Quotations from Chairman Mao
Certain culture is a reflection of the political and economic ideas of a given society. In China, there is imperialist culture, which reflects the imperialist domination or semi-domination over China in political and economic terms. … In China, there is also semi-feudal culture, which reflects the semi-feudal political and economic systems. Those who advocate respecting Confucius, reading classics, promoting old rites and ideas, and opposing new culture and new ideas are representatives of this type of culture. Imperialist culture and semi-feudal culture are very close brothers; they form a reactionary cultural alliance to oppose China’s new culture. These reactionary cultures serve imperialism and the feudal classes and must be overthrown. Without overthrowing these, no new culture can be established. No destruction, no construction; no blockage, no flow; no stopping, no progress. The struggle between them is a life-and-death struggle.
— (From “On New Democracy”)
An important task on our current ideological front is to carry out criticism of revisionism. We must grasp the class struggle in the ideological sphere.
Words from the Publisher
In accordance with Chairman Mao’s teachings of “one side working, one side producing, and one side studying,” to help the broad masses of young people going to the countryside and returning to their hometowns, as well as those participating in urban industry, commerce, and various trades, to further study politics, culture, science, and technology, and to follow the path of both red and specialized development, and to play a greater role in the socialist revolution and socialist construction, we have edited and published this set of “Self-Study Materials for Worker-Peasant Youth.”
This series of materials strives to be guided by Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, closely linked with the three great revolutionary movements, paying attention to cultivating worker-peasant youth’s ability to analyze and solve problems, guiding them to gradually improve in theory based on practice, and then to guide practice.
In content, it aims to be simple and easy to understand, suitable for self-study.
Chairman Mao teaches us: “Read seriously and understand Marxism.”
Our youth must strictly demand of themselves, striving to master the basic theories of Marxism, understand the history of the struggle between Marxism and the various opportunisms and revisionisms, and understand how Chairman Mao combined the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with revolutionary practice, inheriting, defending, and developing Marxism-Leninism.
To help the broad masses of worker-peasant youth learn Marxism and arm themselves with its basic theories, and to guide the three great revolutionary practices, this series of materials specifically includes the “Philosophy and Social Sciences Series.”
“Confucius is the Founder of Counterrevolutionary Reversal” is one of the works in the “Philosophy and Social Sciences Series.”
The Tenth Congress of the Party called for continuing to improve the campaign to criticize Lin Biao and rectify the Party. Lin Biao and Liu Shaoqi, like Confucius, used reactionary ideas to poison the people and serve their counterrevolutionary revisionist line. Therefore, criticizing Confucius’s reactionary ideas is an important aspect of the political and ideological critique of Lin Biao’s counterrevolutionary revisionist line. It is a political struggle in the superstructure and a necessity for continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
This book first discusses the era in which Confucius lived and his reactionary political stance of stubbornly defending the declining slave system; then analyzes and criticizes the main reactionary theories and propositions in Confucius’s political, philosophical, and educational ideas, exposing the evil intentions of Lin Biao and similar frauds who promote Confucius’s reactionary ideas; later, it discusses how successive reactionary ruling classes used Confucius’s ideas to serve their reactionary rule, how the revisionist line within the Party used Confucius’s ideas to serve their counterrevolutionary restoration plots, emphasizing that Confucius’s thought is a black root of Lin Biao’s reactionary ideas, revealing the extreme right nature of Lin Biao’s line from the ideological root.
This book was collectively written by the 1970 graduates of the Department of Philosophy at Peking University, who, following Chairman Mao’s great teaching that “the humanities should regard the entire society as their factory,” rapidly grew under the leadership of Party organizations along the path of both red and specialized development, bringing vitality to the educational revolution. The publication of this book demonstrates that worker-peasant-soldier students under Chairman Mao’s proletarian education line can grasp cultural power. The achievement of workers, peasants, soldiers, and revolutionary teachers fighting together is itself a strong critique of Lin Biao’s counterrevolutionary revisionist line.
During the process of writing this book, we received enthusiastic help from broad worker-peasant-soldier students and knowledge youth going to the countryside. We express our gratitude here. Due to our limited experience and level, there are inevitable shortcomings in our work, and we earnestly hope that readers will provide criticism and suggestions.
People’s Education Press “Self-Study Materials for Worker-Peasant Youth” Editorial Group
November 1973
Confucius is the Founder of Counterrevolutionary Reversal
Confucius was a reactionary thinker who promoted counterrevolutionary restoration for the slave-owning class. His name was Qiu, courtesy name Zhongni, a native of Lu State during the Spring and Autumn period, born in 551 BC and died in 479 BC, over two thousand four hundred years ago. His ancestors were originally slave-owning aristocrats of the Shang Dynasty’s Song State, who later fled to Lu due to internal strife among the Song aristocracy. By the generations before Confucius, his family had gradually declined.
Confucius’s initial profession was to handle funerals for others, probably as a drum and flute player. People engaged in this profession were called “Ru” at the time. Later, the “Confucian” school grew stronger, and “Ru” became the exclusive name for their school. To restore slavery, Confucius was eager to become an official, traveled among various states promoting his reactionary political ideas, but faced rejection everywhere. It was not until 497 BC that he served as a Minister of Crime (an official in charge of justice) in Lu for three months, and for a time, he acted as Prime Minister, engaging in many reactionary activities.
During the Spring and Autumn period, slavery was collapsing day by day, and feudalism was rising. The struggle between slaves and slave owners, and between emerging feudal lords and declining slave-owning aristocrats, was fierce. For a long time, due to the brutal exploitation and oppression by slave owners, slaves constantly rebelled—some fled, some rose in uprisings. For example: in 550 BC, slaves building the city of Chen revolted; in 522 BC, a large number of slaves in Zheng fled to reed-dense areas to rebel; in 520 BC, the handicraft slaves of the Zhou royal family also rose in rebellion.
The mass escapes and continuous uprisings of slaves fundamentally shook the rule of the slave-owning aristocrats, disintegrated the slave production relations, and accelerated the emergence of feudal production relations.
In the Western Zhou, land and slaves belonged to the largest slave-owning aristocrat—the “Son of Heaven” (royalty)—who parceled out land to lords (dukes), ministers, and other slave-owning aristocrats. This land was called “Gongtian,” and slaves were forced to farm it. Slaves had no personal freedom, and slave owners could kill them at will.
By the Spring and Autumn period, the struggle of slaves against their masters shook the rule of the slave-owning aristocrats. Some aristocrats, taking advantage of the development of class struggle, recruited fleeing slaves to cultivate wasteland, called “Siti” (private land), adopting new feudal exploitative methods.
Initially, the royal family and the feudal lords did not recognize the legality of private land. Later, private land increased, and some lords, to alleviate fiscal difficulties, began taxing private land. In 594 BC, the “initial tax mu” was recorded in Lu history. The “initial tax mu” explicitly stipulated that private land must pay taxes based on its actual area, thus de facto recognizing feudal land ownership and indicating the disintegration of slavery and the transition to feudal society.
In Lu, the representative family of the emerging feudal forces was the Ji Sun clan. Relying on the wave of slave uprisings, they fought fiercely against the stubborn maintenance of slavery by the Lu royal family. In 562 BC, the Ji Sun and two other new feudal clans, Meng Sun and Shu Sun, divided the royal estate among themselves, “three-parting the public land,” effectively dividing Lu’s land. They also adopted a taxation system. After twenty-five years, they further divided the land into four parts, with Meng Sun and Shu Sun adopting the same taxation system.
This was a huge social transformation replacing the decayed slave system with emerging feudal production relations.
As the social and economic foundation changed, the entire superstructure also changed. First was the transfer of political power. The emerging feudal lords seized power, issuing commands and disregarding the Son of Heaven and the feudal lords. To consolidate the new relations and their seized power, these new feudal lords began implementing “rule of law,” opposing the “ritual rule” that maintained the hierarchical order of slave society in Western Zhou.
In 513 BC, representatives of the Jin feudal forces took measures to implement rule of law: they cast the current legal code on tripods, published it, and required all to obey it. Violators, including aristocrats, were punished, marking the event known as “Casting the Punishment Tripod.” The promulgated laws played a positive role in limiting the privileges of aristocrats and accelerating the development of feudal relations. The emergence of rule of law and the destruction of “ritual rule” marked the so-called “breakdown of rites and music.”
The transformation from slavery to feudalism, with political power shifting from the declining slave-owning aristocrats to the emerging feudal lords, and the replacement of “ritual rule” by rule of law, was a major victory for the emerging feudal landlord class in their struggle against the slave-owning aristocrats. However, the aristocrats were unwilling to accept defeat. To restore “ritual rule” and re-establish slavery, they launched a counterattack to seize power. The struggle between restoration and counterrestoration, between seizing and losing power, and between implementing rule of law and maintaining “ritual rule,” was fierce. Class differentiation and class struggle penetrated into the relationships between monarchs and ministers, and between fathers and sons.
This is the basic situation of Confucius’s society.
Confucius was in such a period of great upheaval. What were his political propositions? Not only did he oppose the tide of history and oppose reform, but he also stubbornly stood on the side of the slave-owning aristocrats, fiercely opposing social change and engaging in counterrevolutionary restoration. First, he opposed the emerging feudal system and advocated restoring the old slave system. For example, in 485 BC, when Ji Sun was preparing to further reform the tax system and implement a new “Tianfu system,” Confucius strongly opposed it. Lu had been implementing the initial tax mu for over a hundred years, and Confucius still opposed it—completely reversing progress and engaging in restoration. Second, he opposed the emerging feudal lords’ seizure of power and advocated restoring the power lost by the aristocrats. For example, the emerging feudal lords Ji Sun, Meng Sun, and Shu Sun built their own capitals, symbolizing their greater power, but Confucius colluded with Duke Ding of Lu to demolish these capitals and promoted the reactionary act of “falling the three capitals” (destroying them). Third, he opposed implementing rule of law and advocated restoring “ritual rule.” When he heard that Jin cast the punishment tripods, he cursed Jin for losing the ancestral laws and predicted the fall of the state. Fourth, he opposed reform and the dissemination of new ideas, advocating restoring old ideas. When Confucius served as Prime Minister for seven days, he killed the reformist Shao Zhengmao, accusing him of “gathering crowds and forming cliques,” “spreading heretical teachings,” and “confusing right and wrong.” Shao Zhengmao promoted reform, aligning with the historical development and popular wishes, and was deeply loved by the masses. Confucius’s killing of Shao Zhengmao was a manifestation of the intensification of class struggle at that time. Fifth, to oppose change and restore the old order, he arbitrarily attacked the revolutionary actions of the emerging forces. In his later years, Confucius edited the Lu Annals, which contained rich historical materials, deleting and altering parts to write the “Spring and Autumn” in a stance opposed to new things, standing on the side of the slave-owning class. For example, the kings of Wu and Chu had already declared themselves kings, but Confucius still called them “Zi” (son) in the “Spring and Autumn” to maintain Zhou rites, as “Zi” was the title given to the vassals of Zhou. Similarly, the emerging landlord class in Qi, represented by Chen Heng, killed the aristocrat Duke Ji of Qi, which was a revolutionary act, but in the “Spring and Autumn,” it was written as “Qi people assassinated their ruler in Shuzhou.” (“The people of Qi murdered their ruler in Shuzhou.”) The character “shi” (murder) refers specifically to regicide or regicide-like acts, such as son killing father or臣 killing ruler, considered “rebellion.” Confucius used the character “shi” here to imply that it was an act of臣 killing ruler, a “rebellion.” These examples fully reveal Confucius’s stubborn reactionary stance. In modern terms, his “Spring and Autumn” is essentially a book of conspiracy to overthrow the heavens.
Standing on such a reactionary position, Confucius inherited the old culture of Western Zhou’s slave society, fabricated reactionary public opinion, and engaged in counterrevolutionary activities. In this process, he formed a complete system of reactionary ideas to maintain reactionary rule. The core of this ideological system is “Ren” (benevolence). The “Ren” he advocates includes all his political propositions and moral concepts, such as “restoring rites,” “rectifying names,” “filial piety,” “loyalty and forgiveness,” etc. His ideological system also includes political philosophy, such as “Mandate of Heaven,” and educational ideas like “learning to serve” and so on. All these serve the reactionary political goal of restoring slavery.
History is constantly moving forward. Since the collapse of primitive communes, the history of class struggle between slaves and slave owners, from slave society through feudal and capitalist societies to all societies up to the present, is a history of class struggle. As the great leader Chairman Mao taught us: “In history, before and after the ruling classes—slave-owning, feudal landlord, and bourgeoisie—they are vigorous, revolutionary, and advanced. They are the true old tigers. Later, due to their opposition, the slave class, peasant class, and proletariat gradually grew stronger and fought against them, becoming more and more fierce. They then gradually turned into reactionaries, backward people, and paper tigers, ultimately or eventually overthrown by the people.” When Confucius’s society was about to be overthrown by the emerging landlord class, he attempted to restore the slave society and stubbornly opposed progress, which violated the laws of historical development.
However, all subsequent reactionary ruling classes, when faced with resistance from the peasant and proletarian classes and about to be overthrown, always vainly seek help from Confucius’s spirit. From the successive reactionary rulers to the revisionist line within the Party led by Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao, it has always been so. Under the leadership of Chairman Mao and the mighty dictatorship of the proletariat, frauds like Lin Biao were quickly eliminated. Anyone who defies the course of history will inevitably suffer defeat and become a sinner of history.
The “classic” Confucius recited all his life was nothing but a “classic” aimed at restoring slavery—a cannibalistic “scripture” of restoration. We will analyze and criticize Confucius’s reactionary ideological system further, and compare it with the “scriptures” recited by frauds like Lin Biao. It is not difficult to see that one of the founding ancestors of their counterrevolutionary restoration attempt is Confucius, which more clearly exposes the extreme right nature of Lin Biao and similar revisionists’ counterrevolutionary line.# “Fuli” is the restoration of slavery
Confucius stubbornly stood on the side of the declining slave-owning aristocracy, advocating for conservatism and firmly demanding the restoration of “Zhou rites.” He said: “If anyone wants to use me, I will definitely revive Zhou rites in the East!” Therefore, restoring Zhou rites was a reactionary political line of Confucius, essentially an attempt to restore the decayed slave system that was being gradually replaced by the emerging feudal system, allowing the already or gradually losing power slave-owning aristocrats to regain or consolidate their authority. This is to defend the old forces, suppress emerging forces, oppose social change, and reverse history.
What kind of thing is “li” (礼)? The “li” that Confucius wanted to restore was the regulations and moral norms of the slave society of Western Zhou. After long-term development, by the time of Western Zhou, a complex set of regulations had been formed, including what clothes nobles of different ranks wore, what carriages they used, what kind of houses they lived in, how many people formed a band, what kind of funeral was held after death, etc. “Li” established the privileged status of slave-owning aristocrats, the different statuses of various levels of slave-owning aristocrats, and the relationships of superiority and inferiority, etc.
