Stratification and Truth-Seeking: An Examination of the Historical Writing on Mao Zedong’s Status at the Zunyi Conference

The Zunyi Conference is one of the important research topics in the history of the Communist Party of China, the history of the Chinese revolution, and modern Chinese history. There is a wealth of works on it, with no fewer than several thousand papers taking the Zunyi Conference as their theme alone. These cover the Zunyi Conference spirit, the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leading status, the relationship between CPC leaders and the Zunyi Conference, the background, process, venue, content, role, significance, experience and inspiration of the conference, as well as the relationship between the conference and Party building, and its relationship with adapting Marxism to the Chinese context.

遵义会议是中共党史、中国革命史、中国近现代史的重要研究课题之一，论著丰硕，仅以遵义会议为主题的论文就不下数千篇，涵盖遵义会议精神、毛泽东领导地位的确立、中共领导人与遵义会议，会议召开背景、过程、会址、内容、作用、意义、经验和启示，以及会议与党的建设、与马克思主义中国化的关系等。

If the Zunyi Conference was a life-or-death turning point in the Party’s history, then the change in Mao Zedong’s status was the key to this life-or-death turning point. Precisely because of this, for a long time, whether Mao Zedong’s leading status was established has been the most focused and most controversial issue concerning the Zunyi Conference. Regarding this issue, some scholars have written a dedicated review of the state of academic research more than ten years ago, and other scholars have briefly listed the discussions in Party documents and the accounts of Zunyi Conference participants. Different from but closely related to the above two articles, this paper intends, from the perspectives of academic history and socio-cultural history, to sort out the changes in the historical writing on Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference in mainland academic circles since 1949, and to explore the similarities and differences between official and academic expressions and the information they reflect, in order to advance thinking on the Zunyi Conference and related academic research.

如果说遵义会议在党的历史上是一个生死攸关的转折点，那么毛泽东地位的变化则是这个生死攸关转折点的关键。正因为如此，长期以来，毛泽东领导地位是否确立一直是遵义会议中最为聚焦和最具争议性的问题。对于这一问题，有学者10多年前就学界研究状况作过专文综述，也有学者简要条列了党的文献的论述和遵义会议亲历者的叙说。与上述两文不同但密切相关，本文拟从学术史和社会文化史的角度，梳理1949年以来大陆学界关于遵义会议毛泽东地位历史书写的变迁，并探析官方和学界表述的异同及其折射的信息，以推进关于遵义会议和相关学术研究的思考。

I. Changes in Official Historical Writing on Mao Zedong’s Status at the Zunyi Conference

一、官方关于遵义会议毛泽东地位历史书写的变迁

Regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference, the Communist Party of China has its own historical writing, which this paper calls official writing. This mainly includes expressions concerning Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference in Party documents, public speeches by Party and state leaders, and works by the Central Propaganda Department, Party history departments, and their responsible persons.

关于遵义会议毛泽东的地位，中国共产党有自己的历史书写，本文称之为官方书写，主要包括党的文献、党和国家领导人的公开讲话、中央宣传部门和党史部门及其负责人的论著等关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述。

Among these, Party documents refer to the expressions concerning Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference in the Party’s three historical resolutions. The first historical resolution is the “Resolution on Certain Historical Questions” adopted at the Seventh Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC in 1945. Its expression is: the Zunyi Conference “began the new leadership of the Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong.” [1]1 The “Resolution on Certain Historical Questions” (1945) was the first major official assessment of Party history, adopted during the Yan’an Rectification Movement. The second historical resolution is the “Resolution on Certain Historical Questions of the Party Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China” adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the CPC in 1981. Its expression is: the Zunyi Conference “established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading status in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee.” [2]2 The “Resolution on Certain Historical Questions of the Party Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China” (1981) was a key document of the post-Mao era, assessing Mao’s role and the Cultural Revolution. The third historical resolution is the “Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party’s Centenary Struggle” adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Nineteenth Central Committee of the CPC in 2021. Its expression is: the Zunyi Conference “in fact established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading status in the Party Central Committee and the Red Army, began to establish the leading status of the correct Marxist line mainly represented by Comrade Mao Zedong in the Party Central Committee, and began to form the Party’s first generation of central leadership collective with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core.” [3]3 The “Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party’s Centenary Struggle” (2021) was adopted under Xi Jinping to summarize the Party’s history.

