation of the whole doctrine and the whole tactics of Social-Democracy." In March 1914, Lenin noted: "It has been said long ago that if geometrical axioms affected human interests (or rather, the interests of classes in their struggle), an attempt would certainly be made to refute them." Between July and November 1914, Lenin further observed: "That the aspirations of some members of a given society militate against the aspirations of others, that social life is full of contradictions... Marxism has provided the guidance—i.e., the theory of the class struggle—for the discovery of the laws governing this seeming maze and chaos."
To make a fitting and correct evaluation of important figures in the history of the Party and the country, in the final analysis, one must apply the Marxist method of class analysis. By following this thread when exploring the activities of figures in the historical process, one can correctly identify the social roots behind individual factors and the socio-historical laws that determine individual activities. This allows for a full revelation of the various layers of complex historical phenomena and a grasp of the essential elements of various social relations, thereby grasping—at a deeper level—the essential attribute of whether an important figure represents a progressive or a reactionary class force. In September 1871, in a speech at the London Conference, Engels pointed out: "Absolute abstention from politics is impossible; for each abstentionist newspaper also does politics. The only problem is how to do it and what kind of politics." Likewise, capital and the various forces it employs that advocate the abandonment of class struggle and the method of class analysis are precisely engaged in the ruthless dictatorship of capital over the working people. In January 1873, Marx said: "The bourgeoisie had conquered political power in France and England. From that time on... it was no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful... In place of disinterested enquirers, there were hired prize-fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic." Between late February and early March 1881, Marx again said: "We must be on our guard when reading the histories of primitive communities written by bourgeois authors. They do not stop even at forgeries." From May to July 1870, Engels stated: "The bourgeoisie turns everything into a commodity, and so also with history. It is in its nature, its condition of existence, to falsify all commodities; it falsified history as well. The historical work that is best paid is that in which the falsification of history is most tailored to the interests of the bourgeoisie." In March 1913, Lenin said: "The Marxian doctrine is everywhere in the civilized world the subject of the greatest hostility and hatred on the part of all bourgeois science (both official and liberal), which regards Marxism as a kind of 'harmful sect'." In April 1913, Lenin pointed out: "Under the present 'noble' capitalist system, any big millionaire can always 'hire,' buy or bribe any number of lawyers, writers, and even members of parliament, professors, priests and so on, to defend any views. We live in a commercial age, and the bourgeoisie are not ashamed to trade in honor and conscience. There are also simple-minded people who, out of habit or lack of reflection, support views that are dominant in certain bourgeois circles." Different historians will have different or even diametrically opposed so-called "geometrical axioms" and "historical facts." This is to say, historical science has a distinct class nature and Party spirit.
Precisely because of this, on March 17, 1883, in his speech at the graveside of Marx after the latter’s passing, Engels said: "Marx was the best hated and most calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were a cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him." During the period of the Democratic Revolution [9], the Chiang Kai-shek clique cursed Mao Zedong as a "renegade bandit," yet the people hailed Mao Zedong as the "Great Savior" [10]. After Mao Zedong's passing, some people at home and abroad ranked Mao Zedong alongside Hitler and Stalin, calling the three the world's "greatest tyrants and dictators." Precisely because of the importance of proletarian revolutionary leaders and their thought, Lenin particularly emphasized that the masses must resolutely defend their leaders. In September 1917, in the article "Political Blackmail," Lenin pointed out: "If the Party were to agree to its leaders withdrawing from public activity because the bourgeoisie had slandered them, the Party would suffer terribly; it would cause the proletariat to suffer and would make its enemies rejoice." "Down with the political blackmailers! Despise them and boycott them! Unmask their foul faces to the working masses! We must go our own way firmly, defend the working capacity of our Party, and defend its leaders." In July 1917, Stalin also pointed out: "The more coarsely the lackeys of the bourgeoisie slander us, the stronger the workers' love for their leaders and the more infinite their trust becomes, for experience tells them that when the enemy insults a proletarian leader, it is a sure sign that the leader is faithfully serving the proletariat." In October 1927, Stalin further noted: the reason opposition elements primarily target proletarian leaders is that the proletarian leader "knows all the fraudulent tricks of the opposition better than some of our comrades, and it is probably not so easy to deceive him." Between December 1959 and February 1960, while reading the Soviet Manual of Political Economy, Mao Zedong said: "The vilification of Stalin, among other reasons, has one important cause: Stalin resolutely fought against imperialism. Their attempt to distinguish themselves from Stalin is an effort to gain the appreciation of imperialism."