The most fundamental content of “li” concerns the social and economic system, the state political system, and the methods of rule. First, the economic system of Western Zhou slave society was the land nationalization system of the slave-owning aristocrats, with all land owned by the highest aristocrat—the Son of Heaven. The vassals, nobles, ministers, and scholars below the Son of Heaven only had usage rights over the land, not ownership. Such land is the “gong tian” (公田) previously mentioned. Slaves cultivated the “gong tian,” and the harvest was seized by the slave owners, who also forced slaves to perform various labor such as building city walls, roads, ditches, and palaces. Second, politically, the Son of Heaven held the highest authority. He could, based on the needs of maintaining slavery, regulate the li and yue (music) systems, and decide on major military campaigns. Vassals could establish states within their territories and exercise governance, but they had no decision-making power over major affairs like regulating li, yue, or military campaigns. Nobles and ministers could exploit within their territories but could not establish their own states or titles. The Son of Heaven, vassals, nobles, and ministers all inherited their positions—each was succeeded by their eldest son (嫡长子, “dizhangzi,” meaning the eldest son born of the main wife under the ancestral law system), and this inheritance was passed down through generations unchanged. Third, the ruling methods of the slave-owning aristocrats were: depriving slaves of all personal freedom, forcing them to serve as slaves for generations. If slaves resisted oppression or escaped and were caught, they would be subjected to insults, whipping, or even brutal punishments such as nose-cutting, eye-gouging, amputation, or killing. As for within the aristocratic class, they treated each other with “li” and did not impose “punishments”; only those who violated the “li” of slave society and were deemed to have committed “serious crimes” were sentenced to death by the Son of Heaven or vassals (meaning they were granted death, which in practice meant forced suicide). This is the so-called “punishments do not reach the grand ministers, and li does not extend to commoners” (“庶人”, shù, meaning common people). By the late Western Zhou, the rule of the slave-owning aristocrats over slaves became even more brutal. Even some so-called “nationals” within the aristocratic domain who criticized the Son of Heaven were severely suppressed; people dared not speak out, and when acquaintances met on the road, they could only exchange glances and go their separate ways. The combination of the economic system, political system, and ruling methods described above constitutes the “li” of Western Zhou slave society that Confucius wanted to restore.
Confucius desperately worshipped Zhou rites, claiming that “the ritual system of the Zhou Dynasty was based on the two previous dynasties of Xia and Shang, so rich and colorful! I want to follow the Zhou system.” He said this and also acted accordingly. As previously mentioned, in 594 BCE, the State of Lu had already implemented the initial tax and land system, and the slave system was disintegrating. However, by 485 BCE, the Ji Sun clan was preparing to reform the tax system and implement land taxes to further develop the feudal economy, but Confucius still firmly opposed it. At that time, Ji Sun sent Ran Qiu (冉求, a student of Confucius who helped the Ji Sun clan reform the land tax system) to consult Confucius. Confucius refused to answer. Ran Qiu asked three times in succession, and finally, as a teacher to a student, Confucius said: “A moral person should do things according to li; if not according to li, that is chaos. If Ji Sun is willing to follow the rules, then the system of Duke Zhou is there; if they act arbitrarily, then why ask me?” Confucius insulted Ji Sun’s reform of the land tax system as “acting arbitrarily,” and what was he trying to do? The purpose was nothing but to insist on restoring the economic system of Western Zhou slavery.
Not only did Confucius attempt to restore the economic system of Western Zhou slavery, but he also sought to restore the ruling power that the Son of Heaven had lost. He strongly opposed acts of “usurpation.” According to Zhou rites, during ancestor worship, the Son of Heaven used a dance troupe of sixty-four people, vassals used forty-eight, and nobles and ministers used thirty-two. Ji Sun was originally a first-rank minister, and during ancestor worship, he used sixty-four dancers in the temple courtyard, which was an overstep of the Son of Heaven’s rites. Confucius, upon learning this, was furious and shouted: “This is intolerable, who can bear it?” In modern terms, it was “If this behavior is tolerated, what can’t be tolerated?” To eliminate a fallen vassal of the declining slave-owning aristocracy, the State of Lu’s subordinate Zhuang Yu (颛臾, zhuān yú) was preparing to attack, and Ran Qiu and Zilu were consulting Confucius. Confucius said: “Ran Qiu, should I not blame you? Zhuang Yu was a vassal state established by the former Zhou Son of Heaven to preside over the sacrifices on Mount Dongmeng, and it was within Lu’s territory; it was a subordinate of Lu, how can we attack it?” According to Confucius, even if a slave-owning aristocrat lost his country, severed his lineage, and fell from his status, he should be restored—that is called “restoring the fallen state, continuing the extinct line, and supporting the exiled.” Of course, the fallen vassal state of Zhuang Yu could not be eliminated. Therefore, Confucius believed that Ji Sun’s actions were reckless. Since Ji Sun was a great minister of Lu, to use force to attack was a sign of “a state without virtue.” So, Confucius thought Ji Sun’s actions were reckless.
How is “tianxia youdao” (天下有道, “the world is in the right way”) achieved? Confucius said: “When the world is in the right way, major affairs such as ritual, music, and military campaigns are decided by the Son of Heaven,” and “when the world is in the right way, state power is not in the hands of the ministers.” Confucius could not tolerate Ji Sun’s “usurpation” during ancestor worship, and he also denounced Ji Sun’s military campaigns as “unrighteous,” with the purpose of restoring the power lost by the Zhou Son of Heaven and reestablishing the political system of Western Zhou slavery.
Confucius desperately engaged in counterrevolutionary restoration, stubbornly opposing the emerging feudal system. Once, Ji Sun’s retainer Gong Shan Fu Rao (公山弗扰, a personal name) occupied Ji Sun’s Fe (费, a place name) and rebelled, sending people to ask Confucius for help. Confucius was eager to go and ambitiously said: “King Wen and King Wu of Zhou initially started from small places like Feng and Hao, and finally the Zhou Dynasty ruled the world. Although Fe is very small, can’t it become my Feng and Hao?” His student Zilu disagreed with him. He then said: “People come to invite me, is there no intention behind it? If anyone wants to use me, I will definitely revive Zhou rites in the East,” but because Zilu firmly opposed, Confucius could not go. This incident also fully exposed his desire to find a territory to implement counterrevolutionary restoration. To “restore li,” Confucius desperately opposed revolutionary change and the development of the new feudal system. As previously mentioned, he opposed casting the punitive cauldrons, which clearly illustrates this. He argued: “The State of Jin should follow the laws handed down by their ancestor Tang Shu to govern slaves; nobles and ministers should each do their own duties. Only then can slaves obey the rule of the aristocrats, and aristocrats can preserve their family businesses. The hierarchy of nobility and commoners must not be confused. This is called the law. Now, casting the punitive cauldrons mixes nobles and slaves; how can it show the dignity and greatness of the aristocrats? How can slaves obey the aristocrats? What family business do the aristocrats have left to protect? Without distinctions between high and low, what kind of slave society is this?” Here, Confucius clearly revealed his true motive for opposing the casting of the punitive cauldrons: to maintain the dignity of the slave-owning aristocrats and uphold the hierarchical system of slave society, thus preserving the aristocrats’ family businesses. In short, he aimed to restore “li governance” and maintain the rule of the aristocrats. This fact shows that Confucius was not only a fervent advocate of the reactionary political slogan “self-restraint and restoring li,” but also its faithful executor, with the goal of restoring the Western Zhou slave system.
Confucius said: “Self-restraint and restoring li, the world will return to benevolence.” He vigorously upheld the so-called “benevolence” of the “li” governance of slave society, but cruelly murdered slaves. Once, Duke Jing of Qi invited Duke Ding of Lu to meet at Jiagu, with Confucius as Duke Ding’s retainer. Qi prepared a program of singing and dancing, including a set called “Palace Music,” performed during the meeting. The slaves performing the singing and dancing were brought forward. Confucius saw something that did not conform to Zhou rites and hurriedly went to the high platform where the two dukes met, saying: “In such a solemn scene of the two dukes’ meeting, slaves performing this set is a great disrespect to the vassals and should be sentenced to death! Execute immediately!” The slaves were executed on the spot. To uphold the “li” of slave society, Confucius treated slaves so ruthlessly, fully exposing the brutal nature of his advocacy for Zhou rites.
From these facts, we can clearly see that Confucius’s advocacy of “self-restraint and restoring li” was to restore the economic system, political system, and ruling methods of Western Zhou, i.e., to fully restore the Western Zhou slave system. Confucius himself was a person intent on counterrevolutionary restoration; he aimed to reverse history and restore the collapsing slave system to continue its existence. The emerging social system is invincible, and the decayed social system is bound to perish. Confucius’s counterrevolutionary actions were opposed by revolutionary forces everywhere and condemned by revolutionary people at all times. He traveled everywhere but kept hitting walls, like a “dog that has lost its home,” which is the inevitable result of his counterrevolutionary restoration.
Throughout history, reactionary rulers have all revered Confucius. Lu Xun once said that they “defend the ancients, which is to defend themselves.” As Marx pointed out, they are “using the vile acts of yesterday to justify the vile acts of today.” Bourgeois ambitious schemers, conspirators, counterrevolutionary double agents, traitors, and traitorous scoundrels like Lin Biao follow in the footsteps of reactionary forces, shamelessly praising Confucius. Their sinister purpose is to find spiritual weapons in Confucius’s reactionary ideas to attack the proletariat. During the collapse of the slave system, Confucius sought to restore it; today, Lin Biao, in our socialist society, aims to restore capitalism. Confucius condemned the emerging feudal system of his time to pull society back into Western Zhou’s slave society; Lin Biao attacks today’s socialist system to drag China back into semi-colonial, semi-feudal old China. Truly, they are of the same vein, with the same face of counterrevolutionary restoration.
Engels pointed out: “All revolutions that have occurred so far are to defend one form of ownership against another.” Under the leadership of our great leader Chairman Mao, the Chinese people, after long and arduous revolutionary struggles, overthrew the three great enemies and established a proletarian dictatorship. The working people transformed from slaves of the old society into masters of the new society. Based on the development of production, the material and cultural life of the proletariat and working people has continuously improved, which is fundamentally incomparable to the old society. Lin Biao and his gang deny the fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism, betray Marxist theory of the state under proletarian dictatorship, and talk nonsense about “true socialism,” which is a complete reactionary trick to deceive people. Their malicious intent is to restore the landowning and bourgeoisie classes they have overthrown, to restore their lost “paradise,” and make the proletariat and working people suffer twice and endure twice the hardship. The “true socialism” Lin Biao seeks to establish is just this kind of black market.
The great leader Chairman Mao has long pointed out: “The socialist system will ultimately replace the capitalist system; this is an objective law that cannot be changed by human will.” Lin Biao’s violation of this historical law, his conspiracy to restore capitalism, can only lead to a shameful end of being shattered and dead without a burial. Confucius’s attempt at counterrevolutionary restoration failed, and Lin Biao’s at the cost of his life; all reactionary elements involved in counterrevolutionary restoration will not have a good outcome.
“Zhengming” (正名) is to restore the “li” governance of slave society
The Spring and Autumn period was a time of major social system transformation. The regulations and moral norms of slave society gradually fell into disuse, and the wave of reform struck the crumbling slave system, plunging society into a state of “chaos.” This chaos frightened the declining slave-owning aristocracy’s spokesperson, Confucius. He desperately sought to maintain and restore the Western Zhou slave system, attempting to block the wheel of history. Confucius’s advocacy of “Zhengming” (正名, “correcting names”) was for this reactionary political purpose.
What is “Zhengming”?
When Confucius led a group of students to promote his political ideas in the State of Wei, one day, Zilu asked Confucius: “If the ruler of Wei asked you to take office, what would you do first?” Confucius replied: “Of course, I would correct the names!” Zilu disagreed, saying: “Master, you are too much of a bookworm! What do you mean by ‘correcting names’?” Confucius thought Zilu was rude and ignorant, scolded him, and then explained in detail the necessity of “Zhengming.” Confucius said: “If the names are not correct, then the hierarchical system of slavery cannot be strictly observed; the aristocrats cannot give orders; the state affairs cannot be carried out; the rituals and music that uphold slavery cannot be maintained; the punishments to suppress slaves become useless. Then how can the slaves honestly obey?” From this, we see that Confucius believed that the chaos of society at that time stemmed from “incorrect names,” meaning that people of different ranks did not act according to their proper status. Therefore, he thought that to restore order to the slave society, it was necessary to restore the “li” governance of slave society, restore the old regulations and moral norms of Western Zhou, strictly observe the hierarchy, and each person act according to their proper name to prevent the collapse of the slave system and maintain or restore the rule of the slave-owning aristocrats. This is the essence of Confucius’s “Zhengming.”
During the Spring and Autumn period, due to the emergence and development of feudal production relations, the regulations and moral norms of slave society, i.e., the so-called Zhou rites, gradually lost their role in constraining people’s thoughts and actions. The most intolerable violations of the Zhou rites, such as “disloyalty” and “unfilial piety,” occurred repeatedly. For example: the Shang official of Chu killed his father, King Chu Cheng; the noble Ji Sun expelled Duke Zhao of Lu, causing him to wander abroad and die. Such acts of sons killing fathers, ministers killing rulers, or expelling rulers, were very common during the Spring and Autumn period. This reflected the intensification of class contradictions and class struggle at that time. According to Zhou rites, any act against the ruler or father, whether right or wrong, was to be accused of “disloyalty” or “unfilial piety.” However, by this time, the situation was different. When Ji Sun expelled Duke Zhao, the common people supported him; Duke Zhao died abroad, and no one sympathized with him or considered Ji Sun’s actions as wrong. Why? Because Ji Sun was a representative of the emerging feudal forces in Lu. He recruited many runaway slaves, cultivated private land, and broke the production relations of slave society, promoting the development of productive forces at that time. He paid no heed to Zhou rites, and people did not follow the old rules of Zhou rites to criticize Ji Sun. This indicated that the rise of new feudal production relations was in line with social development needs. The trend of public opinion itself was a critique of reactionary ideas that aimed to uphold the slave system.
Confucius, stubbornly standing on the side of the declining slave-owning aristocracy, was extremely dissatisfied with acts that violated Zhou rites, believing that they must be corrected according to Zhou rites, and that people should strictly follow the regulations of Zhou rites to restrict their actions. At that time, the feudal forces in Qi were gradually rising, and power was gradually falling into the hands of the ministers, which was very unfavorable to the maintenance of slavery. Seeing this situation, Confucius hurriedly advised Duke Jing of Qi: “To govern well, one must ‘rule as a ruler, serve as a minister, be a father as a father, and be a son as a son.’” That is, each person of each rank must keep to their own duties, fulfill their responsibilities, and restrict their actions according to their rank and name, not doing anything inconsistent with their status. After hearing Confucius’s words, Duke Jing was very pleased and said: “You are right! If the ruler does not act as a ruler, the minister as a minister, the father as a father, and the son as a son, even if there is plenty of grain, can I eat it?” Confucius’s proposal gained the admiration of the slave-owning class, but only the minister Yan Ying firmly opposed it, and Duke Jing did not implement Confucius’s suggestion. Seeing that his political ideas could not be realized in Qi, Confucius had to leave in frustration and return to Lu.
Lu, like Qi, due to the development of feudal forces, saw the power gradually shift downward, and actual power was held by the three great ministers Ji Sun, Shu Sun, and Meng Sun. They not only held great power and implemented many reforms but also established their own capitals and armed forces. Ji Sun’s capital was Fe; Shu Sun’s was Cheng (成, chéng); Meng Sun’s was Cheng (成, chéng). (Fè, Chéng, and Chéng are in present-day Feixian, Dongping, and Ningyang in Shandong Province.) Confucius believed that, according to Zhou rites, nobles should not have capitals or armed forces. Now, these three ministers had built their own capitals, which was inconsistent with their rank, and needed correction. Therefore, Confucius, after taking office in Lu, colluded with Duke Ding of Lu to demolish these three capitals. Fe and Cheng were demolished one after another, only Cheng was spared because a retainer of Meng Sun suggested resistance, and it was not destroyed. The destruction of the three capitals shows that Confucius was not only a “correcting names” advocate but also a practitioner; he used actual actions to undermine the reforms of the emerging feudal forces and to oppose the revolutionary change, acting against the new feudal trend.
The tide of history is unstoppable. The slave society must be replaced by feudal society; this is an objective law that cannot be changed by human will. Confucius’s promotion of Zhou rites and “correcting names” was contrary to the historical development law and was a reactionary idealist nonsense, thus inevitably doomed to failure.
