Library:What I’ve Learned About “Pravda”
What I’ve Learned About "Pravda" | |
|---|---|
 Zhang Chunqiao, author. | |
| Written by | Zhang Chunqiao |
| Written in | April 19, 1954 |
| Source | Selected Works of Zhang Chunqiao Volume I |
What I’ve Learned About "Pravda"
Zhang Chunqiao
April 19, 1954
People’s Daily
The decades of historical experience of Soviet newspapers, led by Pravda, tell us that conducting criticism and self-criticism is an indestructible principle of Soviet press work. Newspapers use the weapon of criticism and self-criticism to help the Party educate the people into strong and loyal fighters.
The various congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, particularly those held after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, have provided clear and resolute directives on the issue of conducting criticism and self-criticism in newspapers.
The famous resolution on the press adopted at the 8th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1919 emphasized, on one hand, that the Party and Soviet press are the most powerful tools for propaganda, agitation, and organization, and are irreplaceable means for influencing the broadest masses. On the other hand, it called for Party newspapers to engage in criticism and self-criticism:
"One of the most important tasks of Party and Soviet newspapers is to expose various crimes committed by personnel and institutions, and to point out the mistakes and shortcomings of Party and Soviet organizations. All of this must be done in a factual and comradely manner. Those individuals and institutions mentioned by the newspaper for their actions must, within the shortest possible time, provide an accurate correction in the same newspaper or indicate how the errors were rectified. If such corrections or acknowledgments are not made, the revolutionary tribunal shall indict the individuals or institutions identified."
These provisions are still adhered to today.
With the victorious progress of socialist construction and the successful completion of several Five-Year Plans, criticism and self-criticism have become even more prominent in newspapers. At the beginning of the first Five-Year Plan, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union issued a letter to all Party members and workers on June 3, 1928. This letter introduced the famous slogan advocating criticism and self-criticism, regardless of the subject or personal considerations, conducted from top to bottom and bottom to top. This slogan became the fundamental guiding principle for Party and Soviet newspapers in their efforts to carry out criticism and self-criticism.
The Party’s 19th Congress once again emphasized the immense and immeasurable significance of criticism and self-criticism in advancing the Party’s cause.
Why has the Party adopted so many resolutions and repeatedly raised this issue over and over again?
The comrades from the editorial board of Pravda told us:
"Carrying out criticism and self-criticism has not been without obstacles. When a person is criticized, it will not evoke the same feeling as when they are praised, nor will it bring the kind of joy a child feels when their head is lovingly patted by their mother—this is simply unavoidable. Reaching the point where individuals and institutions being criticized consciously write letters of self-reflection to the newspaper’s editorial board after seeing their criticism in print has not been an easy task. Over twenty years ago, some responsible cadres were disciplined for making mistakes in their attitudes toward criticism. Even today, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its press must continue to fight to ensure that Party members and the working people can criticize the shortcomings and mistakes of the Party and government without hesitation, and to ensure that such criticism produces tangible results. This is also an essential part of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s struggle to strengthen the connection between the Party and the people, to eliminate the remnants of capitalist thought, and to build communism."
The comrades from the editorial board of Pravda have shared with us many examples, illustrating how the Party has fought to pave the way for criticism and self-criticism.
Pravda once published a satirical piece titled 'The Case of Anna Vasilia.' It tells the story of an incident that occurred in Moscow: Anna Vasilia was an active female Party member who, after criticizing the district committee at a Party meeting, angered the committee. Initially, they tried to suppress her, and in the end, they dismissed her from her job. She went to Pravda to appeal, asking for the newspaper’s help.
Pravda's editorial board sent reporter Comrade Kolosov to investigate, and he confirmed that her account was true. Kolosov then wrote the satirical piece, which was published. The issue drew the attention of the Party’s Central Committee and was raised for discussion at a central meeting. The meeting decided to form a special committee to conduct an investigation. The committee included the Central Committee’s secretary, officials from the Soviet Prosecutor General’s Office and the Supreme Court, as well as Kolosov, the author of the piece.
They investigated the district committee involved in the incident and spoke with many Party members, discovering that criticism and self-criticism were not being effectively carried out in the district. The committee reported their findings at the central meeting. The meeting decided to restore Anna Vasilia’s job, remove the district committee secretary from his position, and instructed the Moscow City Party Committee to pay attention to promoting criticism and self-criticism.