The more frantically the enemy attacks the leaders of the proletariat, the more it proves the greatness of those leaders. The love, reverence, and heartfelt defense shown by the broad masses of the people toward their great leader is by no means "personality cult"; on the contrary, it is a sober defense of their own and their class's fundamental interests.
V. The people, and only the people, are the force that creates world history; however, Marxism by no means denies the special role played by individuals, especially important figures, under certain historical conditions.
Previous historical theories, at most, examined the ideological motives of people's historical activities without investigating the causes behind these motives or explaining the activities of the masses. Only historical materialism has enabled us for the first time to examine the social conditions of the life of the masses and the changes in these conditions with the precision of natural history, thereby reaching the correct conclusion that the masses are the decisive force in creating history. Between September and November 1844, Marx and Engels said: "Activities and ideas in history are the ideas and activities of the 'masses'." "Ideas can never lead beyond an old world order at most: they can only lead beyond the ideas of the old world order. Ideas cannot realize anything whatsoever. In order to realize ideas, men are needed who can exert practical force." Marx pointed out that "no revolution can be completed by a party, only the people can complete a revolution." In early 1886, Engels pointed out: "The motives of... not so much of individual men, even of the most outstanding, as those which set in motion great masses, whole peoples, and again whole classes of the people in each community; and here, too, not the transient flaring up of a straw-fire which quickly dies down, but a lasting action resulting in a great historical transformation." In October 1917, Lenin said: "In our view, the strength of a state lies in the consciousness of the masses. A state is strong when the masses know everything, can judge everything, and do everything consciously." In January 1918, Lenin said: "The wisdom of tens of millions of creators creates something infinitely higher than the greatest genius can foresee." In November 1920, Lenin pointed out: "In the concepts of the bourgeois world-outlook, politics was as it were divorced from economics. The bourgeoisie said: peasants, you must work to live; workers, you must work to get all the necessities of life on the market; your masters will manage the economics of politics. This is not true; politics should be the business of the people, the business of the proletariat." Between April and May 1920, Lenin said: "The scale of world history is measured in decades. Ten or twenty years sooner or later makes no difference when measured by the scale of world history; from the standpoint of world history it is a trifle that cannot be even approximately calculated."
Broadly speaking, in the long river of history, the masses are the decisive force. However, whether historical development occurs ten or twenty years—or even a century—sooner or later is often related to the subjective initiative of certain countries, nations, classes, political parties, and important figures. We are active, revolutionary reflectionists [11]. Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. In August 1902, Lenin pointed out: "In our view, without theory, a revolutionary faction would lose the right to exist and would sooner or later be doomed to political bankruptcy." The immense role of proletarian leaders is first reflected in the creation, adherence to, and development of revolutionary theory. Lenin said: "The 'ideologist' is worthy of the name only when he marches ahead of the spontaneous movement, points out the way, and is able to solve, ahead of others, all the theoretical, political, tactical, and organizational questions which the 'material elements' of the movement spontaneously encounter." Great proletarian leaders like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao Zedong, through the revolutionary practice of the masses, formed ideas that were mature, just, inevitable, and in accord with the great trends of the times. Due to various reasons, these ideas may not have been accepted by the majority for a time. Although these ideas were latent at the time, they were striking—and continue to strike—at the external world like striking a hard shell. They seek to shatter the shell of human prejudice, for they are not the kernel of that shell, but the kernel of another brand-new world: the truth of the New Era and the new world. Once the masses recognize and master these truths, they can ultimately obtain a brand-new world. In March 1883, evaluating Marx, Engels said: Marx "fed the proletarian movement of both hemispheres with his powerful thoughts... We owe what we are today to him; we owe all the successes the modern movement has achieved to his theoretical and practical activity; without him, we would still be wandering in darkness." In August 1980, Deng Xiaoping said: "Without Chairman Mao, at the very least, we Chinese people would have had to grope in the dark for a much longer time." Leaders and the masses should not and cannot be separated; the masses are the cradle that nurtures leaders, and leaders are the outstanding representatives of the masses. The two are a complete, organic, and highly unified whole. The role of great historical actors can be compared to the dew that moistens the earth, but the dew is after all composed of the water vapor evaporated from that same earth. Countless distinguished figures have been nurtured in this incredibly ancient, glorious, yet disaster-ridden land of China. Because of the birth of Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought, the historical progress of the Chinese nation was accelerated by at least decades, if not a century or several centuries.