Engels pointed out: “All revolutions that have occurred so far are to defend one form of ownership against another.” Under the leadership of our great leader Chairman Mao, the Chinese people, after long and arduous revolutionary struggles, overthrew the three great enemies and established a proletarian dictatorship. The working people transformed from slaves of the old society into masters of the new society. On the basis of developing production, the material and cultural life of the proletariat and working people has continuously improved, which is fundamentally incomparable to the old society. Lin Biao and his gang deny the fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism, betray Marxist theory of the state under proletarian dictatorship, and talk nonsense about “true socialism,” which is a complete reactionary trick to deceive people. Their malicious purpose is to restore the landowning and bourgeoisie classes they have overthrown, to restore their lost “paradise,” and make the proletariat and working people suffer twice and endure twice the hardship. The “true socialism” Lin Biao seeks to establish is just this kind of black market.
The great leader Chairman Mao has long pointed out: “The socialist system will ultimately replace the capitalist system; this is an objective law that cannot be changed by human will.” Lin Biao’s violation of this historical law, his conspiracy to restore capitalism, can only lead to a shameful end of being shattered and dead without a burial. Confucius’s attempt at counterrevolutionary restoration failed, and Lin Biao’s at the cost of his life; all reactionary elements involved in counterrevolutionary restoration will not have a good outcome.# The Class Essence of “Loving Others” and “Loyalty and Forgiveness”
Confucius established a whole set of political moral concepts centered on “Ren” (仁) to uphold and restore slavery. He defined various specific contents for “Ren” and provided explanations. Once, Confucius’s student Fan Chi asked him what “Ren” was. Confucius replied: “Loving others.” On the surface, “Loving others” seems to mean loving all people universally, but the reality is completely different.
First of all, Confucius absolutely did not love slaves. In his mind, slaves were merely “talking tools,” cattle and horses used by the slave-owning aristocrats. In Confucius’s view, slaves were very difficult to “breed,” and naturally, there could be no talk of loving them. Once, the slaves of the State of Zheng rose in rebellion, gathering in a dense reed marsh. The Zheng aristocrats sent troops to suppress the uprising, killing all the slaves involved. When Confucius heard about it, he was extremely pleased, saying, “Good! They have been too lenient with the slaves; the slaves rebel because of this, and they must be dealt with severely!” See, this reactionary thinker Confucius, representing the slave-owning aristocrats, was extremely cruel and vicious towards slaves!
Confucius not only did not love slaves, but also did not love the emerging feudal forces that represented advanced productive relations at the time. He believed that these emerging feudal forces were “inhumane to the rich,” always violating the hierarchical system of the slave-owning aristocrats and doing things unworthy of their status. Therefore, he not only insulted the reform of the land tax system by the Ji Sun family, calling it “reckless,” but also, after his student Ran Qiu helped the Ji Sun family reform the land tax system, he became very angry, stormed in a rage, and declared that Ran Qiu was no longer his student, and ordered other students to “beat drums and attack him.”
Who did Confucius truly love? Among his students, he loved Yan Hui the most because Yan Hui’s political thoughts were completely consistent with Confucius’s, almost like a little Confucius. Confucius also especially loved the great slave-owning aristocrats, praising them as “Mandated by Heaven,” “Sage Kings” born with knowledge, who should dominate the human world and be the natural rulers of the working people. Confucius admired the early Zhou Dynasty’s great aristocrat Duke of Zhou very much, loved him to death, and often dreamed of him even in sleep. Later, when he grew old and had not dreamed of Duke of Zhou for a long time, Confucius was deeply saddened and lamented. The reactionary Neo-Confucian Zhu Xi (xī, pronounced Xī) from the Song Dynasty explained Confucius’s dream of Duke of Zhou, saying that when Confucius was young and vigorous, he was eager to “practice Duke of Zhou’s Way,” that is, to implement the slave-master ruling plan devised by Duke of Zhou. So he kept dreaming of Duke of Zhou. When he grew old and saw that his ideal had become an illusion, he sighed because he hadn’t dreamed of Duke of Zhou for a long time. Zhu Xi’s explanation revealed the true nature of Confucius’s dream of Duke of Zhou—he dreamed of “practicing Duke of Zhou’s Way,” which exposed the true face of Confucius’s “Loving Others”—he loved the slave-owning class.
Chairman Mao pointed out: “There is no such thing as love or hatred without reason in this world. As for the so-called ‘Love of Humanity,’ since humanity has divided into classes, such a unified love has never existed. In the past, all ruling classes liked to promote this thing, and many so-called sages and wise men also liked to promote it, but no one has truly practiced it, because it is impossible to do so in a class society.” Confucius, standing on the reactionary position of the slave-owning aristocrats, decided whom to love and whom to hate, and to what extent, based on whether it was beneficial for the restoration of the Western Zhou slave system. This clearly shows that Confucius’s so-called “Loving Others” had a distinct class character. Many figures in history who supported Confucianism and the reactionary ruling classes have claimed that Confucius’s “Loving Others” advocated mutual care among all classes. The examples given earlier expose these lies and reveal the reactionary class essence of Confucius’s so-called “Loving Others.”
The specific content of Confucius’s “Ren” (仁) is very complex, with two particularly important aspects: “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” (孝悌) and “Loyalty and Forgiveness” (忠恕). We will discuss “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” later. Here, we first talk about his so-called “Loyalty and Forgiveness.”
“Loyalty” means loyalty to the ruler. Ministers must be utterly loyal to the sovereign, and vassals must be utterly loyal to the Zhou King.
As for “Forgiveness,” Confucius said it means “not imposing on others what you yourself do not desire.” On the surface, it seems to mean that “what you do not want to suffer yourself, you should not impose on others,” as if all people could understand and care for each other. But in reality, this is not the case. Both “self” and “others” are not abstract persons but have class characteristics. The actual meaning of “not imposing on others what you do not want yourself” in Confucius’s words is that, within the slave-owning class, people should follow the “rites” and their respective ranks and statuses to treat each other accordingly. For example, the small slave-owning aristocrats demand their ministers to be loyal to themselves, so they should be loyal to the big slave-owning aristocrats; demand their sons to be filial, so they should be filial to their fathers; demand their younger brothers to listen to them, so they should listen to their elder brothers. Conversely, if they do not want their ministers to be disloyal to themselves, they should not be disloyal to the ruler or the Son of Heaven; if they do not want their sons to be unfilial, they should be filial to their elders; if they do not want their younger brothers to disrespect them, they should respect their elder brothers. The relationships among rulers and ministers, father and son, brothers within the slave-owning class, handled in this way, constitute Confucius’s so-called “Forgiveness,” which is essentially “not imposing on others what you do not want yourself.”
In summary, whether “Loyalty” or “Forgiveness,” both are based on “rites” (礼) and the hierarchical system of slavery, aiming to restore “li” (礼) and “rectify names” (正名). Confucius clearly said: “As long as the rites of Zhou are seriously restored, the world will achieve the realm of “Ren.”” As for slaves, that is another matter; Confucius believed they could not even talk about “Ren,” and the principle of “not imposing on others what you do not want yourself” certainly does not apply to them. The slaves’ only duty was to serve obediently and work tirelessly for the slave owners.
Confucius’s propaganda of this set of “Loving Others” and “Loyalty and Forgiveness” is with malicious intent. During the Spring and Autumn period, chaos reigned, slave uprisings and rebellions surged, the feudal landlord class fought to seize power from the slave-owning aristocrats, and the tide was unstoppable, shaking the aristocratic rule. Confucius’s promotion of “Loving Others” and “Loyalty and Forgiveness” was aimed both at adjusting the internal relations of the slave-owning class to prolong their rule and at suppressing slave revolts and the rising landlord class’s power seizure, preventing revolutionary actions that “disrupt order.” The overall goal was to restore or preserve the slave society’s hierarchical order for a long time. However, during the Spring and Autumn period, slaves sought liberation and society advanced, becoming an irresistible historical trend. Confucius, as the spokesperson for the declining aristocratic rule, tried to use the preachings of “Loving Others” and “Loyalty and Forgiveness” to block slave uprisings and the rise of the landlord class—an utterly “laughable and self-deluded” act.
Confucius’s “Loving Others” and “Loyalty and Forgiveness” ideas are reactionary and decayed ideology of a declining slave society. Later, the conservative and reactionary landlord class and even the bourgeoisie used these ideas to beautify and praise their “orthodox” ruling ideology. Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao also sold this set of teachings to serve their counterrevolutionary plots of restoration. Liu Shaoqi, in his dark “On Cultivation,” promoted that the proletariat should “put oneself in others’ shoes” and “consider others,” which is entirely a distortion of Confucius’s “Loving Others” and “Loyalty and Forgiveness,” used to weaken and deceive the revolutionary will of the working people. Lin Biao more openly waved the banner of bourgeois human nature theory, claiming that Confucius’s “benevolence,” “righteousness,” and “Loyalty and Forgiveness” are standards for handling human relations. These outcries by Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao are blatant declarations of the rotten ideology of the exploiting classes, openly opposing class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, aiming to fundamentally distort the Party’s basic line and policies, and to overthrow the proletarian dictatorship and re-establish the bourgeoisie—an evil purpose. Their reactionary and counterrevolutionary intent is exactly the same as Confucius’s promotion of “Reviving the Nation, Restoring the Lineage, and Supporting the Idle People.”
Why did Confucius advocate “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect”?
“Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” (孝悌) are key components of Confucius’s reactionary ideological system. For political reasons, Confucius made a big fuss over the character “Filial.” One important argument he made was: “Three years without changing the father’s way, one can be called filial.” This means that sons must obey their fathers in everything, not only while the father is alive but also long after his death, following his “teachings” without any reduction, to be truly filial.
Lu Xun criticized this fallacy. He said: “Everyone prefers their children to be stronger, healthier, more intelligent, noble, and happier than themselves; surpassing oneself and the past. Surpassing requires change, so descendants should change the old ways of ancestors. ‘Three years without changing the father’s way, one can be called filial’ is of course a distorted statement.” Lu Xun sharply pointed out the reactionary essence of Confucius’s “Filial Piety,” indicating that it opposes reform and progress. As society advances and develops, the father’s words may no longer match the objective reality. How can children blindly obey and follow them? Yet, Confucius insisted on absolute obedience, claiming that even if the father makes mistakes, children must not oppose him, and they should even hide his faults. There is a story: once, the Duke of Ye of the State of Chu told Confucius, “There is an honest man among us; his father stole someone’s sheep, and he personally testified.” Confucius disapproved of Ye’s honesty and retorted: “Our idea of honesty is different from yours: when the father does bad things, the son covers for him; when the son does bad things, the father covers for him—that is honesty!” Confucius’s idea of honesty was this “father shielding son, son shielding father,” mutual concealment. Such arbitrary inversion of right and wrong, confusing black and white, is what “honesty” really means!
As for “Brotherly Respect,” Confucius believed that younger brothers should respect and obey their elder brothers because, among peers, elder brothers are the seniors and should be respected.
Confucius and his students attached great importance to “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect.” This so-called “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” are moral concepts and behavioral norms used by the slave-owning class to guide clan relations, i.e., the patriarchal ideas of slave society. They said: “Filial piety” and “Brotherly Respect” are the political and moral foundation of people; they are the main and most fundamental parts of “Ren.” Why are “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” so important? They said: “If a person can practice filial piety, he will rarely offend his superiors; if he does not offend his superiors, he will not rebel. Therefore, ‘Filial Piety is the root of Ren.’” From this, we see clearly that Confucius’s promotion of “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” was entirely to maintain the old slave-owning order, eliminate the so-called “disobedience and rebellion,” oppose social change, and prevent slaves from rising up.
Historically, “Filial Piety” originally was a patriarchal ideology used by the aristocrats of ancient China’s slave society to maintain their hereditary rule. Before Confucius, the Shang and Zhou dynasties were both slave societies. If, as Confucius claimed, “Filial Piety” was strictly observed, it would mean that the slave system was stable at that time. During the Spring and Autumn period, due to social changes, the rule of the slave-owning aristocrats became increasingly unstable—ministers killed kings, sons killed fathers, and disobedience and unfilial acts increased. The old methods of maintaining rule through “Filial Piety” failed. Confucius, standing on the reactionary position of the slave-owning aristocrats, was very worried about this phenomenon. He vigorously promoted “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” to uphold the patriarchal relations of the slave society, unifying paternal authority with imperial authority, urging people to value these principles, to practice “filial piety” at home and “loyalty” in court. Confucius said: “Go out and serve the duke and ministers; stay at home and serve your father and elder brothers,” meaning this. Clearly, “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” were the moral foundation of hereditary aristocratic rule.
Confucius believed that practicing “Filial Piety” could restore the political situation of the Western Zhou and thus strengthen the reactionary rule of the slave-owning class. The Analects say: “Someone asked Confucius, ‘Why don’t you participate in politics?’ Confucius replied, ‘The Book of Documents records: “Filial piety, as long as it is fulfilled, and brotherly love, as long as it is practiced, can be considered participation in politics. Why must one hold office to be considered participating in politics?’” Clearly, Confucius linked “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” closely with political participation, combining the fulfillment of “Filial Piety” with “Loyalty.” His approach was to restore the hierarchical order of the Western Zhou slave society, with the emperor making all political and military decisions—this was the ultimate goal of his promotion of “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect.”
This decayed moral teaching of “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” has always been revered by reactionary ruling classes. Traitors, spies, and black marketeers like Liu Shaoqi also followed this reactionary trend, selling Confucian doctrines of “self-cultivation, family regulation, and state governance,” claiming they are the noble teachings of China’s sages, urging people to be “good sons,” “good brothers,” and “good party members,” and even asserting that only by being “good sons” and “good brothers” can one become a “good party member.” This is a reproduction of Confucius’s “Filial Piety is the root of Ren.” Liu Shaoqi’s promotion of “self-cultivation” was actually to instill bourgeois and feudal ideas, creating public opinion to support the restoration of capitalism. His “self-cultivation” was a deadly soft knife. The bourgeois ambitious and scheming Lin Biao also loudly promoted Confucius’s “Filial Piety,” claiming it as a standard for handling human relations. Their outcries openly oppose class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, aiming to fundamentally distort the Party’s basic line and policies and to overthrow the proletarian dictatorship, re-establishing the bourgeoisie—an evil purpose. Their reactionary and counterrevolutionary intent is exactly the same as Confucius’s promotion of “Reviving the Nation, Restoring the Lineage, and Supporting the Idle People.”
Why did Confucius advocate “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect”?
“Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” (孝悌) are key elements of Confucius’s reactionary ideological system. For political reasons, Confucius made a big fuss over “Filial.” One important point he argued was: “Three years without changing the father’s way, one can be called filial.” This means sons must obey their fathers in everything, not only while the father is alive but also long after his death, following his “teachings” without any reduction, to be truly filial.
Lu Xun criticized this fallacy. He said: “Everyone prefers their children to be stronger, healthier, more intelligent, noble, and happier than themselves; surpassing oneself and the past. Surpassing requires change, so descendants should change the old ways of ancestors. ‘Three years without changing the father’s way, one can be called filial’ is of course a distorted statement.” Lu Xun sharply pointed out the reactionary essence of Confucius’s “Filial Piety,” indicating that it opposes reform and progress. As society advances and develops, the father’s words may no longer match the objective reality. How can children blindly obey and follow them? Yet, Confucius insisted on absolute obedience, claiming that even if the father makes mistakes, children must not oppose him, and they should even hide his faults. There is a story: once, the Duke of Ye of the State of Chu told Confucius, “There is an honest man among us; his father stole someone’s sheep, and he personally testified.” Confucius disapproved of Ye’s honesty and retorted: “Our idea of honesty is different from yours: when the father does bad things, the son covers for him; when the son does bad things, the father covers for him—that is honesty!” Confucius’s idea of honesty was this “father shielding son, son shielding father,” mutual concealment. Such arbitrary inversion of right and wrong, confusing black and white, is what “honesty” really means!
As for “Brotherly Respect,” Confucius believed that younger brothers should respect and obey their elder brothers because, among peers, elder brothers are the seniors and should be respected.