其中，党的文献是指党的三个历史决议关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述。第一个历史决议是1945年中共六届七中全会通过的《关于若干历史问题的决议》,其表述为：遵义会议“开始了以毛泽东同志为首的中央的新的领导”。第二个历史决议是1981年中共十一届六中全会通过的《关于建国以来党的若干历史问题的决议》,其表述为：遵义会议“确立了毛泽东同志在红军和党中央的领导地位”。第三个历史决议是2021年中共十九届六中全会通过的《中共中央关于党的百年奋斗重大成就和历史经验的决议》,其表述为：遵义会议“事实上确立了毛泽东同志在党中央和红军的领导地位，开始确立以毛泽东同志为主要代表的马克思主义正确路线在党中央的领导地位，开始形成以毛泽东同志为核心的党的第一代中央领导集体”。

The public speeches by Party and state leaders refer to the expressions concerning Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference by the cores of successive central leadership collectives, including Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping. In 1965, Deng Xiaoping was a member of the first generation of central leadership collective and had not yet grown into the core of the second generation of central leadership collective. In a conversation with a communist party leader from Asia that year, he pointed out that the Zunyi Conference “established the central leadership with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core.” [4]4 The “Seventh Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee” refers to the 1945 meeting that adopted the first historical resolution. In 1996, Jiang Zemin, in his speech at the rally commemorating the 60th anniversary of the victory of the Red Army’s Long March, proposed that the Zunyi Conference “established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading status.” [5]5 The “Sixth Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee” refers to the 1981 meeting that adopted the second historical resolution. In 2006, Hu Jintao, in his speech at the rally commemorating the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Red Army’s Long March, proposed: “The Zunyi Conference established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading status in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee, and began to establish the correct line of the Party Central Committee represented by Comrade Mao Zedong,” and “the Party’s first generation of central leadership collective with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core gradually took shape.” [6]6 The “Sixth Plenary Session of the Nineteenth Central Committee” refers to the 2021 meeting that adopted the third historical resolution. In 2016, Xi Jinping, in his speech at the rally commemorating the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Red Army’s Long March, proposed: “The conference established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading status in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee, began to establish the leading status of the correct Marxist line mainly represented by Comrade Mao Zedong in the Party Central Committee, and began to form the Party’s first generation of central leadership collective with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core.” [7]7 The “Long March” (1934-1935) was the strategic retreat of the Red Army that ended with the Zunyi Conference.

党和国家领导人的公开讲话是指邓小平、江泽民、胡锦涛、习近平等历代中央领导集体核心关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述。1965年，邓小平是第一代中央领导集体成员，还未成长为第二代中央领导集体核心。他在这年同亚洲一位共产党领导人谈话时指出，遵义会议“确立了以毛泽东同志为核心的中央领导”。1996年，江泽民在纪念红军长征胜利60周年大会上的讲话中提出，遵义会议“确立了毛泽东同志的领导地位”。2006年，胡锦涛在纪念红军长征胜利70周年大会上的讲话中提出：“遵义会议确立了毛泽东同志在红军和党中央的领导地位，开始确立了以毛泽东同志为代表的党中央的正确路线”,“以毛泽东同志为核心的党的第一代中央领导集体逐步形成”。2016年，习近平在纪念红军长征胜利80周年大会上的讲话中提出：“会议确立了毛泽东同志在红军和党中央的领导地位，开始确立了以毛泽东同志为主要代表的马克思主义正确路线在党中央的领导地位，开始形成以毛泽东同志为核心的党的第一代中央领导集体。”

The works by the Central Propaganda Department, Party history departments, and their responsible persons mainly refer to the expressions concerning Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference in Party history works compiled by Liao Gailong, Hu Qiaomu, Hu Sheng, and the Party History Research Center of the Central Committee of the CPC.