Pravda has fought many battles in support of local newspapers' criticisms. There was once a regional newspaper that criticized staff members of the regional trade department. They had organized a food exhibition, and at the end, the staff ate all the exhibition items. In their criticism, the regional newspaper mentioned that the staff had sung a song called “The Reeds Are Rustling” while drinking. The criticized individuals disagreed, arguing that while they ate all the food, they did not sing the song, and therefore, "the criticism did not match the facts."
Pravda published a satirical piece titled “The Reeds Are Rustling,” mocking their attitude toward criticism.
Some cadres emphasized the difficulties in their work, saying that there
were challenges here and there, and that when reporters came, they wrote
about their many shortcomings, which put them in a difficult and troublesome position. The Party told them:
"Criticism in the newspapers is precisely to help you overcome difficulties. This is the Party’s basic method of work. Without it, you cannot overcome difficulties or make progress."
Criticism and self-criticism extend to all areas of life and have become a way of life.
During our visit to the Soviet Union, we deeply felt that criticism and self-criticism had become a way of life here. People need it, just like they need air and water. It is common to see criticism of various aspects of work in newspapers, particularly criticism of key sectors and important cadres that have a decisive impact on the development of things. For example, Pravda on March 25, 1953, criticized the State Planning Committee of the Soviet Union; on November 12, it criticized the Minister of the Timber and Pulp Industry; on November 16, it devoted nearly half a page to criticizing the Gorky Regional Party Committee (including several Party secretaries); on December 14, it criticized the Minister of the Soviet Union’s Coal Industry; on December 16, it criticized the Minister and Deputy Minister of Agriculture; on December 18, it criticized the Ministry of Building Materials Industry; and on January 14, 1954, it criticized the leaders of the Molotov Regional Party Committee. Pravda published 125 satirical pieces in the past year. Every day’s editorial, when discussing domestic issues, includes both criticism and praise.
Pravda’s criticism covers all areas of life. Since the Party leads all work,
the Party’s official newspaper should reflect the Party’s deep concern for
every aspect of life.
Recently, the Party has paid particular attention to agricultural issues, and Pravda’s criticism has also focused on agriculture. The criticisms of the Minister of Agriculture and several regional Party committees have all been related to agricultural issues.
The Party has set the task of developing light industry, and Pravda has criticized the leaders of the Soviet light industry sector. However, since light industry is often influenced by other industrial sectors, criticisms have also been directed at the relevant departments. For example, on August 13 of the previous year, an article titled "It’s Time, the Ministry of Chemical Industry Should Provide Quality Dyes for Textile Workers!" was published. It was written by three scholars and two engineers. On September 3, another article titled “The Ministry of Machine Engineering Should Provide Production Equipment for Expanding Light Industry” was published, co-authored by three doctoral degree holders in technical sciences, two masters, and one engineer. The various fields of ideological work are areas that Pravda frequently focuses on. In recent months, there
have been comments on literary and artistic issues, including: fighting for
creative diversity, modern rural life in literary magazines, why our poetry
has fallen behind, the need for stricter technical standards in poetry, what
is hindering the development of cinema, the difficulties in developing
mass songs, the lack of a creative atmosphere in the Soviet Union’s Union
of Artists, the need for more diverse performances during festivals, the
issue of providing services for rural music festivals, the need to pay more
attention to rural audiences, and discussions before the Second Congress
of Writers, among others.
Reviews of newspapers, magazines, and books hold an important place in Pravda. Each month, six or seven reviews of newspapers are published, and last year, 160 book reviews were published.
In short, the themes of Pravda’s criticism are diverse and are not limited to the current central tasks. Life itself is so rich and varied, and the struggle between the old and the new is so vivid and intense. The newspaper should not focus only on one aspect of life or another; it should provide clear answers to the various questions posed by life. Of course, life itself also reveals which issues are primary and which are secondary, and the newspaper should reflect the true nature of life and struggle.