Confucius and his students attached great importance to “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect.” This so-called “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” are moral concepts and behavioral norms used by the slave-owning class to guide clan relations, i.e., the patriarchal ideas of slave society. They said: “Filial piety” and “Brotherly Respect” are the political and moral foundation of people; they are the main and most fundamental parts of “Ren.” Why are “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” so important? They said: “If a person can practice filial piety, he will rarely offend his superiors; if he does not offend his superiors, he will not rebel. Therefore, ‘Filial Piety is the root of Ren.’” From this, we see clearly that Confucius’s promotion of “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” was entirely to maintain the old slave-owning order, eliminate the so-called “disobedience and rebellion,” oppose social change, and prevent slaves from rising up.
Historically, “Filial Piety” originally was a patriarchal ideology used by the aristocrats of ancient China’s slave society to maintain their hereditary rule. Before Confucius, the Shang and Zhou dynasties were both slave societies. If, as Confucius claimed, “Filial Piety” was strictly observed, it would mean that the slave system was stable at that time. During the Spring and Autumn period, due to social changes, the rule of the slave-owning aristocrats became increasingly unstable—ministers killed kings, sons killed fathers, and disobedience and unfilial acts increased. The old methods of maintaining rule through “Filial Piety” failed. Confucius, standing on the reactionary position of the slave-owning aristocrats, was very worried about this phenomenon. He vigorously promoted “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” to uphold the patriarchal relations of the slave society, unifying paternal authority with imperial authority, urging people to value these principles, to practice “filial piety” at home and “loyalty” in court. Confucius said: “Go out and serve the duke and ministers; stay at home and serve your father and elder brothers,” meaning this. Clearly, “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” were the moral foundation of hereditary aristocratic rule.
Confucius believed that practicing “Filial Piety” could restore the political situation of the Western Zhou and thus strengthen the reactionary rule of the slave-owning class. The Analects say: “Someone asked Confucius, ‘Why don’t you participate in politics?’ Confucius replied, ‘The Book of Documents records: “Filial piety, as long as it is fulfilled, and brotherly love, as long as it is practiced, can be considered participation in politics. Why must one hold office to be considered participating in politics?’” Clearly, Confucius linked “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” closely with political participation, combining the fulfillment of “Filial Piety” with “Loyalty.” His approach was to restore the hierarchical order of the Western Zhou slave society, with the emperor making all political and military decisions—this was the ultimate goal of his promotion of “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect.”
This decayed moral teaching of “Filial Piety and Brotherly Respect” has always been revered by reactionary ruling classes. Traitors, spies, and black marketeers like Liu Shaoqi also followed this reactionary trend, selling Confucian doctrines of “self-cultivation, family regulation, and state governance,” claiming they are the noble teachings of China’s sages, urging people to be “good sons,” “good brothers,” and “good party members,” and even asserting that only by being “good sons” and “good brothers” can one become a “good party member.” This is a reproduction of Confucius’s “Filial Piety is the root of Ren.” Liu Shaoqi’s promotion of “self-cultivation” was actually to instill bourgeois and feudal ideas, creating public opinion to support the restoration of capitalism. His “self-cultivation” was a deadly soft knife. The bourgeois ambitious and scheming Lin Biao also loudly promoted Confucius’s “Filial Piety,” claiming it as a standard for handling human relations. Their outcries openly oppose class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, aiming to fundamentally distort the Party’s basic line and policies and to overthrow the proletarian dictatorship, re-establishing the bourgeoisie—an evil purpose. Their reactionary and counterrevolutionary intent is exactly the same as Confucius’s promotion of “Reviving the Nation, Restoring the Lineage, and Supporting the Idle People.”# The “Doctrine of the Mean” is the Path of Counter-Revolutionary Restoration
Confucius promoted the “Doctrine of the Mean,” which is an attempt to oppose revolution by erasing class struggle and harmonizing class contradictions, thus achieving counter-revolutionary restoration.
As previously mentioned, the Spring and Autumn Period was a time of intense struggle in Chinese history, with slaves rebelling against slave owners and emerging feudal landlords opposing the slave-owning class—a period of great upheaval and transformation. Continuous slave uprisings and escapes shook the rule of the slave-owning aristocracy, promoting the disintegration of slavery and the emergence of feudal production relations. The declining slave-owning aristocrats, represented by Confucius, felt that this chaos must be swiftly suppressed; otherwise, slavery would be completely overthrown. He believed that the slave revolts, escapes, and the reforms of the emerging landlord class were all “disorderly” and “extreme” actions. He also thought that such “disorder” and “extremism” would inevitably cause social unrest and lead to the collapse of slavery, thus he vigorously advocated the “Doctrine of the Mean,” promoting the idea that “excess” and “deficiency” are equally bad; only when one avoids both “excess” and “deficiency” and adheres to the “Middle Way” is it the best. He loudly proclaimed: “The virtue of the Doctrine of the Mean, how great it is!” In modern terms, this means: “The virtue of the Middle Way is truly the best!”
Confucius promoted the “Doctrine of the Mean” and the idea that “excess” is as bad as “deficiency,” mainly to oppose “excess.” What is “excess”? Although Confucius did not directly explain it, his specific actions provided an answer. For example, he considered the revolutionary actions of slaves as “excessive.” He called slaves “reckless” and “villainous,” the most opposed to the “Doctrine of the Mean.” Similarly, when the Duke of Lu implemented the land tax system, Confucius criticized him for not following the “Middle Way”; when the Duke of Lu waged war against Zhuan, Confucius accused him of being “disorderly,” violating the will of his ancestors. Clearly, the “excess” Confucius spoke of was directed against slave revolts and the reforms of the emerging landlord class. During the Spring and Autumn Period, slave uprisings against slave owners were revolutionary actions that were very good; the reforms of the emerging landlord class to change the slave society system were progressive and in line with social development needs. However, any revolution or reform that conforms to the tide of history is always considered “excessive” by reactionaries. Labeling revolutionary actions as “excessive” and opposing them is essentially opposing revolution. Mao Zedong, in the “Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan,” refuted the fallacy that peasant movements were “excessive” by saying: “Rectifying must be excessive; but excessive rectification cannot be rectification.” “Many so-called ‘excessive’ actions during the revolutionary period are actually necessary for revolution.” Mao’s teachings are very powerful in criticizing Confucius’s “Doctrine of the Mean,” which is a thorough counter-revolutionary restoration path.
Confucius’s proud student, Zisi (Confucius’s grandson), elaborated on the “Doctrine of the Mean,” saying: “The use of rites values harmony.” Here, another concept “harmony” is introduced. It is said that Zisi, who was deeply influenced by Confucius, wrote extensively about “harmony” in the “Zhongyong” (The Doctrine of the Mean), stating that “the ‘Middle’ is the root of the world,” and “‘harmony’ is the most universal law of the world.” Achieving a state of “moderate harmony” would allow heaven and earth to each find their place, and all things to develop and grow. Here, “moderate harmony” is said to influence heaven, earth, and all things—truly miraculous. In fact, “moderate harmony” is nothing more than “reconciliation.” Confucius attempted to use “harmony” to reconcile internal contradictions among the slave-owning aristocracy, preventing their disintegration; he also sought to reconcile class contradictions between slaves and slave owners, and between emerging feudal landlords and slaves, erasing class struggle, suppressing slave revolts, and stopping the rise of feudal forces to reform.
However, the class contradictions between slaves and slave owners are a life-and-death confrontation that cannot be reconciled. The contradictions between the emerging landlord class and the slave-owning class are also irreconcilable. When slaves rise up to rebel and the emerging landlord class initiates reforms, Confucius used the “Doctrine of the Mean” as a theoretical weapon to suppress “rebellion.” He praised the brutal suppression by the Zheng state’s slave-own aristocrats, who killed all the rebellious slaves, claiming that if slaves were too lenient, they would rebel, but if too harsh, it would also incite rebellion. The best policy was to combine “leniency” with “severity,” which he called “harmony,” and only then could rule effectively. Thus, Confucius fabricated a theory that slaughtering slaves was not excessive and fully in line with the “Doctrine of the Mean”! Regarding the emerging feudal forces, as previously mentioned, Confucius, who served as Prime Minister of Lu for only seven days, killed Shao Zhengmao, a representative of reformists. Throughout his life, Confucius traveled east and west, constantly seeking to seize power to restore the rule of the slave-owning aristocracy. To achieve this counter-revolutionary goal, he used all means, shameless in all kinds of evil deeds. All these are what he called the “Doctrine of the Mean”!
By the late Spring and Autumn period, the slave society was facing collapse. The “full prosperity” of the Shang dynasty’s slave society—“lords, ministers, fathers, and sons”—was gone forever. Therefore, Confucius said, “Slaves no longer heed the Doctrine of the Mean,” which objectively reflects reality. Like all stubborn opponents of the tide of history who refuse to admit their failures, Confucius and his ideological followers remained stubborn and unrepentant until death. His grandson, Zisi, specifically wrote an essay elaborating on Confucius’s “Doctrine of the Mean,” titled “Zhongyong,” in which he said: “The gentleman can be neutral, impartial; that is truly strong!” What does “impartial” mean? It merely means stubbornly defending slavery and opposing any change! The text also states: “When the country is in chaos, to remain unchanged until death—that is truly strong!” What do “chaos in the country” and “remain unchanged until death” mean? They simply mean that they see the imminent collapse of the slave system and are willing to sacrifice themselves to defend it! An “impartial” person and someone who “remains unchanged until death” fully reflect their stubborn, reactionary attitude hostile to revolution.
Throughout history, reactionary ruling classes have seen Confucius’s “Doctrine of the Mean” as a poison that attempts to reconcile class contradictions, erase class struggle, and corrupt the revolutionary spirit of the working people. They have all exaggerated and praised it, using it to deceive the people and cover up their bloody reactionary rule. In socialist society, the “Doctrine of the Mean” remains a crucial weapon for counter-revolutionaries, such as the defeated landlords, bourgeoisie, and their agents within the Party, to carry out counter-revolutionary restoration. Traitors, spies, and capitalist roaders like Liu Shaoqi, and bourgeois schemers and traitors like Lin Biao, have all directly or indirectly promoted the “Doctrine of the Mean.” Liu Shaoqi called for “coexistence” with the bourgeoisie and opposed fighting against them; Lin Biao, hiding in the shadows, attacked the proletariat’s dictatorship over the reactionary classes as “extreme.” Aren’t these all blatant attempts to use the “Doctrine of the Mean” to distort and attack the Party’s fundamental line and policies during the entire socialist period? They aim to deceive and drug the people, blur their class consciousness, and facilitate their conspiracy to restore capitalism by overthrowing the proletarian dictatorship. The “Doctrine of the Mean” preached by Lin Biao and others is nothing but a copy of Confucius’s counter-revolutionary path of restoration."What kind of person is ‘born knowing’?
In order to justify the hereditary aristocratic class system of slave owners, Confucius not only promoted the idealist theory of ‘Mandate of Heaven,’ but also propagated fallacies such as ‘born knowing’ and ‘only the highest wisdom and the lowest foolishness are unchangeable.’ These are the philosophical foundations of Confucius’s reactionary ideas.
Is human knowledge innate, or is it acquired through later development? This has been a long-standing debate in philosophical thought. Confucius believed that there is a kind of human knowledge that is innate, which he called ‘those who are born knowing.’ The knowledge of such people precedes experience and practice, and is inherent in the mind. They are ‘superior people,’ ‘sages.’ The legendary Yao, Shun, Yu, as well as great slave owners Shang Tang, King Wen, and Duke of Zhou, are regarded by Confucius as such ‘sages.’ Confucius also advocated that ‘only the highest wisdom and the lowest foolishness are unchangeable,’ meaning that only the ‘sages’ of the slave-owning class are ‘wise,’ ‘geniuses,’ while slaves are ‘fools,’ ‘stupid talents,’ and their social positions are forever unalterable. This set of idealist a priori theories promoted by Confucius aims to justify the rule of the so-called ‘wise’ slave owners, whom he denounces as ‘the lowest foolish,’ and to force the enslaved people to obediently accept the rule of the ‘wise’ slave owners he extols.
There are fundamentally no people in the world who are ‘born knowing.’ ‘People’s correct thoughts can only come from social practice, only from the three practices of social production struggle, class struggle, and scientific experimentation.’ ‘A person who closes his eyes and ears and is completely isolated from the external objective world is not capable of knowledge at all.’ As early as the Han Dynasty, materialist philosopher Wang Chong refuted the so-called ‘born knowing’ ‘sage’ who claims ‘no need to learn, self-knowledge, self-awareness.’ Wang Chong cleverly posed a difficult question for the ‘sage’: ‘Have a person stand on the east side of the wall, talk to him, and have the ‘sage’ stand on the west side of the wall to listen—can the ‘sage’ know this person’s appearance, family, and name?’ Wang Chong’s argument convincingly proved that without sensory experience, even the ‘sage’ cannot acquire knowledge; ‘born knowing’ is entirely a lie fabricated by Confucius. Wang Chong also used Confucius’s own example as evidence. Once, Yang Huo from the State of Lu visited Confucius’s home. Confucius disliked Yang Huo and did not want to see him, claiming he was not at home. Yang Huo left a gift—a steamed piglet (cooked pig)—at Confucius’s house and then left. After Yang Huo left, Confucius thought that since he had received the gift, he should go pay a return visit, but he was reluctant to meet Yang Huo. So Confucius devised a trick: he inquired about Yang Huo’s absence before going to pay a visit. But unfortunately, when he came out of Yang Huo’s house, he met Yang Huo returning from outside. Wang Chong pointed out that if Confucius were a prophet, he would not have gone to pay a return visit at that time, nor would he have met Yang Huo on the way home. This clearly shows that even the so-called ‘sage’ Confucius was not a prophet.
As for Confucius’s claim that slaves are foolish, this is even more slander against the working people. Intelligence and talent come from practice; only the working people who participate directly in social practice are the most knowledgeable. ‘The lowly are the smartest! The noble are the most foolish.’ This is an indisputable truth. The diligent labor of slaves created material wealth as well as culture and art. Only parasitic worms like Confucius, who are lazy and do not distinguish grains, are truly fools.
Is history created by heroes, or by the people? Confucius brazenly promoted the reactionary fallacy that ‘heroes create history.’ He insulted slaves as ‘villains’ and ‘stupid talents,’ only fit to work honestly for the slave owners, and never to understand any principles. He believed that the aristocratic slave owners are like the wind, and the working people are like grass on the ground; when the wind blows, the grass falls, and obedient submission of the working people is enough. This is pure nonsense!
Marxism holds that history is created by the slaves. The people, only the people, are the true driving force of world history. During the Spring and Autumn period, when Confucius lived, slaves rose up in rebellion, emerging feudal forces also began reforms, leading to the ‘rituals breaking down, music collapsing,’ the emperor losing authority, and society transitioning towards feudalism, with slavery gradually disintegrating. Opposing this social change, the slave-owning aristocracy headed by the Zhou emperor could not stop this inevitable historical trend. Even Confucius, as a ‘sage,’ was helpless in the face of this reality. This once again proves that the true force behind historical development is the masses of the people, not the so-called ‘sages’ of ‘born knowing’ that Confucius promoted.
Confucius’s promotion of idealist theories of the ‘a priori’ and the reactionary fallacy that ‘heroes create history’ was aimed at advocating that the ‘sages’ of the slave-owning class should be rulers, while the slaves should obediently accept their rule. He promoted the idea that ‘nobles are always noble, and the lowly are always low,’ asserting that the hereditary rule of the aristocratic slave owners is eternal and unchangeable. Confucius’s reactionary ideas not only have been criticized by successive materialist philosophers but also have been overthrown by the revolutionary practice of the slaves.