VI. We are believers in the dialectical materialist unity of motive and effect; evaluating important figures should likewise consistently implement this unity of motive and effect.
In March 1875, Engels pointed out: "Generally speaking, the official programme of a political party is less important than its actual actions. However, a new programme is, after all, a banner erected publicly, and the outside world judges the party by it." In May 1875, Marx noted: "The formulation of a principled programme... is the setting up of boundary markers before the whole world by which it may gauge the level of the Party movement." Yet the classical Marxist writers understood even more clearly that evaluating a party or an individual depends primarily not on hearing their words, but on observing their actions. In 1852, Engels pointed out: "A man is judged not by his professions, but by his actions; not by what he says he is, but by what he does and what he actually is." In 1912, Lenin noted: "To distinguish right from wrong in the struggle of parties, one must not believe words, but study the real history of the parties—studying not so much what they say about themselves, but what they do, how they go about solving various political problems, and how they behave in matters affecting the vital interests of the various classes of society—landlords, capitalists, peasantry, workers, and so forth." In 1915, Lenin said: "A man is judged not by his own opinion of himself, but by his political actions."
In 1942, Mao Zedong said: "Idealists emphasize motive and deny effect, while mechanical materialists emphasize effect and deny motive. We are the opposite of both; we are dialectical materialists who believe in the unity of motive and effect." He continued: "To act only by motive without regard for effect is like a doctor who cares only about writing prescriptions, regardless of how many patients die from them. Or like a political party that cares only about issuing declarations, regardless of whether they are implemented. I ask: is such a stand correct? Is such an intention [12] good? Of course, errors may occur in considering effects beforehand; but once facts have proven the effect to be bad, is the intention still good if one persists in the old way? When we judge a party or a doctor, we must look at practice, at effects... A truly good intention must involve consideration of effects, the summation of experience, and the study of methods... A truly good intention must involve totally sincere self-criticism of the shortcomings and mistakes in one’s own work and a determination to correct them. This is how the Communist method of self-criticism is adopted. Only this stand is the correct stand."
To achieve the unity of motive and effect, one must correctly handle the relationship between the individual and the collective, the local and the global, and the immediate and the long-term (or fundamental) interests; only in this way can the initiative, proactive spirit, and creativity of the broad masses [13] of the people be mobilized to the greatest extent, providing the most reliable guarantee for the various undertakings of the Party and the state. In his speech at the symposium commemorating the 120th anniversary of Comrade Mao Zedong’s birth, General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly pointed out that Mao Zedong’s most prominent and greatest lifelong contributions included "creating the fundamental prerequisites and laying solid theoretical and practical foundations for the victorious development of the cause of our Party and people, and for the Chinese nation to stride forward and catch up with the trends of the times." The author believes that this solid theoretical foundation includes Mao Zedong's brilliant strategic thinking on the Party "never changing its nature" [14].
In May 1942, at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art, Mao Zedong pointed out: "Materialists do not oppose utilitarianism in general"; "We are proletarian revolutionary utilitarians; we take as our starting point the unity of the present and future interests of the broadest masses, who constitute more than 90 percent of the Chinese population. We are therefore revolutionary utilitarians who aim for what is broadest and furthest, not narrow utilitarians who see only the local and the immediate." Different people have different life pursuits and different forms of utilitarianism. Some seek a life of debauchery and luxury; some seek to suppress desires for the sake of personal longevity; some seek to satisfy every whim for the comfort of their nuclear family or clan; and some seek to bring honor to their ancestors [15] or leave their own name in the annals of history. Mao Zedong’s life, however, took the unity of the present and future interests of the broadest masses—over 90 percent of the population—as its starting point, struggling unremittingly for a proletarian revolutionary utilitarianism that aimed for the broadest and furthest goals. He possessed not only the "benevolence of a woman" [16] regarding immediate concerns, but more importantly, a supreme virtue, love, and humanity that prioritized the long-term fundamental interests of the people, disregarding personal reputation or ruin, and even seeing his own kin fall one after another in sacrifice for the nation.