The main basis for criticism is the Party’s resolutions and policies. The
power of the newspaper lies in the fact that it is the Party’s official organ
and that it adheres to the principle of Party character. Pravda’s recent
criticisms have been aimed at mobilizing the masses to successfully implement the resolutions of the Party’s 19th Congress and the September 1953 Plenary Session of the Central Committee. The Party’s Central Committee frequently provides specific instructions to the editorial
board, and the leaders of local Party organizations often point out the
themes and targets of criticism to Pravda’s local reporters. The letters
from the vast laboring masses have become the most important source
for selecting themes and targets of criticism. In 1953, Pravda’s editorial
board received 400,000 letters. The Laborers’ Correspondence Department registered the various issues raised in the letters on topic cards, making it convenient for the editorial board to use them. Many editorials and
articles begin by citing letters from workers. Of the 125 satirical pieces
published last year, more than 90 were written based on letters from laborers. Some letters, after being investigated and verified, were published
as they were. For example, on December 14, 1953, Pravda published
an article titled “Why Are Coastal Mines Falling Behind?” which was a
letter criticizing the Minister of the Soviet Ministry of Coal Industry. The
letter was jointly written by mine workers, a Party committee secretary,
and a Socialist Labor Hero. On December 18, another letter criticizing
the Soviet Ministry of Building Materials Industry was published. This
letter came from an advanced worker and was published after being supplemented with information from a reporter’s investigation.
Pravda’s local reporters also sent many criticism articles from various regions. For example, the article titled “Promises and Reality,” published on December 11 last year, was written by a Pravda reporter from Dnipropetrovsk. It criticized the director of the Dzerzhinsky Metallurgical Plant for making promises he did not keep and failing to meet production targets, while also criticizing the Soviet Ministry of Metallurgical Industry.
Another article, “Leningrad’s Handicraft Cooperatives Can and Should
Work Better,” published on December 7, was also written by a reporter.
A flexible and lively form.
Pravda’s criticism is not only rich and diverse in content, but also flexible
and lively in form.
Essays, reports, reader letters, and cartoons are the forms we commonly
use for criticism, and I will not elaborate further on them here.
Criticism in editorials is a less frequently used form. Pravda publishes
an editorial every day, and among those discussing domestic issues, it is
rare not to address shortcomings in work or fail to offer sharp criticism,
often naming individuals or departments. It is easy to understand that,
since criticism and self-criticism are so important, and the editorial is the
most important article in each issue of the newspaper, the editorial board
would not hesitate to use this form when conducting criticism.
The most popular form among readers is the satirical vignette. Written
in literary language, it has a plot and characters, and its hallmark is that
it must include laughter—whether a smile, mockery, or an angry laugh.
Just as a painter selects different colors, a writer chooses different types
of laughter depending on the target of the satire. Pravda and other Soviet
newspapers have always valued this sharp weapon of struggle. Because, in
the Soviet Union, although the hostile classes have been eliminated, the
country remains surrounded by capitalism, and there are still remnants of
bourgeois thought within the nation. Satire thus becomes the most powerful weapon for combating bourgeois ideology. The attention that these
satirical pieces attract can be understood from one example: in times of
crowded editorial space, all departments willingly give up their positions
to make room for them, saying, “What would we do without the satirical
vignette?”
It should be noted that our newspapers often use news reports to conduct criticism, but Pravda does not adopt this form. A news report is
an important form of agitation; it needs to be quick and concise, which
makes it unsuitable for investigation and analysis. It is impossible to fully
analyze an event in a short news piece, whereas criticism always requires
reasoning. Therefore, Pravda and other newspapers do not use this form
for criticism (except in rare cases, where a news report may briefly mention one or two shortcomings in work). This approach helps avoid many
avoidable flaws.
Criticism articles, except for editorials, are generally published on the
second page. The first page is reserved for news reports.
Pravda is independently responsible for conducting criticism under the
leadership of the Party. This means that Pravda’s criticism is accountable
to the Central Committee of the Party and is not subject to restrictions
from any other sources.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union granted its official newspaper
the power and responsibility to be independently accountable. The newspaper is meant to defend the Party, the state, and the people’s interests.
It should criticize the shortcomings and mistakes in the Party and state’s
work without hesitation, encouraging the masses to participate in the
construction of communism. This criticism should be impartial and objective, regardless of the rank of the individual being criticized—whether they are high-ranking or low-ranking officials, if they have flaws or mistakes, they should be criticized without requiring their consent.
