How the "Basic Line" of the Party Eventually Came into Being

Abstract

Another important editorial was the one issued in June 1967 to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the publication of On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People. In the editorial, the chairman's thinking was systematically laid out. The erroneous theses were compiled mainly by myself. I alone drafted the editorial. As early as February, the chairman had instructed me to do a summation of his theses on continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and to see what theoretical grounds existed for them. After I had done the writing, Chen Boda did not change a single word. The theoretical processing was done principally by myself, and I assembled the erroneous thoughts the chairman had entertained since 1962. I also systematized statements the chairman had made at two different meetings. These were later called "the party's basic line." All of them were the chairman's original statements, which I picked out here and there and put together. I did not change a single word; only in one place did I reverse the sequence of his words: I changed the phrase "talk about it every day, every month, and every year" to "talk about it every year, every month, and every day." In addition, I brought together scattered and miscellaneous thoughts and put them in logical and systematic order. On this matter, I bear grave responsibility. However, this set of statements is most representative of his thinking. Nor could such a complete set of statements have been compiled had it not been for the historical realities of the subsequent "Great Cultural Revolution" and those scattered and miscellaneous statements. There was a certain duality to the article I wrote at the time. The first part was erroneous; the second part reflected another aspect of the views that the chairman frequently expressed and that were assembled to become six criteria, each of which was directed at ultra-Left matters that were occurring during the movement at that time. This part may have had a good effect. The two parts originally carried the same weight, but after they were written, the second part was not passed during discussions at a meeting of the Cultural Revolution Group presided over by the premier. The premier nominally had the position of chairman at that meeting, but Jiang Qing, who sat to one side, kept jumping up whenever something went against her wishes. During the discussions, Qi Benyu was the first to oppose the second part. He said: "What, in the final analysis, does this article oppose, Right [tendencies] or Left [tendencies]?" Jiang Qing, too, was against opposing "Left" [tendencies]. Guan Feng, who was the permanent deputy chief editor of Red Flag (Chen Boda was chief editor and I was the first deputy chief editor), said: "In that case, strike it out!" Jiang Qing made the decision that this part should not be retained. Chen Boda did not offer an opinion; he had at first praised [this part], saying: "Very good. I wouldn't have been able to write it." But he now agreed to delete it. That is why the editorial now reflected only one aspect. Regarding the other aspect, all that was retained was the passage in which the chairman advocated repudiating the erroneous slogan "thoroughly ameliorate the dictatorship of the proletariat." Also retained were quotations (yin wen) from the "six criteria." Thus the article failed to show that the primary [task] at the time was to oppose "Left" [tendencies]. Moreover, those six criteria could all be interpreted as opposing Right [tendencies]. And so it was passed. The premier said: "Issue it this way, then!" This editorial was not sent to the chairman. Hence the passage that later was to become the "basic line of the party" did not go through the chairman's hands at the time. But he read it at some later date, of course.