However, Lin Biao, this bourgeois ambitious schemer, conspirator, double-dealer, traitor, and traitor, attempted to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism. He took over Confucius’s mantle, using the ‘genius theory’ as his counterrevolutionary ideological banner, incited anti-revolutionary propaganda, and carried out counterrevolutionary coups. When Confucius promoted ‘born knowing,’ Lin Biao stubbornly proclaimed the so-called ‘genius,’ claiming that human knowledge and talent are innate, denying the decisive role of social practice in the development of human understanding and ability. This kind of idealist nonsense is completely anti-Marxist black propaganda. Confucius’s claim that ‘only the highest wisdom and the lowest foolishness are unchangeable’ and his slander that the working people are unalterable fools to be ruled by the ‘sage’ of ‘born knowing’ is a reactionary ideology. Lin Biao depicted the workers and peasants as ignorant people who only know oil, salt, vinegar, and firewood, and must accept his leadership, with him commanding everything. This is a complete reactionary fallacy of historical idealism.
Chairman Mao pointed out: ‘If you want to have knowledge, you must participate in the practice of transforming reality.’ ‘Knowledge without practice is impossible.’ Even the great revolutionary mentor Marx himself was like this. ‘Marx could not have pre-recognized specific laws of imperialism in the era of free capitalism because the last stage of capitalism—imperialism—had not yet arrived, nor was there such practice.’ Chairman Mao’s teachings powerfully refute Lin Biao’s promotion of the ‘genius’ fallacy.
Marxism holds that historical activity is a mass undertaking; the masses are the true heroes. As the main body of the three major revolutionary practices, the people have created both material and spiritual wealth for human society and continuously pushed society forward. Revolutionary politicians are merely leaders among countless revolutionary masses; they come from the masses, represent the masses, and their ability to stand high and see far, guiding great struggles from the front, is entirely because they rely closely on the masses and are skilled at drawing wisdom and strength from them. All reactionary class leaders, though they may temporarily dominate, are ultimately doomed to failure, primarily because they oppose the masses, suppress them, and stand against them. Lin Biao’s shameful downfall once again confirms this Marxist truth and also marks the complete bankruptcy of Confucius’s and Lin Biao’s idealist theories of ‘heroes creating history.’
‘Learning to be an Official’ and ‘Reading for Officialdom’
Marxism believes that education is a tool of class struggle and is subordinate to the political line of a specific class. Different classes always select students according to their needs and standards, shaping the youth with their worldview, and cultivating successors for their cause. Stalin said: ‘Education is a weapon; its effect depends on who wields it and whom it strikes.’ Confucius’s reactionary stance and his counterrevolutionary political claims determine the reactionary nature of his educational ideas. Education under the control of the reactionary restorationist Confucius can only serve to oppress slaves, attack emerging landlord forces, and maintain the rule of the slave-owning aristocracy.
‘Learning to be an official’ is the core of Confucius’s educational thought. He aimed to cultivate students into ‘firm believers in and adherents to the Way,’ ‘deadly defenders of the good path,’ and ‘broad scholars of literature, constrained by rites,’ as rulers of the slave society.
‘Firm believers in and adherents to the Way’ means requiring students to firmly believe in and uphold the doctrines that maintain slavery, diligently study these doctrines, and desperately work to preserve the slave system. ‘Broad scholars of literature, constrained by rites’ means requiring students to extensively learn the cultural classics of the slave society, using the hierarchical system and moral norms of slavery to discipline themselves. In short, it is to cultivate loyal and capable accomplices for the slave-owning aristocracy.
Therefore, Confucius particularly opposed his students engaging in productive labor, and strongly encouraged them to read and become officials. Once, his student Fan Chi asked him how to farm, and he angrily replied: ‘I don’t know; I am not as good as farmers.’ Fan Chi then asked how to grow vegetables, and he said: ‘I don’t know; I am not as good as vegetable growers.’ After Fan Chi left, Confucius cursed him as an ‘insignificant villain’ with no prospects, and then explained to other students: ‘Nobles follow Zhou rites; who dares not respect them! Nobles act according to their status; who dares not obey! Nobles strictly keep their promises; who dares not tell the truth! If everyone could do this, the common people everywhere would come to follow, so why bother to farm?’ To make his students understand, he even plainly said: ‘Farming involves hunger; studying involves official titles.’ That is, if you farm, you will inevitably suffer hunger; if you study hard, you can get promoted and make money. His student Zixia understood his reactionary ideology best and straightforwardly said: ‘Learning to be an official.’ That is, studying is just a means to become an official. Clearly, becoming an official and serving the slave-owning class is the goal.
Confucius trained his students according to these standards, expecting them all to serve the slave-owning class and engage in counterrevolutionary political activities to maintain the aristocratic rule. Anyone who violated these standards he despised deeply. Thus, Fan Chi, who wanted to learn farming and gardening, was cursed as a ‘villain’; Ran Qiu, although an official, was attacked because he served under Ji Sun, a representative of the emerging landlord forces in Lu and helped with reforms. When Ji Sun prepared to send troops to attack Zhuanyu, Confucius blamed Ran Qiu for not dissuading him. Even Zilu and Gongxi Chi, although Confucius did not yet think they fully understood the ‘benevolence,’ he still said Zilu could manage military and political affairs in a major state, and Gongxi Chi could serve as an official receiving foreign guests. Confucius’s educational goals and class stance are very clear and reactionary.
Confucius’s implementation of the ‘learning to be an official’ educational idea produced a group of strategists and henchmen serving the aristocratic slave owners. It is said that Confucius’s seventy-two most talented students all achieved high positions, such as prime ministers, according to the ‘Book of Han’ by Ban Gu of the Eastern Han. Many of his students became powerful helpers of rulers of various states. His educational activities directly served to strengthen the rule of the slave-owning aristocracy.
All exploitative classes aim to cultivate their descendants into spiritual aristocrats who are detached from productive labor, hostile to laboring people, and riding on the people’s heads. Therefore, the educational idea of ‘learning to be an official’ has been inherited and utilized by reactionary ruling classes throughout history. The phrase ‘ears closed to outside affairs, only reading the sages’ books,’ and ‘ten years of cold window, no one asks, one leap to fame and the whole world knows’ are concrete examples of ‘learning to be an official.’ The imperial examination system in feudal society turned ‘learning to be an official’ into a formal system; the bourgeois examination system is the same.
Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao, to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism, openly peddled the reactionary black theory of ‘learning to be an official’ or ‘reading to become an official.’
In 1957, Chairman Mao clearly pointed out: ‘Our educational policy should enable students to develop morally, intellectually, and physically, becoming educated workers with socialist consciousness.’ Following Mao’s teachings, the broad masses of young intellectuals adhered to the path of both red and specialized education, enduring hardships and gaining experience through the three major revolutionary movements, training themselves into successors of the proletarian revolutionary cause. At this time, Liu Shaoqi eagerly jumped out and openly opposed Mao’s proletarian educational policy. He told young students that studying well ‘can make you officials in towns, counties, provinces, and even at the central level,’ and openly peddled the black theory of ‘learning to be an official.’
Liu Shaoqi was swept into the trash heap of history by the raging flood of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and Lin Biao, this bourgeois ambitious schemer, conspirator, double-dealer, traitor, and traitor, reappeared. Seeing that the broad masses of young people responded to the call of the Party and Mao, going to the countryside to work and learn, destroying his foolish dream of turning the younger generation into social forces for restoring capitalism, he viciously slandered the great revolutionary action of going to the countryside as ‘re-education through forced labor,’ expressing his deep hatred for the socialist system and Mao’s educational line. However, Lin Biao’s attacks and slanders did not shake the firm resolve of the youth to combine learning with the workers and peasants; instead, they exposed Lin Biao’s reactionary and insidious face. To Lin Biao and his gang, studying should only lead to becoming an official, not participating in the masses’ production. If they join agricultural production, it is ‘re-education through forced labor.’ Isn’t this a typical rebirth of the reactionary ‘learning to be an official’ theory? Over two thousand years ago, Confucius scolded Fan Chi, who wanted to learn farming, as a ‘vile villain’; more than two thousand years later, Lin Biao viciously slandered the participation of youth in agricultural production as ‘re-education through forced labor.’ These two reactionary figures echo each other, uttering the same reactionary fallacy. It is clear that not only politically, but also in education, Lin Biao inherited Confucius’s reactionary educational ideas of ‘learning to be an official.’
Chairman Mao taught us: ‘Opposition from the enemy is a good thing, not a bad thing.’ Lin Biao’s fierce opposition to youth going to the countryside shows that we are doing the right thing and doing it well. Lin Biao’s attempt to make revolutionary youth believe in Confucius’s set of ideas is a scheme to turn the youth into spiritual aristocrats and successors of the bourgeoisie, and to make them sacrificial objects. We young intellectuals will never fall for it!
Today, hundreds of thousands of young intellectuals have responded enthusiastically to Mao’s great call for ‘young intellectuals to go to the countryside,’ rushing to the rural areas to participate in revolution. Under the Party’s leadership and with the help of the educated peasantry, they have endured hardships and gained experience in the three major revolutionary movements, producing many advanced collectives and outstanding individuals like Xing Yanzi and Hou Jun. Many have joined the Chinese Communist Party, many have joined the Communist Youth League, and many have been elected to various levels of local leadership, taking on grassroots work; some have become barefoot doctors, propagandists, teachers, engaged in scientific experiments, and so on, contributing to the construction of a socialist new countryside. They have become an active and vigorous force in rural socialist revolution and socialist construction. These facts convincingly prove that the path of combining intellectuals with workers and peasants is the revolutionary path and the only correct direction for young intellectuals to advance.
After the criticism of the ‘reading to be an official’ theory by Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao, class enemies spread reactionary rhetoric of ‘reading is useless.’ The so-called ‘reading is useless’ theory is essentially a rebirth of the ‘learning to be an official’ theory under new circumstances. We must first clarify why we read. Is reading for revolution or for becoming an official? This reflects the struggle of two ideas, two classes, and two lines in the field of education. Thinking that reading makes one famous and successful, becoming an official, is useful; reading and going to the countryside as a peasant is useless—this is the lingering influence of the reactionary ideology of ‘learning to be an official.’ Isn’t it also a sign that Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao’s reactionary fallacies of ‘reading to be an official’ and ‘re-education through forced labor’ have not yet been thoroughly eradicated? ‘The countryside is a vast world where one can achieve great things.’ The countryside needs educated youth with socialist consciousness to participate in construction. The vivid and rich practice of the three major revolutionary struggles in the countryside constantly presents new tasks and new problems to us young people. To accomplish these tasks, solve these problems, build our country well, and contribute to world revolution, we must study Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought diligently, and learn scientific and cultural knowledge thoroughly. Our existing knowledge is far from enough; how can we say ‘reading is useless’? Mao pointed out: ‘The establishment of the socialist system opens a path to our ideal realm, but the realization of that realm depends on our hard work.’ Let us study hard and work diligently in the vast countryside, build a beautiful socialist new countryside, and carry forward the proletarian revolutionary cause.
Did Confucius ‘break the class boundaries’ in recruiting students?
Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao, for the needs of implementing their counterrevolutionary revisionist line, exaggerated Confucius’s praise, especially the lie that Confucius said ‘teaching without discrimination,’ claiming he was a ‘national educator’ who ‘broke the class boundaries’ in recruiting students.
Did Confucius truly ‘break the class boundaries’ in recruiting students? Was his educational line truly classless? No, absolutely not!
It must be clearly pointed out that Confucius implemented a reactionary educational line that served the slave-owning class, with a distinct class character. In a class society, education has always been a tool of class struggle; there can be no ‘universal education.’ In slave society, slaves are objects of exploitation and enslavement by the slave-owning class; they are at the bottom of society, not even considered human, merely ‘talking tools’ for the slave owners. The aristocratic slave owners would never allow slaves to receive education. Confucius, standing on the declining slave-owning class’s side, despised slaves extremely. He believed slaves were inherently stupid, naturally destined to be rulers, unworthy of education, and thought that ‘highest wisdom’ and ‘lowest foolishness’ could never change. Since the stupidity of slaves is unchangeable and they are forever fools, how could there be any education for them? Confucius also said: ‘Slaves lack the virtue of benevolence.’ His goal was to cultivate ‘benevolent men’ and ‘gentlemen’ to serve the slave-owning class. Since slaves could not have ‘benevolence,’ how could there be any education for them? Confucius believed that slaves should do whatever they are told, without knowing any principles. His blatant promotion of a policy of keeping the masses ignorant makes it impossible for him to teach slaves as his students. It is also conceivable that a staunch defender of the aristocratic rule, opposed to slave liberation, and even considering the casting of the ritual cauldron as dishonorable, would not allow the sons of slave owners and the children of slaves to sit together for education. Would that not undermine the dignity of the aristocracy? How could he imagine that slaves, who have no personal freedom and are merely property of the slave-owning class, could ride in his carriage and travel with him? Within the aristocratic slave-owning class, Confucius insisted on strict adherence to the hierarchy: ‘Ruler to minister, father to son, elder to younger,’ each must keep their proper place, and not overstep. How could he allow slaves, who are not even considered human, to surpass their social status and receive education? Confucius once said: ‘As long as someone is willing to offer ten dried pieces of meat, I will accept him as a student.’ It is very clear: for slaves who eat roots and bark, struggling on the brink of death, where would they get ten dried pieces of meat? The problem is not just about affording the tuition; slaves have no personal freedom, work under brutal exploitation and oppression all year round—how could they possibly enter Confucius’s private school to study ‘poetry,’ ‘rites,’ and so on? The so-called ‘breaking class boundaries’ in recruiting students is just a whitewash by Confucius’s followers—deceptive talk. If Confucius heard such claims that anyone, whether slave or master, could study together, he would consider it an insult and loudly rebuke these followers for not understanding ‘rites’!
In fact, most of Confucius’s students were from the aristocratic slave-owning class, such as Meng Yizi, Nangong Jingshu, Sima Niu, and others. There were also wealthy merchants’ children like Zigong, who rode five private carriages with Confucius, Gongliang who traveled with him, and Gongxi Chi, who rode a tall horse and wore a light warm fur robe to serve as an envoy to Qi. Even Yan Hui, Confucius’s most tolerant student, was not entirely impoverished but a descendant of several generations of officials in Lu, only fallen into decline during his father’s time. When Yan Hui studied with Confucius, his family still owned fifty acres of farmland outside the city and ten acres inside, enough for food and clothing without their parents and children working themselves. Yan Hui died at thirty-two. His father prepared a coffin for him but was still dissatisfied, trying to get Confucius to sell his carriage and make a coffin—still showing the arrogance of a declining slave-owning class. It is evident that Confucius recruited mainly from the exploitative classes, primarily the slave-owning class. To claim that Confucius did not differentiate classes in recruiting students is completely untenable; to call him a ‘national educator’ is a distortion of historical facts. Lenin once profoundly pointed out: ‘Schools can be detached from life and politics; that is lying and deceiving.’
KMT anti-communist figure Chen Boda, even before liberation, worshipped Confucius’s ‘teaching without discrimination,’ claiming there were ‘unique achievements’ and that ‘in Chinese cultural history, it should be highly praised.’ After liberation, Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao, to promote revisionist education, also vigorously peddled Confucius’s black theory. Liu Shaoqi’s agent in the cultural and educational circles, Lu Dingyi, said: “‘Teaching without discrimination’—is it correct? I say yes, it is ‘teaching without discrimination.’” They turned ‘teaching without discrimination’ into a lie about ‘breaking class boundaries,’ misinterpreting ‘without discrimination’ to mean that both exploiting and exploited classes have equal rights to education, which is a malicious distortion. Liu Shaoqi and his gang’s black theory of ‘teaching without discrimination’ is just a cover for their so-called ‘universal education,’ opposing the implementation of the Party’s class line in schools and opposing education serving the proletariat’s political needs. They use the phrase ‘teaching without discrimination’ to promote ‘universal education,’ shouting slogans like ‘everyone is equal before exams’ and ‘admission based on test scores,’ which negates the class nature of proletarian education and opposes Mao’s directive to prioritize education for workers, peasants, and their children. The ‘universal education’ black theory promoted by Liu Shaoqi and others is essentially a tool for their dictatorship over workers and peasants.