VII. Historical research must proceed from facts, possess a full command of materials, place problems within a specific historical scope, and apply dialectical methods to analyze specific conditions concretely; the study of major historical events should not seek causes in the accidental motives, merits, defects, mistakes, or betrayals of a few leaders, but in the general social state and living conditions of every nation that has experienced upheaval.
In September 1851, discussing the 1848 revolutions on the European continent, Engels said: "The time of that superstition which attributed the revolution to the ill-will of a few agitators has long passed away. Everyone knows nowadays that wherever there is a revolutionary convulsion, there must be some social want in the background, which is prevented, by outworn institutions, from being satisfied." He added: "The investigation of the causes that necessarily led to the recent convulsion and as necessarily to its defeat... ought not to be sought in the accidental motives, efforts, faults, errors, or treacheries of some of the leaders, but in the general social state and conditions of existence of each of the convulsed nations." In 1914, Lenin said: "The categorical requirement of Marxist theory in investigating any social question is that it be examined within definite historical limits."
In January 1917, Lenin pointed out: "In order to have a real understanding of complex and difficult questions, which are often deliberately confused... how should facts be collected? How should the connection and interdependence between facts be established? In the field of social phenomena, there is no method more common and more untenable than that of snatching out individual facts and playing with examples. To list general examples costs no effort, but it is of no significance or even has a completely opposite effect, because in concrete historical circumstances, everything has its individual features. If one takes the facts in their entire sum, in their interconnection, then they are not only 'stubborn things' but also incontrovertible evidence... we must take without exception the entire sum of facts relating to the issue under discussion, and not just pick out individual facts; otherwise, the suspicion—a fully justified suspicion—will inevitably arise that the facts were chosen at random, and that instead of the objective connection and interdependence of historical phenomena in their entirety, a 'subjective' concoction is being substituted to justify what might be a very foul business."
In July 1919, Lenin said: "In order to solve social science problems, and to truly acquire the skill to handle this problem correctly without being lost in a mass of detail or a variety of conflicting opinions... the most reliable, necessary, and important thing is not to forget the basic historical connection." In July 1920, Lenin stated that to explain the "objective situation, one should not cite individual examples and data (social life is so extremely complex that one can always find any number of examples or individual data to confirm any proposition)."
In 2013, at the symposium commemorating the 120th anniversary of Mao Zedong’s birth, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The evaluation of historical figures should be placed within the analysis of the historical conditions of their era and society; it cannot be separated from a comprehensive understanding of historical conditions and processes or a scientific grasp of historical laws; the relationship between historical necessity and historical contingency cannot be ignored. We cannot simply attribute successes in times of historical prosperity to individuals, nor can we simply attribute setbacks in times of historical adversity to individuals."
All the statements above demonstrate that dialectics includes historicity. When studying major historical events and significant historical figures, one must not look only at the activities and sentiments of so-called individuals or individual groups, but at those of the masses. One must proceed from the foundation of the economic life of the whole society and the relations of production among its members, conducting research from a specific class standpoint. Such research is not built on subjectivist, so-called "individual" moral judgments, but on the precise expression of social processes as they actually occurred. This requires grasping and studying all aspects, connections, and "mediations" of major historical events and historical figures. We can never achieve this perfectly, but the requirement for comprehensiveness can prevent us from making errors and falling into regressive rigidity. Dialectics further requires us to observe things through their development, "self-movement" (as Hegel sometimes called it), and change. But as Lenin said: "Dialectics requires an all-round study of a social phenomenon in its development, and that the external and the superficial be reduced to the fundamental driving forces, to the development of the productive forces and to the class struggle." Only in this way can we reflect the essence of the era and its figures, correctly draw lessons from the past, and open up a bright future with confidence.
VIII. Problems are the public, fearless voices of the age that command all individuals; the primary difficulty is not the answer, but first posing the question. The people, including all important figures among them, do not create history as they please, nor can leaders transcend the limitations imposed upon them by their own era.