The primary reason Pravda’s editorials are written entirely by the editorial
board is that only the editorial team can produce objective and fair editorials. Reporters in the regions are directly under the editorial board’s leadership to ensure that their criticism is not restricted. The correspondents
of the newspaper voluntarily organize around the editorial team and are
not affiliated with any other organization. Before Pravda publishes criticism articles, there is no need for approval from any other party. All of
this is to ensure the editorial board’s initiative, enthusiasm, and sharpness
when conducting criticism and self-criticism.
Of course, the editorial board of the Party’s official newspaper has no
authority to oppose the Party Committee. It cannot criticize the Party Committee to which it is subordinate in the newspaper. Only when
the Party Committee itself deems it necessary can a critique of the Party
Committee be published. If the editorial board believes it is necessary, it
can write a critique of the Party Committee to the higher-level Party committee’s newspaper. The higher-level Party committee’s newspaper must
publish the critique of the local Party Committee when it is submitted.
At the same time, it should be emphasized that this does not mean that
the editorial board can take a careless approach to criticism. On the contrary, the editorial board understands that the responsibility it bears is extremely serious, and it must never abuse its power. Before publishing any
article, the editorial board always thoroughly investigates the facts, gathers various opinions from different sources, and only then independently and responsibly decides whether to publish and how to publish the
article. The independent and responsible work spirit demonstrated by
Pravda’s editorial board in handling criticism articles deeply moved us.
Based on what we heard and saw, this spirit is specifically manifested in
the following aspects: At the same time, it should be emphasized that this does not mean that
the editorial board can take a careless approach to criticism. On the contrary, the editorial board understands that the responsibility it bears is extremely serious, and it must never abuse its power. Before publishing any
article, the editorial board always thoroughly investigates the facts, gathers various opinions from different sources, and only then independently and responsibly decides whether to publish and how to publish the
article. The independent and responsible work spirit demonstrated by
Pravda’s editorial board in handling criticism articles deeply moved us.
Based on what we heard and saw, this spirit is specifically manifested in
the following aspects:
First, the editorial board clearly understands that the purpose of criticism
is to help the Party and the people correct shortcomings and mistakes
and to help advance the work of the Party and the people. It is wrong to
think that criticism and self-criticism in the newspaper could be exploited
by the enemy or make some people uncomfortable, and therefore avoid
conducting criticism and self-criticism. From our criticism and self-criticism, the people should gain more nourishment. To achieve this purpose,
it is essential to distinguish whether the criticism is directed at the enemy
or at comrades. For the enemy, criticism aims to eliminate them, not to
help them correct their mistakes. For comrades, criticism is meant to help
them correct their mistakes, not to eliminate them. The editorial board
must consider the issues from the perspective of the Party and the people’s interests. A Party newspaper should embody the will of the Party; it
should not shy away from criticism because someone is an authority, nor
should it hesitate to criticize a friend out of personal feelings. Criticism
should be impartial, without regard to the target or considerations of
sentiment.
However, the editorial board must also work creatively. It cannot use a
single standard to measure everything; it must be practical, cautious, and
fair. The tone of the criticism is very important. The Party teaches that:
one should not substitute a club for criticism. Particularly when criticizing individuals, care must be taken not to damage the comrade’s self-esteem. Insulting people is not permissible, and moderation should be observed. It must be understood that criticizing someone’s shortcomings is
easy, but helping a comrade overcome their shortcomings is a much more
difficult task.
This is the ideological and principled nature of criticism, which is also the
Party’s character in criticism. On one hand, the Party educates cadres to
properly accept criticism in the newspapers, in accordance with Comrade
Stalin’s instructions. Even if there is only 5% truth in the criticism, they
should accept it humbly and not block the flow of opinions. On the other
hand, the Party requires the editorial board to maintain the correctness
of the criticism.
Secondly, to ensure the correctness of the criticism, the editorial board
takes an extremely cautious approach and employs very thorough methods. Every critical article published in the newspaper undergoes a careful
investigation beforehand. The only exception is for articles written by
reporters, as reporters are strictly selected, educated by the Party, and understand the editorial board’s expectations. They know that an inaccurate
criticism could cause immeasurable harm to the newspaper.