中央宣传部门和党史部门及其负责人的论著等，主要是指廖盖隆、胡乔木、胡绳和中共中央党史研究室编撰的党史著作关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述。

In the 1950s, those who expounded on Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference in the form of works were mainly Liao Gailong and Hu Qiaomu. The earliest was Liao Gailong, then Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Xinhua News Agency. In his 1950 book *How Was New China Born?*, he recorded that the Zunyi Conference “established the leading status of Comrade Mao Zedong and the correct line represented by Comrade Mao Zedong within the Party.” [8]8 Liao Gailong (1918-2001) was a senior Party historian and journalist. This book had been printed 13 times by December 1952, with 75,000 copies distributed, and after rewriting and adding content in 1955, it was renamed *How Was New China Born and Grew Up?* and published by Shanghai People’s Publishing House, with 42,000 copies distributed, exerting a huge influence; the 1955 edition completely retained the expression concerning Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference. Slightly later was *The Thirty Years of the Communist Party of China*, published in 1951. This book was written by Hu Qiaomu, then Vice Minister of the Central Propaganda Department, for the Central Committee of the CPC to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. Although it was only 52,000 words, it was “the first pioneering concise Party history work in New China.” [9]9 Hu Qiaomu (1912-1992) was a senior Party theorist and historian. After the first draft was completed, it was revised several times by Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi. The book recorded: the Zunyi Conference “established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading status throughout the Party.” [10]10 Hu Sheng (1918-2000) was a prominent Marxist historian and Party theorist.

1950年代以论著形式阐述遵义会议毛泽东地位的，主要是廖盖隆和胡乔木。最早的是时任新华社副总编辑的廖盖隆，他在1950年出版的《新中国是怎样诞生的?》一书中记述，遵义会议“确立了毛泽东同志和毛泽东同志所代表的正确路线在党内的领导地位”。该书到1952年12月印刷了第13次，发行了7.5万册，并于1955年改写、增写内容后，改名为《新中国是怎样诞生和成长的》由上海人民出版社出版，发行了4.2万册，影响巨大；关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述，1955年版完全承袭下来。稍后的是1951年出版的《中国共产党的三十年》,该书是时任中宣部副部长的胡乔木为中共中央庆祝中国共产党诞生30年所撰写的，虽只有5.2万字，却是“新中国第一部具有开创性的简明党史著作”。初稿完成后，得到毛泽东和刘少奇的数次修改。书中记述：遵义会议“确立了毛泽东同志在全党的领导地位”。