In May 1842, Marx pointed out: "The problems proposed by an age and any problems that are justified in content, and therefore reasonable, share a common fate: the main difficulty is not the answer, but the problem. Therefore, true criticism analyzes not the answer, but the problem. Just as an algebraic equation can be solved as long as the question is posed with extreme precision and thoroughness, every problem can be answered as long as it is an actual problem." "Problems are the open, fearless, all-dominating time-spirit of the age. Problems are the watchwords of the age, the most practical cry expressing its state of mind." Precisely for this reason, today, as economic globalization develops in depth and as Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has entered the New Era, the questions of China, of the world, of the people, and of the times are the "sounds of the age" that we must strive to answer in order to persist in and develop Marxism, comprehensively build a modern socialist country, promote the building of a community with a shared future for humanity, and create a new form of human civilization. In January 1859, Marx pointed out: "Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation." From 1873 to 1883, Engels pointed out: "We can only know under the conditions of our age and as far as these reach." In July 1937, Mao Zedong also pointed out: "Marx could not have known specifically beforehand some of the peculiar laws of the era of imperialism in the era of free capitalism, because imperialism—this last stage of capitalism—had not yet arrived and there was as yet no such practice; only Lenin and Stalin could undertake this task." General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in the Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC: "We must persist in a problem-oriented approach. Problems are the voice of the times; answering and guiding the solution of problems is the fundamental task of theory." What is a problem? A problem is a contradiction. Mao Zedong said: "Every effort must be made to find the principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved." After the Communist Party takes power, what is the most critical problem? In a certain sense, it is how to ensure that the Party does not change its nature [17] under any circumstances. This is undoubtedly the "Question of China" today; the painful lesson of the collapse of the Soviet Party and State shows that this is also the "Question of the World," the "Question of the People," and the "Question of the Times." In 1897, Lenin said: "Historical services are not judged by what historical figures did not provide which the present requires, but by what they provided that was new compared with their predecessors." Another expression of ensuring the Party never changes its nature is: after the Communist Party takes power, it must leap out of the historical cycle of rise and fall [18]. This is an extremely major strategic task that the international communist movement has not yet fundamentally solved. Regarding this major question of the times, Marx and Engels did not specifically engage in the practice of socialist revolution and construction; we cannot demand that they should have raised it. Lenin had more than six years of practice in socialist revolution and construction, and he developed revolutionary theory on issues such as class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the proletarian party, but he had not yet explicitly and systematically raised this problem. Among the successive generations of leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong, who integrated the universal truths of Marxism with Chinese reality and acutely drew upon the profound lesson of the Soviet Party "quietly changing its color," was the first person to attach the greatest importance to solving the problem of leaping out of the historical cycle of rise and fall. He timely proposed the strategic thought of how to ensure the Party never changes its nature after the proletariat seizes power and engaged in arduous practice to that end. As for the slips or even mistakes that occurred during the difficult exploration of how to realize this fundamental strategic thought of ensuring the Party never changes its nature, we must also attach importance to them by seeking truth from facts and earnestly correct them. However, we must never, on this account, negate Mao Zedong’s strategic thought on the Party never changing its nature itself. From December 1851 to March 1852, Marx pointed out: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." The "men" Marx speaks of here include the leaders of the proletariat. The development of history, like the development of nature, has its own inherent laws. In the process of completing the tasks endowed by the age, due to the limitations of various historical conditions—including various unexpected circumstances—leaders are unable to transcend the limits imposed by their own era or independently shoulder the major subjects endowed by the age. Even in the process of leading the people to solve the subjects of the age, many twists and turns and mistakes may occur. Some people may become dejected, some hesitant and wavering, some complain and criticize, and some flee in disorder, until some eventually defect and betray the cause. Meanwhile, enemies at home and abroad take the opportunity to attack, announcing "another death of Marxism and socialism." Between March and April 1918, Lenin pointed out: "In history, not a single wide and all-embracing people’s movement has ever taken place without some dregs, without