After the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the education sector broke the centuries-long monopoly of the exploiters, and workers and poor peasants took control of education. Following Mao’s ‘July 21’ directive—‘select students from among experienced workers and peasants, and after a few years of study, return to production practice’—students from the working class and peasants entered higher education, and the university admission system was fundamentally reformed, abolishing Liu Shaoqi’s system of directly admitting students from secondary schools based on test scores, which was widely welcomed by the masses. However, reforming university admissions inevitably encounters resistance from old ideas, traditions, and vested interests. The old forces always try to restore themselves in new forms and make a comeback. Therefore, in terms of school enrollment standards, examination systems, and other aspects, there are struggles between two lines and two ideas. Should we follow Mao’s instruction to select students from experienced workers and peasants, considering political performance and practical experience as decisive, or revert to the old system of relying solely on test scores? This is a major principle issue concerning the training and cultivation of countless successors for the proletarian revolutionary cause and the consolidation of the proletarian dictatorship. We must implement the spirit of the Party’s 10th National Congress, pay attention to class struggle within the superstructure, further criticize revisionist education, thoroughly eliminate Confucius’s reactionary ideas, consciously implement Mao’s proletarian educational line, and strive to strengthen the proletarian dictatorship.# The Reactionary Essence of Confucius’s “Four Teachings”
The “Analects” records: “Zi used four teachings: Wen, Xing, Zhong, Xin.” That is, Confucius educated students from four aspects: Wen (culture), Xing (conduct), Zhong (loyalty), and Xin (trust). What exactly are the so-called “Four Teachings”? “Wen” refers to the cultural classics of slave society; “Xing” is the set of behavioral norms for the slave-owning aristocracy in personal conduct and social interaction; “Zhong” means loyalty to the slave-owning master, the so-called “Zhongshu” (loyalty and forgiveness) way, which is loyalty to “Li” (ritual); “Xin” is the so-called “credit” within the aristocratic class. In total, these are nothing more than the ideological, political, moral norms, and rules of the slave society. This was the main content of Confucius’s education. Such educational content was determined by his purpose of “learning to serve” and cultivating successors for the slave-owning class, serving his political line of defending and restoring slavery thoroughly and completely.
The so-called “Wen, Xing, Zhong, Xin” four aspects of education are carried out through the study of cultural classics and specific speech and behavior. Confucius emphasized the importance of studying poetry. According to legend, during Confucius’s time, there were originally more than 3,000 poems circulating, but Confucius extensively edited and selected over 300, compiling the “Book of Songs” (“Shijing”). The selection criteria mainly focused on works that could promote “benevolence and righteousness,” praised the prosperity of the Yin and Zhou dynasties, or narrated and lamented the decline of the Western Zhou, etc. Confucius believed that young people should learn poetry because, by doing so, “they can better serve their father at home and their ruler in court.” He also said: “If one reads 300 poems and still cannot manage state affairs or negotiate with other states, then no matter how much poetry one reads, what use is it?” Clearly, the purpose of learning poetry was “to participate in governance,” to implement the “li” (ritual) of slave society, to help the slave-owning rulers govern the people, or to carry out diplomatic missions to other feudal states on the emperor’s orders.
Confucius also used the “Shangshu” (Book of Documents), which compiled the edicts and commands of the rulers of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, and his own edited version of the state history “Spring and Autumn Annals” (“Chunqiu”) as textbooks for students. Confucius was particularly enthusiastic about “Chunqiu,” writing it with great vigor—“write as you see fit, revise as you see fit” (write what and how you want, revise what and how you want), no one else could participate in opinions. The purpose of compiling “Chunqiu” was, firstly, “to avoid offending the great and the virtuous,” to hide the faults of the aristocratic rulers, and to praise their virtues; secondly, to perform “praise and blame,” evaluating contemporary figures and events according to the standards of the aristocratic “li,” praising those conforming to “li” and criticizing those that did not. In fact, this was to record as “crimes” the reform measures of the emerging local forces that abandoned Zhou rites, disrespected the emperor and feudal lords, and sought to reform the old slave society system, turning them into a “rebellion” record. As a result, the history of over 240 years of social upheaval during the Spring and Autumn period was turned upside down, with right and wrong confused. For example, when the feudal lords called the Zhou king to He Yang for a gathering, it was called “the ministers summoned the ruler,” but Confucius wrote it as “the Zhou king inspected He Yang,” thus protecting the dignity of the Zhou king. This is “avoiding offending the great.” There are many such examples, like calling the King of Chu “Chuzi” and describing Chen Heng as “usurping” the throne, etc. These are “blame” for violating “li” or “rebellion.” Because Confucius wrote this “rebel record” on behalf of the aristocratic class, later his faithful disciple Mencius highly praised it, claiming that Confucius’s “Spring and Autumn” made the “rebellious ministers and traitors” afraid. Mencius’s “rebellious ministers and traitors” refer to those emerging feudal forces daring to seize power from the slave-owning class. Such a book was the history textbook read by Confucius’s students!
Confucius attached great importance to teaching students “li” (ritual). He admonished his son and students: “If you do not learn ritual, a slave owner has no basis for standing in society.” Clearly, Confucius’s so-called “Xing” mainly meant following the behavioral norms of the slave-owning class, “li.” He often used so-called “transgressions of li” as lessons, urging his students to firmly uphold Zhou rites. For example, in the state of Lu, the Meng Sun, Shu Sun, and Ji Sun families, during ancestral sacrifices, sang the poem “Yong” to remove the offerings, which Confucius firmly opposed. Because, according to Zhou rites, the poem “Yong” could only be sung when the emperor sacrificed at the ancestral temple. In Confucius’s view, their doing so was an improper use of the emperor’s sacrifices! In fact, this was a manifestation of the emerging forces not respecting the emperor and showing higher political status. To Confucius, it was a heinous crime and must be opposed.
The “Zhong” in Confucius’s “Four Teachings” refers to loyalty to the aristocratic masters and loyalty to Zhou rites. Therefore, if officials violate “li,” Confucius resolutely opposed it. However, if the ruler violates “li,” Confucius would defend him. Once, the Minister of Justice of the State of Chen asked Confucius: “Duke Zhao of Lu understands ritual?” Confucius said: “He understands ritual.” After speaking, Confucius left quickly. The Minister of Justice of Chen politely bowed to one of Confucius’s students, Wu Ma Qi, and said: “I have heard that a gentleman is just and impartial, not biased toward ancestors. Why does Confucius have a bias toward ancestors? Both the rulers of Wu and Lu are surnamed Ji, but Duke Zhao of Lu married a woman from the Wu royal family. To avoid gossip about marrying within the same surname, he called her Wu Meng Ke. If Duke Zhao truly understood Zhou rites, then everyone would understand Zhou rites,” according to the rules, “marrying within the same surname is forbidden,” so Duke Zhao’s behavior clearly violated Zhou rites. This question from the Minister of Justice of Chen exposed Confucius’s falsehood in concealing the ruler’s violation of “li,” revealing his hypocrisy. Wu Ma Qi told Confucius what Chen’s minister said, and Confucius, feeling guilty, admitted some fault but then argued: “As a minister, I cannot speak of the ruler’s faults. My concealment for Duke Zhao is also in accordance with Zhou rites!” Truly, Confucius was a cunning defender of the slave-owning class. When officials did not follow Zhou rites and sang the “Yong” poem during sacrifices, it was a violation of “li” and unacceptable. But if the ruler married within the same surname, it was tolerated. Confucius defended the ruler, lied openly, and claimed it was “in accordance with li.” His “ministers conceal the faults of the ruler” trick, and the logic that only the ruler can violate “li” but others cannot, was the very behavior of the so-called “loyalty” and “no violation of li” that he constantly taught his students.
Confucius taught students: “If a person does not keep faith, everything else is out of the question.” So, one of the “Four Teachings” is “Xin” (trust). But how did he himself “keep trust”? Once, Confucius went to the State of Wei. Passing by the Pu City on the western border of Wei, he was surrounded by the Pu people and not allowed to enter Wei. Confucius had no choice but to make a trick, swear to the Pu people, promising not to go to Wei. The Pu people believed him and sent him out through the east gate. But as soon as Confucius left Pu City, he still went to Wei. His student Zigong asked him: “We promised not to go to Wei just now, does that mean our words don’t count?” Confucius said: “Such forced promises are not even obeyed by heaven.” From this, it is clear that Confucius’s “trust” actually meant deception—he was a complete hypocrite.
In strict adherence to Zhou rites and “xing,” Confucius placed great importance on demonstrating the elaborate and hypocritical rituals that emphasized hierarchical order of elders and juniors, requiring students to learn and practice them constantly, even during travels. For example, regarding whether ministers should kowtow under the hall or on the hall, he insisted on maintaining the traditional Western Zhou practice. Confucius told his students: “When ministers see the ruler, they kowtow under the hall, then after ascending the hall, they kowtow again. This conforms to tradition. Now everyone has abolished the kowtow under the hall, only kowtowing after ascending the hall, which violates the rites. I firmly oppose this. I still advocate kowtowing under the hall first.” He also demanded: when entering a feudal lord’s gate, bow in respect; when leaving, quickly take a few steps forward as if “birds spreading wings”; when the ruler welcomes guests, adopt a serious and solemn expression; when the ruler summons you, do not wait for the carriage and horses to be ready but set out immediately. It even included rules like: meat must be cut according to regulations—“if not cut properly, do not eat”; seats must be arranged correctly—“if not arranged properly, do not sit”; and in the home, wearing light red and purple clothes was forbidden, etc. These were excessively complicated and hypocritical to the extreme. This fully exposed Confucius as a fallen slave owner from head to toe, from inside to outside, embodying the “I follow Zhou” image.
Confucius also taught students other things, but the above are enough to show the basic appearance of the so-called “Four Teachings: Wen, Xing, Zhong, Xin.” The essence of this education was nothing more than indoctrinating the ideology of the peak of the aristocratic dictatorship, attempting to restore the crumbling slave system. Confucius’s “Four Teachings” served the aristocratic class, a set of knowledge that exploited and oppressed the working people, and naturally did not include anything the working people needed. Moreover, Confucius was particularly opposed to his students engaging in productive labor. He himself did not understand manual work or farming, grew vegetables, but scolded the laboring people as “difficult to support” “little people.” He absolutely forbade students from farming or gardening; anyone expressing such a desire would be severely scolded. Confucius’s hostility toward the laboring people naturally aroused their immense anger. At that time, the hero Zhi, who led the slave uprising, publicly cursed Confucius as a “parasite who eats without working and wears without weaving.”
Great leader Mao Zedong, in his 1939 article “The Direction of Youth Movement,” explicitly pointed out: “In ancient China, young people reading in the sage’s schools not only learned no revolutionary theory but also did not practice labor.” Mao profoundly exposed Confucius’s reactionary educational ideas, sharply criticizing his contempt for the laboring people and the exploitative class’s ideology of labor. In this article, Mao pointed the way forward for the broad youth, praising the combination of youth and workers and peasants in Yan’an as a model nationwide. Mao said: “What did the youth in Yan’an do? They studied revolutionary theory, researched the principles and methods of resisting Japan and saving the country. They carried out production campaigns, developed thousands of acres of wasteland.” Today, millions of young people going to the countryside follow Mao’s glorious revolutionary tradition, inheriting the glorious revolutionary tradition of the Yan’an youth, learning from the poor and lower-middle peasants in rural areas, and actively participating in the people’s struggles, practicing real Marxism in the masses’ lives. The youth working in the countryside are fighting against class enemies, fighting the heavens and the earth, and are transforming our country’s “poor and white” appearance with their own hands day by day. Going to the countryside is a revolutionary act of breaking with Confucius’s reactionary educational ideas.
However, Lin Biao and his gang, like all exploiting classes in history, inherited Confucius’s reactionary ideas of contempt for labor and the laboring people, slandering the youth going to the countryside as “re-education through labor.” This is no different from Confucius scolding Fan Chi for learning farming and gardening as “little people’s” work! Lin Biao’s sinister intention is to sabotage Mao’s grand strategic deployment of cultivating hundreds of millions of proletarian revolution successors, preparing to overthrow the proletarian dictatorship and restore capitalism. This must be thoroughly exposed and criticized.Why does the feudal landlord class praise Confucius?
Before and after gaining ruling power, the feudal landlord class was hostile and opposed to Confucius, who represented the interests of the slave-owning class. During Confucius’s lifetime, the Ji Sun family expelled him from Lu State, and some representatives of emerging forces in Qi even wanted to kill him. At that time, Confucius was opposed and attacked everywhere, fleeing east and west, and he himself admitted to being a “lost dog.” After Qin unified the six states, during the rise of feudal society, the outstanding landlord politician Qin Shi Huang, in the thirty-fourth year of his reign (213 BC), engaged in fierce debates within the Qin government between the Confucian school, represented by scholar Chunyu Yue (Chunyu, a compound surname), and the Legalist school, represented by Prime Minister Li Si. Chunyu Yue attempted to restore the slave society’s feudal system and opposed the county system of feudal society. He cited the poetry and documents of the slave society to defend the feudal system and even threatened that without restoring slavery, Qin’s rule could not last. Li Si rebutted: “The scholars disrespect current realities and rely on antiquity to oppose the present, using retrogressive fallacies to confuse the people, which is very harmful.” He also pointed out that scholars formed cliques, spread rumors and slander about the court in streets and alleys, and should be strictly prohibited. The essence of this debate was the struggle between restoration and opposition to restoration. To fend off the frantic attempts of the slave-owning forces to restore, Qin Shi Huang adopted Li Si’s advice, ordering the burning of all histories of other states except the “Qin Records,” and destroying private collections of poetry, documents, and the sayings of the Hundred Schools; those who discussed poetry and documents were sentenced to death; and the extermination of clans that opposed the current regime. This is what history calls the “Burning of Books.” The following year, those who plotted to restore slavery and oppose feudalism, and who slandered Qin Shi Huang for distrusting Confucianism, were punished with executions. Over 460 Confucian scholars and charlatans who spread rumors and engaged in deception were buried alive. This is known as the “Burial of Confucian Scholars.”
“Burning of Books” involved destroying reactionary Confucian texts, and “Burial of Confucian Scholars” was suppressing the remnants of the slave-owning class’s revolutionary forces. The combined events of “Burning of Books and Burial of Confucian Scholars” marked the victory of the emerging landlord class over the residual slave-owning class’s revolutionary struggle, heavily striking the reactionary forces attempting to restore slavery, further consolidating the newly established unified feudal regime, and advancing society by one step.
As time progressed and society developed, after the landlord class gained nationwide control, its opposition—the peasant class—gradually grew stronger and fought against it, becoming increasingly fierce. At this point, the landlord class began to transform into the opposite. During the Han Dynasty under Emperor Wu, to find suitable ideological tools to uphold feudal rule in the superstructure, the reactionary ideas promoted by Confucius, such as “self-restraint and restoring rites” and “Mandate of Heaven,” became very deceptive. Emperor Wu accepted the advice of Confucian scholar Dong Zhongshu, adopting the policy of abolishing the Hundred Schools of thought (dismissal) and exclusively respecting Confucianism (denigration of other schools, only honoring Confucian ideas). As a result, Confucius’s status was elevated; his texts—“Poetry,” “History,” “Yi,” “Rites,” “Spring and Autumn”—were all called “Classics,” and special scholars were appointed to teach these “Classics.” The “Classics” became eternal, unchanging texts that scholars could only believe in and not doubt. From then on, Confucianism was placed above the Hundred Schools of thought.
From Qin Shi Huang’s “Burning of Books and Burial of Scholars” to Emperor Wu’s “Respect for Confucianism,” less than a century passed, and the attitude of the feudal landlord class toward Confucius’s ideas underwent a 180-degree turn. Why did this happen? Considering today’s situation, it is the 20th century, and China is building socialism, yet there are still people praising Confucius domestically and internationally. This makes us realize that further understanding this issue has significant practical importance.
First, the reason why the feudal landlord class turned to respect Confucianism is determined by its changing historical status and the reactionary nature of Confucius’s ideas.