In the early 1980s, “in order to meet the needs of the entire Party and the people of the whole country to understand the content of the Zunyi Conference,” the Central Party History Materials Collection Committee and the Central Archives compiled *Documents on the Zunyi Conference*, published in 1985. In the preface and related investigations and textual research on the Zunyi Conference, the editors of this book recorded: the Zunyi Conference and shortly thereafter, “the Central Political Bureau changed the leadership of the Central Committee and the Red Army, in fact establishing Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading status within the Party and the military,” and “began the correct new central leadership represented by Comrade Mao Zedong.” [11]11 The “Central Party History Materials Collection Committee” was a body under the Central Committee tasked with gathering historical documents. Subsequently, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, after several years and multiple revisions, the Party History Research Center of the Central Committee of the CPC published the first volume of *The History of the Communist Party of China* in 1991. This volume covers from 1919 to 1949, totaling 564,000 words, and is the first relatively detailed authoritative Party history work on the 30-year history since the founding of the Communist Party of China. It recorded: the Zunyi Conference “in fact established Mao Zedong’s leading status in the Party Central Committee,” and “from then on, the Communist Party of China, under the leadership of the correct Marxist line represented by Mao Zedong, could overcome numerous difficulties and lead the Chinese revolution to victory step by step.” [12]12 The “Central Archives” is the official repository for Party and state records. In the previous year, also to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, under the auspices of Hu Sheng, relevant personnel from the Central Propaganda Department, the Central Party Literature Research Center, and the Research Office of the State Council were invited, together with personnel from the Party History Research Center of the Central Committee of the CPC, to jointly compile *The Seventy Years of the Communist Party of China*, published in 1991. This book is “a medium-length, relatively complete and comprehensive Party history.” [13]13 The “Central Party Literature Research Center” is a body under the Central Committee that edits and publishes Party leaders’ works. It recorded: the Zunyi Conference “in fact established the correct leadership of the Party Central Committee with Mao Zedong as the core.” [14]14 The “Research Office of the State Council” is a policy advisory body under the State Council.

1980年代初，“为了适应全党和全国人民了解遵义会议内容的需要”,中央党史资料征集委员会和中央档案馆编辑了《遵义会议文献》,并于1985年出版。在前言和关于遵义会议的相关调查、考证中，该书编者记述：遵义会议及会后不久，“中央政治局改变了中央和红军的领导，实际上确立了毛泽东同志在党内和军内的领导地位”,“开始了以毛泽东同志为代表的新的中央的正确领导”。此后，为庆祝中国共产党成立70周年，经过几年时间数易其稿，1991年中共中央党史研究室出版了《中国共产党历史》上卷。该书上起1919年，下迄1949年，共56.4万字，是第一部关于中国共产党成立以来30年历史的比较详细的权威党史著作。该书记述：遵义会议“实际上确立了毛泽东在党中央的领导地位”,“从此，中国共产党能够在以毛泽东为代表的马克思主义正确路线领导下，克服重重困难，一步步地领导中国革命走向胜利”。在此前一年，同样为了庆祝中国共产党成立70周年，在胡绳主持下，约请了中央宣传部、中央文献研究室、国务院研究室有关人员，联合中央党史研究室人员共同编写了《中国共产党的七十年》,并于1991年出版。该书是“一部中等篇幅的内容比较完善而完整的党史”,书中记述：遵义会议“事实上确立了以毛泽东为核心的党中央的正确领导”。

In 2011, on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, the Party History Research Office of the CPC Central Committee published for the first time a complete *History of the Communist Party of China* covering 1921–1978, in two volumes. Volume 1 (1921–1949), Part 1, records: the Zunyi Conference “established Mao Zedong’s leading position in the CPC Central Committee and the Red Army”; “from then on, the Communist Party of China, under the leadership of the correct Marxist line represented by Mao Zedong, was able to overcome numerous difficulties and step by step guide the Chinese revolution to victory.” [15]15 The Zunyi Conference (January 1935) was a pivotal meeting of the Communist Party of China during the Long March, at which Mao Zedong began to gain de facto leadership of the Party and the Red Army, correcting the military line of the previous leadership. In 2016, to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, the Party History Research Office of the CPC Central Committee published *The Ninety Years of the Communist Party of China*, in three volumes: the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the period of the Socialist Revolution and Construction, and the period of Reform and Opening Up and Socialist Modernization. The volume on the New Democratic Revolution records: “The Zunyi Conference began to establish the leading position of the correct Marxist line represented mainly by Comrade Mao Zedong in the CPC Central Committee.” [16]16 The “first historical resolution” refers to the “Resolution on Certain Historical Questions” adopted at the Seventh Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC in April 1945, which officially assessed the Party’s history up to that point. In 2021, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, the centenary edition of *A Concise History of the Communist Party of China* was published. This book records: the Zunyi Conference “in fact established Mao Zedong’s leading position in the Party Central Committee and the Red Army, began to establish the leading position of the correct Marxist line represented mainly by Mao Zedong in the Party Central Committee, and began to form the first generation of the central leadership collective with Mao Zedong as its core.”