some adventurers and swindlers, deceivers and loud-mouthed braggarts attaching themselves to the inexperienced innovators, without some senseless muddle and fuss, without individual 'leaders' trying to deal with twenty matters at once and not finishing one of them. Let the lap-dogs of bourgeois society... bark at every extra chip that is hacked off while we are clearing out the ancient, rotten forest! Since they are lap-dogs, that is what they are there for—to bark at the proletarian elephant. Let them bark!" In August 1918, Lenin said in "A Letter to American Workers": "The great Russian revolutionary Chernyshevsky once said: historical activity is not the pavement of the Nevsky Prospect [19]." "Let the corrupt bourgeois press shout to the whole world about every mistake our revolution makes. We are not afraid of our mistakes. People do not become saints because the revolution has begun. The working class, which has been oppressed, tortured, and kept in a state of poverty, ignorance, and coarseness for centuries, cannot carry out a revolution without making mistakes." "The bourgeoisie and its lackeys... shout to the whole world about our mistakes, but for every hundred mistakes there are ten thousand great and heroic deeds." "Even if the contrary were true... even if for every hundred correct actions there were ten thousand mistakes, our revolution would still be—and in the eyes of world history will be—great and invincible, for this is the first time that not a minority, not the rich and the educated, but the real masses, the vast majority of the working people, are themselves building a new life and are by their own experience solving the most difficult problems of socialist organization. Every mistake made in this work, in this honest and sincere work of tens of millions of ordinary workers and peasants to transform their whole lives, is worth a thousand, a million 'faultless' successes of the exploiting minority—successes in hoodwinking the working people. For only through such mistakes will the workers and peasants learn to build the new life, learn to do without capitalists and learn, in spite of all obstacles, to hew the path to the invincible victory of socialism." In March 1949, Mao Zedong said: "Draw two lines of distinction. First, between revolution and counter-revolution, between Yan'an and Xi'an [20]... Second, within the revolutionary ranks, we must draw a distinction between right and wrong, between achievements and shortcomings, and we must also clarify which of these is primary and which is secondary... In looking at a problem, we must never forget to draw these two lines of distinction: the distinction between revolution and counter-revolution, and the distinction between achievements and shortcomings. If we keep these two lines of distinction in mind, things will be easy to handle; otherwise, the nature of the problem will be confused." In weighing and judging major historical events and important historical figures, we likewise need to draw the two lines of distinction Mao Zedong spoke of above.
IX. Great historical figures mostly have their shortcomings—including sages—they have always made mistakes; once made, they should be corrected; one must not demand too much of great historical figures; authoritative Party workers must be given the opportunity to understand their own leaders and put each leader in his proper place.
In November 1877, Marx said: "The condition for Engels and me to first join the secret communist society was: to discard everything in the statutes that encouraged superstitious authority." In November 1930, Lenin said: "No political activist has not experienced some failure or other; therefore, if we are to speak seriously about how to influence the masses and how to make the masses have 'good wishes,' we should do our best to ensure that these failures are not hidden in the dreary atmosphere created by small circles and sub-circles, but should be brought out for everyone’s review. At first glance, this might seem very inappropriate and might even seem like an 'insult' to individual leaders, but this illusion of inappropriateness must be overcome—it is our duty to the Party and the working class. In this way, and only in this way, can we give all (not just an accidentally selected circle) authoritative Party workers the opportunity to understand their own leaders and put each leader in his proper place." In July 1912, Lenin said: "Workers' leaders are not angels, not saints, and not heroes, but ordinary people. They make mistakes, and the Party corrects those mistakes." In June 1949, Mao Zedong pointed out: "For any political party or any individual, mistakes are always unavoidable. We only require that fewer mistakes be made. When a mistake is made, it is required that it be corrected; the faster and more thorough the correction, the better." In September 1954, Mao Zedong said: "Engels advocated the form of a parliamentary republic after the victory of the proletarian revolution, but Lenin, based on the experience of the Russian October Revolution, believed that the form of a Soviet republic was better. It can be seen that Engels' view was mistaken. Furthermore, both Marx and Engels said at that time that the British revolution could take the form of a peaceful revolution and estimated that the British revolution would come early. Marx and Engels both wanted the revolution to succeed quickly, but in reality, the revolution did not always succeed—what could be done? An old saying goes, 'Man is not a sage, who can be without faults?' [21] I think this sentence should be changed. Humans, including