During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, China was transitioning from a slave society to a feudal society. The fundamental contradictions at that time were between slaves and slave owners, and between emerging landlord classes and declining aristocrats. The struggle for power by the emerging landlord class against the declining aristocrats intensified. The legalist ideas of the period, which emphasized criticizing antiquity and advocating reform, suited the social development and the landlord class’s power struggles and were progressive at that time. Conversely, Confucius’s ideas, which praised antiquity and opposed reform, represented the interests of the declining aristocratic slave owners, acting as an obstacle to social progress and being reactionary. After Qin unified the six states, Qin Shi Huang, an expert in valuing the present over the past, aimed to implement rule of law nationwide and suppress Confucianist revival, taking revolutionary measures like the “Burning of Books and Burial of Scholars.”
By the time of Emperor Wu, the feudal system had become fixed. The social status and political attitude of the landlord class changed. Their main concern was no longer social reform but strengthening exploitation and oppression of peasants and consolidating their rule over them. They saw that Confucian ideas helped consolidate feudal rule, so their attitude toward Confucius’s ideas also changed accordingly. Thus, the reactionary ideas of Confucianism inherited and developed by Dong Zhongshu became the orthodox ideology of feudal society.
Second, feudal society, like slave society, was based on a private ownership system where a minority exploited the majority. Although Confucius’s ideas defended slavery, their core content could also be used to justify the exploitation of peasants by the landlord class. Especially since both feudal and slave societies’ political systems were based on hierarchical relations of kinship, Confucius’s teachings of “ruler and minister, father and son, husband and wife” could serve the feudal social hierarchy. Dong Zhongshu inherited and promoted Confucius’s moral teachings, proposing the “Three Bonds and Five Constants.”
The “Three Bonds” are “ruler as ruler, father as father, husband as husband,” meaning subordinates must always obey their rulers, children their parents, and wives their husbands. These relationships must never be confused. Dong Zhongshu also proposed a metaphysical cosmology that “the great origin of the Way comes from Heaven,” and that the power of the ruler derives from the divine right of Heaven. The “Three Bonds” combined with divine authority evolved into the “political power, clan power, divine power, and husband’s power” of feudal society, representing the entire feudal patriarchal ideology and system, which bound the Chinese people, especially peasants, with four heavy chains. The “Five Constants” are “benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trust,” moral principles that uphold the feudal system. The metaphysical idea of “Heaven does not change, and the Way does not change,” along with the “Three Bonds” and “Five Constants,” long served the decaying feudal ruling class, hindering social development. The “Three Bonds and Five Constants” further developed the slave-owning class’s moral concepts within feudal society, serving to strengthen the landlord class’s control over peasants and support the monarchy based on feudal hierarchy.
Third, class struggle in feudal society was as fierce as in slave society. To maintain the rule of the slave-owning aristocrats, Confucius promoted “virtue,” “benevolence and righteousness,” “loyalty and forgiveness,” “Mandate of Heaven,” and other ideas as spiritual weapons to suppress and bind slaves. The reactionary thinker Dong Zhongshu saw the enormous power of peasant uprisings at the end of the Qin Dynasty and realized that relying solely on brutal repression of peasants was insufficient to consolidate feudal rule; he needed a more insidious and vicious method. Therefore, he took Confucius’s ideas like “Mandate of Heaven,” made slight modifications and developments, and proposed superstitious ideas that natural phenomena and human affairs could “respond” to each other, believing that feudal royal authority should act entirely according to the “will of Heaven.” The common people must absolutely obey the rule of the feudal monarchy; otherwise, Heaven would be angered and bring great disasters. He falsely claimed that the ruler’s joy and anger could influence climate changes (cold, warm, wind, rain). He also promoted the idea that politics should mainly rely on benevolence and virtue, not punishment, turning the brutal exploitation of peasants into a supposed “benevolent” “rule by virtue,” to lull and poison the people, making them obedient to the landlord class’s rule.
As contradictions between peasants and landlords intensified, the landlord class increasingly relied on Confucius’s reactionary ideas, elevating Confucius’s status even higher. During the Tang Dynasty, under the brutal exploitation of landlords over peasants, sharp contradictions emerged, exemplified by the saying “Zhu men wine and meat stink, and the bones of frozen dead lie on the road.” In the autumn of 739 AD, Emperor Xuanzong of Tang conferred the title “Wenxuan King” on Confucius, changed his idol’s seat from facing east to facing south (the seat of feudal emperors, always facing south), dressed him in royal robes, and played music according to imperial standards. His students, Yan Hui, Zilu, Zeng Shen, and others, were also given titles like duke, marquis, and count.
During the Song Dynasty, class and ethnic conflicts became very sharp. The rulers further elevated Confucius’s status, adding the words “Supreme Sage” to his title, making him “Supreme Sage Wenxuan King.” A group of Confucian scholars dedicated to praising Confucius emerged. They took the “Great Learning” and “Doctrine of the Mean” from the “Book of Rites,” placing them alongside the “Analects” and “Mencius,” calling the collection the “Four Books.” This established the name “Four Books” and “Five Classics.” Zhu Xi, a Neo-Confucian scholar of the Southern Song, annotated the “Analects” and “Mencius,” and compiled chapters and sentences for the “Great Learning” and “Doctrine of the Mean.” Rulers of the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties made Zhu Xi’s “Four Books” required textbooks, and quoting or elaborating on them had to be based on Zhu Xi’s annotations. The Qing rulers further increased Confucius’s titles, adding “Grand Master of Great Achievement, Supreme Sage, Wenxuan King,” and so on, making Confucius’s praise reach even higher levels. The more titles added, the more Confucius was worshipped, and the reactionary ideas of Confucianism became an increasingly heavy spiritual chain binding the Chinese people.
During the Qing Dynasty, China’s feudal society had entered its final stage. Class and ethnic contradictions grew even sharper. In 1645, the Shunzhi Emperor conferred the title “Grand Master of Great Achievement, Supreme Sage, and First Teacher” on Confucius, almost elevating him to heaven.
Lu Xun said: “After Confucius died, various powers used all kinds of cosmetics to beautify him, raising him to an alarming height.” The above account describes the process by which the feudal ruling class elevated Confucius. It was a shameful and evil process.
In the long history of feudal society, Confucian ideas served the reactionary rule of the feudal landlord class and hindered social progress. Therefore, from the moment feudal rulers began to promote Confucian reactionary ideas, progressive thinkers criticized and fought against them. For example, the materialist philosopher Wang Chong of the Eastern Han Dynasty sharply criticized Dong Zhongshu’s “Heaven-Human Response” theory and the metaphysical cosmology of “Heaven does not change, and the Way does not change.” He argued that: “The changes in climate—cold and warmth—are natural phenomena, not decided by humans.” During the Warring States period, the various feudal states fought each other, and the rulers often got angry, but there was no constant coldness or warmth. During Yao and Shun’s time, “peace reigned in the world,” and rulers often rejoiced, yet it was not always warm or cold. This shows that the alternation of seasons is determined by natural laws, unrelated to the rulers’ emotions. This is a strong critique of the fallacious “Heaven-Human Response” theory. Wang Chong also pointed out that ancient people lived in caves, and only later built houses, indicating that nothing in the world is unchanging, and human society is progressing. This not only powerfully criticized Dong Zhongshu’s metaphysical cosmology but also challenged the retrograde currents of the time.
Revolutionary peasants, aiming to overthrow the reactionary rule of the landlord class, also fiercely criticized Confucius’s reactionary ideas. The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom revolution, led by Hong Xiuquan, was the largest peasant revolution in modern China. At the outset of the revolution, Hong Xiuquan smashed Confucius’s ancestral tablet, symbolizing the destruction of the spiritual authority of the feudal landlord class. Hong Xiuquan sharply pointed out that the root of all the sins of feudal society was “Confucius’s teachings are full of mistakes.” His fierce criticism of Confucius’s reactionary ideas was a revolutionary act of the working people’s struggle against feudalism, representing the firm will of revolutionary peasants to smash the chains of feudal slavery and oppression, greatly promoting their ideological liberation.
The Taiping peasant revolution aimed to overthrow the feudal landlord class’s rule and, in theory, launched fierce attacks on the landlord class’s political, divine, and husbandly authority. They believed that only humans are precious in the universe, and all gods made of wood, stone, mud, or paper should be destroyed, directly attacking feudal divine authority. They also believed that all people are equal and rejected any hierarchical system based on wealth or social status, directly targeting the feudal system itself. The policies of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom declared: “Divide land according to population, regardless of gender,” and “Marriage and property are not to be judged by wealth,” allowing women to participate equally in economic, political, and military activities. This was a powerful critique of the feudal ideology of male superiority and female inferiority.
The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom declared Confucian and Mencian texts as “evil books,” carried out a revolutionary purge of Confucian ideas that represented the entire feudal patriarchal system, heavily struck at the feudal system, and shook the rule of the feudal landlord class.
The mighty Taiping Heavenly Kingdom’s revolutionary war shocked and terrified the landlord class greatly. The Confucian moral guardian Zeng Guofan, in order to defend the crumbling reactionary rule of the Qing Dynasty, desperately clung to Confucius as a lifeline, seeking excuses to suppress the Taiping revolution. He stood on the reactionary side of the landlord class, attacking the Taiping as destroying “Confucian classics,” falsely claiming that “the moral principles of thousands of years of Chinese etiquette, righteousness, and literature will be wiped out,” and that Confucius and Mencius would “weep bitterly in their graves.” Zeng Guofan, the executioner of the peasant revolution, openly promoted that his defense of “Confucian and Mencian doctrines” was to “console the pain of human relations,” aiming to allow feudal monarchs to maintain their rule peacefully. After leading the counterrevolutionary armed force “Xiang Army” captured the Taiping capital Tianjing (modern Nanjing), he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Taiping soldiers and their families. According to his own account, “where the Xiang Army went, the Qinhuai River was filled with corpses.” Where are the “rites and righteousness” he spoke of? Where is “human relations”? From this, it is clear that Confucius’s reactionary ideas not only served as a shield for the reactionary landlord class against social change but also became a bloody butcher’s knife to directly suppress the peasant revolution.
From the facts listed above, it is evident that after the feudal landlord class gained control, in order to maintain their reactionary rule and resist social revolution, they always relied on the spirit of Confucius, constantly praising him. Conversely, the people seeking progress and advocating revolution to overthrow the reactionary rule of the landlord class must criticize the “Way of Confucius and Mencius” and thoroughly overthrow Confucius.# What Does the Series of “Pilgrimage” Farces Reveal?
In China’s long-standing feudal society, the feudal landlord class exalted Confucius as a “saint” and used the Confucian thought created by him and developed by successive feudal ideologists as a tool for ruling the people. After the Opium War of 1840, reactionary Confucian ideas gradually merged with imperialist and comprador bourgeoisie thoughts, becoming ideological weapons for imperialism, the landlord class, and bureaucrat-capitalists to deceive the people and suppress revolutions.
In 1911, the Xinhai Revolution overthrew the Qing Dynasty, and the feudal monarchs who had ruled China for over two thousand years were pushed off the stage of history. Yuan Shikai, the leader of the Beiyang warlords, supported by imperialism, usurped the victory of the Xinhai Revolution. To oppose the revolution, maintain imperialist and feudal rule in China, and realize his ambition to restore feudal imperialism and ascend the throne as emperor, he intensified repression against the people and promoted activities to honor Confucius and revive antiquity. Under Yuan Shikai’s direction, in 1914, a group of Qing relics appeared on the streets of Beijing, dressed in specially made ancient robes, bizarrely rushing to the Confucian Temple to worship Confucius’s idol. Yuan Shikai also ordered provinces to hold simultaneous sacrifices to Confucius. This was the “pilgrimage” farce, the first “grand ceremony” since the so-called “Republic,” which Lu Xun denounced. Behind this “pilgrimage” farce was Yuan Shikai’s attempt to restore the monarchy.
After Yuan Shikai’s failed attempt to restore the monarchy, a small group of monarchist traitors led by Kang Youwei continued Yuan’s reactionary activities to honor Confucius and revive antiquity, slandering the revolutionary movement as “morally corrupt,” claiming that the “big corruption” was due to “disrespect for Confucius.” They even wanted to turn Confucianism into a religion, falsely claiming that China could not exist without “Confucianism,” and that destroying “Confucianism” would mean the end of China. They submitted petitions to the Beiyang warlord government advocating for “Confucianism” to be declared the “state religion” and enshrined in the constitution, forcing people to believe.
The spectacle of honoring Confucius and reviving antiquity staged by Yuan Shikai, Kang Youwei, and others, as Marx described, was “tremblingly summoning spirits of the dead to help them, borrowing their names, slogans, and clothes, to perform new scenes of world history.” But history mercilessly mocked these petty clowns. The spirits of Confucius failed to help Yuan Shikai’s attempt to restore the imperial system, and Kang Youwei only earned a notorious reputation as a monarchist, eventually being thrown into the dustbin of history.
The May Fourth Movement was a new cultural revolution against feudal old culture, old morals, and old ideas. In response to Yuan Shikai and Kang Youwei’s promotion of honoring Confucius and reviving antiquity, the movement immediately targeted the main ideological tool used by all exploiters to enslave the people and oppose revolution—Confucianism—raising the revolutionary slogan “Down with the Confucian Shop.” The May Fourth Movement was influenced by the October Revolution. Although the Chinese Communist Party had not yet been established during this period, many intellectuals with preliminary communist ideas participated. Later, not only intellectuals but also broad masses of the proletariat, petty bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie joined, turning it into a nationwide revolutionary movement. The movement demonstrated that China’s anti-imperialist and anti-feudal bourgeois democratic revolution had entered a new stage. It laid the ideological and organizational groundwork for the founding of the Chinese Communist Party.
Lu Xun was a leading figure of the New Culture Movement. His novella “A Madman’s Diary,” published on the eve of the “May Fourth” Movement, was a denunciation of feudal moral teachings. (The “proclamation,” xi, sounds like “sì,” and is a war-time denunciation.) In this story, Lu Xun exposed the feudal remnants advocating eating old customs, noting that while they loudly extol “benevolence, righteousness, and morality,” “not only are their lips smeared with human oil, but their hearts are full of cannibalistic intentions.” “A Madman’s Diary” states: “I opened the history and checked it; this history has no dates, and every page is written with the words ‘benevolence, righteousness, and morality.’ I couldn’t sleep at all, looked carefully through the night, and finally saw the words between the lines—‘cannibals!’” Lu Xun’s words sharply pointed out the evil essence of feudal moral teachings. In 1925, Lu Xun further pointed out in “Dengxia Manbi” that feudal morality was essentially “a banquet of human flesh prepared for the wealthy.” The entire old China was “simply a kitchen preparing this human flesh banquet.” Lu Xun called on young people to “sweep away these cannibals, tear down this seat, and destroy this kitchen,” overthrowing the rotten old society. This revolutionary slogan propelled the tide against feudal moral teachings forward.
On July 1, 1921, the Chinese Communist Party was proclaimed. Under the leadership of its vanguard, the Chinese working class stepped onto the political stage, and the face of the Chinese revolution was renewed. Under CCP leadership, from 1926, the Northern Expedition was victoriously carried out, overthrowing the rule of the Beiyang warlords. Just as the revolution was advancing, Chiang Kai-shek’s reactionary clique exploited the youth and inexperience of the CCP to launch a counterrevolutionary coup on April 12, 1927, establishing a feudal fascist reactionary regime. Chiang’s forces carried out military “encirclement” against revolutionary forces, while also waving the black flag of honoring Confucius and reviving antiquity as an important part of their cultural “encirclement.” Soon after the “April 12” coup, Chiang went to Qufu to “pay homage,” praising Confucius as the “teacher of eternal benevolence and righteousness” and “the model of all human relations.” On August 27, 1934, Chiang held a “Confucius Birthday Commemoration” in Shanghai, using forty musical instruments to perform what was claimed to be the “music of Shao” that Confucius supposedly listened to, which made him “lose the taste for meat” for three months. This was the “second grand ceremony” of “pilgrimage” since the Republic, denounced by Lu Xun. Chiang’s reactionary purpose of honoring Confucius was openly revealed in his 1928 “Order” to protect Confucian temples: “It aims to fundamentally eradicate communism, and promoting inherent moral intelligence is insufficient to dispel heretical teachings and correct people’s hearts.” The so-called “heresy” he attacked was the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism. Along with these grotesque performances, Chiang also sold out the northeast three provinces and five provinces of North China externally, and internally implemented feudal fascist rule, “encircling” revolutionary bases.