The investigation of the manuscripts includes two aspects: the author and
the facts. First, the investigation begins with the author—who is the person behind the submission, and whether they deserve to have their name
appear in Pravda. A person’s name appearing in Pravda should be considered a significant matter. Only those who have not committed any political or moral wrongs should be allowed to appear as authors in Pravda and
meet the readers under their name. At the same time, this investigation
also prevents bad people from impersonating others’ names.
Secondly, the investigation looks into whether the facts presented are
true. The honor of Soviet citizens lies in the fact that most of the issues
revealed through investigations have been proven true. However, this
does not mean that investigations should be neglected. It is important
to trust, but also to investigate—this is an ironclad principle. In fact, it
has been proven that investigations are necessary. Not only do they ensure the authenticity of the criticism, but they often turn a simple letter
into a profound article. What the readers initially pointed out may be
only a superficial phenomenon, and through investigation, the issue can
be exposed in its essence. The comrades at Pravda’s editorial office told
us that decades of experience have shown that investigations bring only
benefits and no drawbacks, while failure to investigate has only negative
consequences and no benefits.
The method of investigation is as follows: Local reporters conduct investigations on-site. In places where there are no local reporters, the editorial
department of the local newspaper is entrusted to carry out the investigation. During the investigation, journalists engage in conversations with
people from various perspectives—those in support of the issue, those
who oppose it, the individuals directly involved, and those with relevant
knowledge. If necessary, they also consult the supervising departments
and leaders, not to seek approval for publication, but to ensure the criticism is accurate.
People from all sides are willing to help with these investigations, viewing
it as both an honor and a duty to assist reporters in their work. Therefore,
the investigation of an incident does not take much time. In order to
ultimately confirm the authenticity of the manuscript, before deciding to
publish, the editorial department sends a telegram to the author: “Please
confirm that the author’s name and facts are correct.” Typically, the editorial department receives a reply telegram: “Confirm that the author’s
name and facts are correct.” The cost of sending and receiving the telegrams is covered by the editorial department.
Third, in order to ensure the correctness of the criticism, important critiques and commentaries must undergo discussion by the editorial board.
According to tradition, issues related to Marxist-Leninist theory, party
construction, foreign policy, literature and art, and other significant topics must be discussed by the editorial board. Of course, not everything is
subject to discussion, only new issues require such deliberation. During
these discussions, the author of the critique is invited to participate, and
this rule is strictly adhered to. For more complex issues that are difficult
to reach a conclusion on, the criticized party is also invited to participate
in the discussion.
Fourth, to ensure the correctness of the criticism, especially for important
critiques, the editorial board proactively seeks guidance from the party committee and consults with the relevant departments. The editorial
board has the right to ask the party committee for advice at any time, but
the party also requires the editorial board to handle issues independently
and responsibly. The board should not misuse its access to the party. Consulting the party on every issue may seem convenient, but it is a simplistic
approach that reflects immaturity. The editorial board should engage in
independent thinking, thoroughly consider the issue, and become a powerful assistant to the party committee.
Consulting with relevant departments is also necessary to make a correct
judgment about the issue. The editorial board respects the opinions from
all sides, but the final conclusion must be made by the editorial board
itself. No department has the right to dictate the acceptance or rejection
of articles. Since the newspaper is the party’s official organ, its leadership
is unified and centralized in the party committee and the first secretary
Fifth, the editorial board fights for the effectiveness of its criticisms. The
party’s rule is that once a critique is published, the criticized department
and leader must hold a meeting to discuss it and inform the editorial
board of the results and the measures taken. Due to space limitations, the
editorial board can only publish a summary of the most important reviews. It is now unthinkable for the criticized department to fail to reflect
on the issue or neglect to notify the editorial board.
In order to ensure that criticism has practical results, Pravda has implemented two measures: first, if it receives a response that merely addresses
the issue superficially, it publishes a follow-up critique to make a more
forceful point; second, after a certain period, it revisits the issue to check
how the correction has been implemented. This way, the criticized parties
cannot escape public scrutiny. In several renowned factories, we heard
that a critique published by Pravda years ago had left a lasting impact,
helping those factories improve for many years.
张春桥