sages, have always had faults; once made, it is fine to correct them." In 1956, in evaluating Sun Yat-sen, Mao Zedong said: "Just as most great historical figures who stand at the front guiding the tide of the age have their shortcomings, Dr. Sun also had his shortcomings. This should be explained from historical conditions so that people can understand; one must not demand too much of our predecessors." Mao Zedong was a truly great Communist, a truly great dialectical materialist and historical materialist. He not only spoke of his own mistakes within the Party and the country but also spoke of them to fraternal parties and the world. In November 1957, in his speech at the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow, Mao Zedong pointed out: "What is the dialectical method? It is to analyze everything and acknowledge that people will always make mistakes; do not negate everything about a person just because they made a mistake. Lenin once said that there is not a single person in the whole world who does not make mistakes. I myself have made many mistakes, and these mistakes have been very beneficial to me; they have educated me." Mao Zedong further said: "Some experiences are gained through pain. This pain has educated us. We should not be angry about this pain. On the contrary, we should be thankful for it, because it made us use our brains to think and strive to avoid that pain. And sure enough, we avoided it. Is that not so?" Mao Zedong also said: "It seems that as soon as one joins the Communist Party, one must be a hundred-percent Marxist to be acceptable. In fact, there are all sorts of Marxists: some are hundred-percent Marxists... some have only ten or twenty percent Marxism." To require a proletarian leader to be so great as to never commit a single mistake—such a leader never existed in the past, does not exist now, and will not exist in the future.
On September 11, 1959, at an enlarged meeting of the CPC Central Military Commission, Mao Zedong pointed out: "People of the past said: 'Unless one is a sage, who can be without fault?' [22] In fact, this saying is also inappropriate; even sages have faults. We are certainly not Confucius, and I believe even Confucius had faults. Every mortal, to a greater or lesser degree and on a larger or smaller scale, will inevitably commit some errors." He continued, "There are many aspects of Marxism that I have not mastered well. I am a person with many shortcomings and am by no means a perfect man; there are many times when I do not like myself." Mao Zedong often remarked, "A person’s most valuable quality is to have self-knowledge" [23] and "As gold cannot be pure, no man can be perfect" [24]. If one examines the Biography of Mao Zedong and the Chronological Biography of Mao Zedong compiled by the Institute of Party History and Literature of the CPC Central Committee, one can find that Mao Zedong offered self-criticism on many occasions. In fact, Mao Zedong possessed the broadest of minds. Toward his comrades-in-arms, subordinates, and friends, he always adhered to the principle of being strict with oneself and lenient with others. Today, when some historians write history, they mention almost no achievements when discussing Mao Zedong, as if everything were an error or even a crime; yet when discussing other leaders, they record nothing but achievements. This is highly unfair and, more importantly, not the truth. That no great figure is flawless is an iron law repeatedly proven by existing history. We absolutely cannot and should not defend Mao Zedong’s oversights or mistakes, but we must also attach great importance to using dialectical materialism and historical materialism to conduct a concrete analysis of them. This is done to extract experiences and lessons in order to further improve our work in the future. At the same time, we should profoundly recognize that in the long river of history, the mistakes committed by some great figures are often insignificant when compared to their monumental achievements. Merely comparing the slips or even the errors of a great figure with those of an ordinary person often creates the illusion that the great figure’s mistakes are extremely large and grave—unforgivable—while the ordinary person's mistakes are extremely small and trivial—negligible. This frequently leads to the phenomenon where some ordinary people feel entitled to drag out deceased great figures at any time or place to offer irresponsible comments. Even more concerning is that certain individuals with ulterior motives, manipulated by domestic and foreign capital, go as far as to engage in flagrant and shameless abuse, attacks, and even malicious slander and rumor-mongering against great figures like Mao Zedong. This is the most cost-effective, effective, direct, and convenient means by which domestic and foreign hostile forces attempt to Westernize and divide us; we must attach great importance to this and respond earnestly. Otherwise, to put it more severely, there is a danger of the Party’s destruction and the nation’s ruin. This is by no means alarmist talk. How do we, as Lenin said, "place each leader in their proper position"? This requires every Party member, especially leading cadres at all levels, to earnestly grasp Lenin’s discourse on the dialectical relationship between leaders, political parties, classes, and the masses. They must truly learn and understand the profound yet accessible truth that the masses are the real heroes, and that the leader is merely a member of the masses—albeit a prominent representative of the fundamental interests of the masses.