Lu Xun, the great standard-bearer of the New Culture Movement, personally witnessed the reactionary rulers’ “pilgrimage” farces, filled with righteous indignation, and with heroic spirit of fearless opposition to the reactionary anti-Confucian and anti-antiquity currents, launched powerful attacks. Lu Xun’s incisive and forceful essays, like sharp daggers, directly pierced the hearts of reactionary rulers, exposing their crimes in broad daylight. “Unfamiliar with Meat and Water” and “Confucius in Modern China” are representative works of his counterattack against the reactionary currents of honoring Confucius and reviving antiquity.
In these articles, Lu Xun stripped away the titles such as “Great Sage and Teacher” that successive reactionary ruling classes had bestowed upon Confucius, exposing the essence of Confucius’s reactionary ideas. Lu Xun said: “Yes, Confucius once devised excellent methods for governing the country, but those were all for the rulers—methods designed for the powerful, not for the people themselves.” During his lifetime, Confucius desperately hoped that the slave-owning class would take responsibility for restoring the entire set of regulations and moral norms of the Western Zhou slave society, so as to “manage the slave society, consolidate the slave system, suppress slave resistance, and ensure the longevity of the slave system (by the state, establishing the nation, ordering the people, benefiting future generations).” He wanted slaves to accept their oppressed and exploited fate. His student Zixia said, “Life and death are determined by fate; wealth and honor depend on heaven,” which was also decided by “heaven.” Clearly, these were the governing methods planned by the “ruling class”—the slave-owning aristocracy. Confucius, living during a turbulent period of transition from slave society to feudal society, stubbornly sided with the slave-owning class, planning “excellent methods for governing” for the reactionary aristocrats. This shows he was a reactionary who opposed progress, advocated backwardness, opposed reform, and promoted antiquity. Later, all the successive reactionary rulers’ grand honors to Confucius were “for different purposes,” merely using Confucius as a “door-opener” to their own “gates of happiness.” “But the gates of happiness still remain closed to everyone.” This is because “the times have changed, and all have clearly failed.” In August 1934, at the “Confucius Birthday Commemoration” in Shanghai, when “music of Shao” was played to honor Confucius, farmers in Yuyao, Zhejiang, died from drought and water shortage. Lu Xun pointed out: “Hearing Shao is a world; thirst is a world. Eating meat without tasting it is a world; thirsting for water is a world. Naturally, there are distinctions between gentlemen and villains,” exposing the reactionary essence of that sacrificial ceremony.
The shameful failures of the successive reactionary rulers’ honoring Confucius did not end the struggle between respecting and opposing Confucius in China. After the liberation, the Chinese Communist Party led the people in socialist revolution and construction, but traitor Liu Shaoqi again promoted “Black Cultivation,” advocating “Confucian and Mencian doctrines” to corrupt party members and the masses. In spring 1951, Liu Shaoqi personally went to Qufu to pay homage to Confucius’s idol, shouting “Confucius is great.” This was another “pilgrimage” farce staged by Liu Shaoqi after liberation.
Chairman Mao led the entire nation in striking a blow against the reactionary currents of honoring Confucius and reviving antiquity. In 1951, during the critique of the reactionary film “Wu Xun,” Mao criticized Liu Shaoqi and his group for “efforts to preserve old things to avoid death,” a reactionary idea. In 1955, during the peak of agricultural collectivization, Mao pointed out in the postscript of “An Agricultural Cooperative That Increased Production by 67% in Three Years”: “Qufu County is Confucius’s hometown… Now, the people there have established socialist cooperatives. After more than two thousand years of poverty, after three years of cooperatives, both economic and cultural life have begun to change. This proves that the current socialism is indeed unprecedented. Compared to Confucius’s ‘classics,’ socialism is many times better.” However, Liu Shaoqi and his group, for counterrevolutionary reasons, praised Confucius’s “classics” and opposed socialism. Liu Shaoqi crazily claimed that “the cooperatives were started too early” and “done poorly,” massively dismantling the agricultural cooperatives. Liu Shaoqi and his group both promoted “Confucian and Mencian doctrines” by going on “pilgrimages” to Qufu and opposed socialist agricultural collectivization—blatant counterrevolutionary activities. Mao’s commentary powerfully exposed and condemned Liu Shaoqi’s group for their opposition to socialism and their attempt to restore capitalism.
The two “pilgrimage” farces staged during China’s bourgeois democratic revolutionary movement clearly demonstrated that Confucius’s reactionary ideas are the ideological foundation of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism’s rule in China. In the socialist society stage, Liu Shaoqi’s third “pilgrimage” farce also clearly shows that Confucius’s reactionary ideas are the ideological basis for the party’s capitalist-roaders’ conspiracy to overthrow the proletarian dictatorship and restore capitalism. After Liu Shaoqi, Lin Biao also lurked in the shadows, promoting “Confucian and Mencian doctrines” to manufacture reactionary public opinion and plot a counterrevolution. All these facts serve as a negative lesson for revolutionary people, making us realize that the current ideological struggle against Confucius is of profound significance for consolidating the proletarian dictatorship and preventing capitalist restoration.
Confucian Thought Is a Black Root of Lin Biao’s Reactionary Ideas
During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, Confucius’s entire set of reactionary ideas served to uphold and restore slavery. Confucius stood on the side of the slave-owning aristocracy, opposed slave uprisings, and resisted the growth of emerging landlord forces, stubbornly blocking the wheel of history. In the long feudal society, Confucius’s reactionary ideas were exploited by the feudal landlord class, becoming a heavy spiritual chain that bound the people, especially the broad peasantry, and a soft knife used by the feudal ruling class to kill without bloodshed. Over the past century, Confucius’s reactionary ideas have formed a reactionary cultural alliance with imperialist enslaving thoughts, becoming a rotten ideological weapon for imperialism and all reactionaries to oppose the people’s revolution, especially the proletariat and Marxism-Leninism. Imperialism uses it to try to turn China into its colony. Large landlords and bourgeoisie use it to maintain feudal, comprador, and fascist rule in China. The reason why all the reactionary rulers have honored Confucius is because Confucius’s political line is a counterrevolutionary political line, useful to all exploitative classes. Conversely, revolutionary people throughout history, the modern proletariat, and revolutionary masses have always fought against reactionary ruling classes and imperialism, revisionism, and all reactionaries, maintaining a sharp ideological struggle with Confucius’s reactionary ideas. This is a long-standing struggle between revolution and counterrevolution, restoration and counter-restoration.
Party internal struggle reflects the social class struggle within the party. Over the past half-century, our party has experienced ten major ideological struggles. After the fall of Liu Shaoqi’s traitor group during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Lin Biao’s anti-party clique emerged to continue the struggle against the proletariat, representing the intense class struggle both domestically and internationally. Lin Biao and his small group of accomplices were a reactionary conspiracy group that “never parted from the Quotations, never parted from the slogans of ‘Long Live,’ spoke nice words face-to-face, and secretly plotted treachery.” Their real aim in implementing reactionary revisionism and launching armed counterrevolution was to seize the highest power of the party and state, fundamentally betray the Ninth Congress’s line, and change the basic line and policies of the party during the entire socialist period, turning the Chinese Communist Party into a revisionist fascist party and overthrowing the proletarian dictatorship to restore capitalism. Domestically, they sought to restore the landlord-bourgeoisie they had overthrown under Mao’s leadership, establishing a feudal fascist dictatorship. Internationally, they aimed to surrender to Soviet revisionist social imperialism, form alliances with imperialism, revisionism, and reactionaries, and oppose China and communism. Therefore, in political and ideological terms, they would inevitably use Confucius’s reactionary ideas to poison the people and viciously attack Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.
Lin Biao and his gang, who were essentially ambitious opportunists and schemers with no real knowledge, also bizarrely talked about Confucius and Mencius. This was definitely not “a nostalgic sentiment for ancient times.”
The old revisionists of the Second International, to oppose Marxism, once shouted “Return to Kant.” (Kant was an 18th-century German idealist philosopher, whose basic philosophical feature was the reconciliation of materialism and idealism.) The Russian revisionists, to oppose Leninism, also invoked the modern bourgeois reactionary philosophical school—Machism—dressed in the latest philosophical fashion. (Mach was a 19th-century Austrian subjective idealist philosopher.) The Soviet revisionist traitors raised the banner of “humanitarianism” and “human nature” to sell “life philosophy,” thoroughly betraying and rewriting Marxism-Leninism, turning Lenin’s homeland—the first socialist country, the Soviet Union—into social imperialism. Besides borrowing from revisionism and bourgeois reactionary ideas, Lin Biao’s anti-party group also specifically resurrected Confucius, venerating his reactionary ideas that defend exploitation, claiming them as the “truth,” to justify their current counterrevolutionary crimes. Confucius’s thought is a black root of Lin Biao’s reactionary ideas.
The theoretical program of Lin Biao’s anti-party group is the idealist “Genius Theory.” Why do they stubbornly cling to the “Genius Theory”? Because “Genius Theory” is an important part of the idealist worldview of all exploitative classes. To maintain the interests of the exploiting classes, they ruthlessly exploit and oppress the broad masses of workers, always suppressing the great role of the masses in creating history, and promoting the idealist view that “heroes” and “saints” create history. Confucius’s doctrine of “born knowing,” and the idea that “only the highest wisdom and the lowest foolishness are unchangeable,” are typical of this kind. Marxism’s historical materialism is fundamentally opposed to the idealist worldview of the exploiting classes. Marxism holds that revolutionary theory of the proletariat arises from the practice of class struggle against the bourgeoisie, not from some “genius” mind imagining out of thin air. Proletarian leaders emerge through long revolutionary struggles, in the revolutionary practice of the proletariat and the broad revolutionary masses. The reason proletarian leaders can undertake the great task of leading the revolutionary movement is entirely because they gather the wisdom of the masses, have rich revolutionary struggle experience, and maintain close blood ties with the broad revolutionary masses. Successors of the proletarian revolution must also be tempered and cultivated in the turbulent waves of revolutionary struggle.
Lin Biao falsely claimed that denying his “genius” means denying Marxism. In fact, Lin Biao’s “Genius Theory” is just a broken weapon taken from Confucius and the reactionary ideas of successive exploitative classes, a revival of Confucian reactionary thought under new circumstances. Lin Biao sought to use the “Genius Theory” and its idealist worldview to deny Marxist historical materialism, thereby denying the historical role of the people, the revolutionary practice of the proletarian party and leaders, and to sever the blood ties between the proletarian party, leaders, and the broad masses. He also used this to create reactionary public opinion for his dream of establishing a feudal fascist Lin family dynasty.
Lin Biao especially admired Confucius’s reactionary ideas of “virtue,” “benevolence and righteousness,” “loyalty and forgiveness,” and “the Doctrine of the Mean.” In fact, the essence of these ideas, promoted by Confucius and the successive reactionary ruling classes, is to attempt to reconcile contradictions, gloss over and cover up the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, and oppose the revolutionary uprising of the ruled. When Lin Biao advocates “virtue,” “benevolence and righteousness,” “loyalty and forgiveness,” and “the Doctrine of the Mean” today, he is urging the proletariat to speak “loyalty and forgiveness,” to practice “benevolence and righteousness,” and to implement “virtuous governance” towards landlords and the bourgeoisie, fostering these reactionary classes and restoring capitalism. While promoting Confucius’s “virtue,” “benevolence and righteousness,” “loyalty and forgiveness,” and “the Doctrine of the Mean,” Lin Biao also denounces Qin Shi Huang, attacking the “Burning Books and Burying Confucian Scholars,” to mourn the fall of the feudal slave-owning ruling class. His curses against Qin Shi Huang and attacks on the “Burning of Books and Burying Confucian Scholars” are merely used to attack the proletarian dictatorship. From his curses, one can clearly hear the voices of reactionary elements who have been suppressed and overthrown by the proletariat, opposing the proletarian dictatorship. Lin Biao’s praise of Confucius’s “virtue” and “benevolence” and his curses on Qin Shi Huang, in this mixture of praise and abuse, fully reveal his intention to distort history, attack the proletarian dictatorship, and serve his own ambitions of restoring feudal and capitalist rule.
Liu Shaoqi promoted Confucian and Mencian doctrines, and Lin Biao inherited Confucius’s reactionary legacy. After the rise of the Soviet revisionist clique, especially in recent years, they published a series of works and papers promoting the trend of respecting Confucianism and opposing legalism, vigorously praising Confucianism, denouncing Legalism, and attacking Qin Shi Huang. The Soviet social imperialists are keen on praising Confucius, the ancient reactionary, to support Liu Shaoqi, Lin Biao, and similar figures in modern China. They seek to find weapons from reactionary forces of the past to attack the proletariat, summoning spirits of history to serve their counterrevolutionary restoration and conspiracy.
However, the development of history does not follow the subjective wishes of a small reactionary clique. All decayed exploitative ideas and the spirits of Confucius cannot save Lin Biao’s complete failure. When revolutionary people peel off Lin Biao’s mask, trace the roots, dig out the black roots of Lin Biao’s reactionary ideas, and expose the ultra-right essence of his reactionary line, their resolve to break completely with all exploitative class ideas and traditions is strengthened.
Socialist society is a relatively long stage of history. During this stage, class and class struggle always exist, as do the struggles between socialism and capitalism, the danger of capitalist restoration, and the threats of imperialism and social imperialism to subvert and invade. The internal struggle within the party over these contradictions will also last long, with numerous struggles—ten, twenty, or thirty—more line struggles, and figures like Lin Biao, Wang Ming, Liu Shaoqi, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang. This is an inevitable process beyond human will.
Leaders of revisionist lines like Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao once used different methods to promote Confucian reactionary ideas to oppose Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. Historical experience is instructive. Today, as we deepen the campaign to criticize Lin Biao and rectify the party, it is crucial to criticize Confucius’s reactionary ideas, further understand their essence, and their connection with Lin Biao’s reactionary ideas and all reactionary thoughts. Confucius’s ideas have ruled China for over two thousand years and will not easily exit the stage of history; in fact, they still stubbornly persist in some fields of the superstructure. Therefore, criticizing Confucius’s ideas is of great significance for thoroughly exposing the reactionary nature of Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao’s revisionist fallacies, eliminating the reactionary influence of feudal and bourgeois ideas, and promoting Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.
Comrade Zhou Enlai, in his report to the party’s Tenth Congress, called on the entire party: “We must pay attention to the class struggle in the superstructure, including all cultural fields, and reform all superstructure that is incompatible with the economic base.” Concerning issues related to lines and the overall situation, under Mao’s revolutionary line, we must carry forward the revolutionary spirit of resisting countercurrents and relentlessly oppose erroneous lines and tendencies. In the fierce and complex struggle between two classes, two lines, and two types of ideology, the bourgeoisie always seeks to poison the people with decayed bourgeois ideas through various channels, undermine the economic foundation of socialism, and hinder the continued revolution under the proletarian dictatorship. Therefore, criticizing revisionism and bourgeois world outlooks is an important task in the realm of superstructure for socialist revolution. Let us respond to the party’s Tenth Congress’s call for struggle, study Marxist-Leninist and Mao Zedong Thought conscientiously, and strive to arm ourselves with the world outlook of dialectical and historical materialism, criticize revisionism, oppose bourgeois world outlooks, and carry the class struggle in the ideological sphere through to the end.