2011年，在庆祝中国共产党成立90周年之际，中共中央党史研究室第一次出版了1921—1978年完整的《中国共产党历史》,该书分为两卷。其中，第1卷(1921—1949)上册记述：遵义会议“确立了毛泽东在中共中央和红军的领导地位”,“从此，中国共产党能够在以毛泽东为代表的马克思主义正确路线领导下，克服重重困难，一步步地引导中国革命走向胜利”。2016年，中共中央党史研究室为庆祝中国共产党成立90周年，出版了《中国共产党的九十年》,分为新民主主义革命时期、社会主义革命和建设时期、改革开放和社会主义现代化建设新时期三册。其中，新民主主义革命时期分册记述：“遵义会议开始确立以毛泽东同志为主要代表的马克思主义正确路线在中共中央的领导地位。”2021年，为庆祝中国共产党成立100周年，百年版的《中国共产党简史》出版。该书记述：遵义会议“事实上确立了毛泽东在党中央和红军的领导地位，开始确立了以毛泽东为主要代表的马克思主义正确路线在党中央的领导地位，开始形成以毛泽东为核心的第一代中央领导集体”。

Comparing the formulations regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference in Party documents, the writings of Party and state leaders, the works of the Central Propaganda Department and Party history departments and their responsible persons, it is not difficult to discover:

对比党的文献、党和国家领导人、中央宣传部门和党史部门及其负责人的论著等关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述，不难发现：

First, in all official formulations, the fact that the Zunyi Conference established Mao Zedong’s leading position is consistent. Although the modes of expression differ, their implicit or extended meanings are not entirely identical.

第一，在所有官方的表述中，遵义会议事实上确立了毛泽东的领导地位，都是一致的。尽管其表达方式有所不同，其隐含或延伸的意义不尽一致。

Second, the first historical resolution [17]17 This refers to the village of Jiguan (literally “rooster’s crow”) in the border region of Guizhou, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces, where the Standing Committee division of labor took place after the Zunyi Conference. is the earliest and most authoritative official document formulating Mao Zedong’s status. From the perspective of “core,” “headed by Comrade Mao Zedong” carries the meaning of core, but this concept had not yet been proposed at that time; from the perspective of whether leadership status was established, it uses the dynamic descriptor “began,” i.e., the beginning of something, without explicitly stating “established” but implying this meaning; from the perspective of the scope of leadership, it only specifies that Mao Zedong was the new central leader, without involving a specific scope of leadership.

第二，第一个历史决议是最早、最权威的关于毛泽东地位表述的官方文献。从核心角度看，“以毛泽东同志为首”虽有核心之意，但这时还没有提出这一概念；从是否确立领导地位看，用了“开始了”这样一个动态描述词，即某事的开端，没有明确说“确立了”但隐含了此意；从领导范围看，只明确毛泽东是新的中央领导，不涉及具体领导范围。

Third, in the early 1950s, Liao Gailong and Hu Qiaomu enriched the formulation of the first historical resolution. [18]18 The third historical resolution refers to the “Resolution on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century,” adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in November 2021. On the question of whether it was established, Liao Gailong was the first to use “established,” and subsequently Hu Qiaomu also used this term, and both formulated Mao Zedong’s leading position as “within the Party” and “the whole Party,” i.e., giving it a specific scope of leadership. Thereafter, except for the 1985 Central Party History Materials Collection Committee, which adopted Liao and Hu’s wording (“established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading position within the Party…”), subsequent authoritative Party history works all adopted the formulation of the second historical resolution, “established his leading position in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee,” or similar wording with the same general meaning. [19]

第三，1950年代初，廖盖隆和胡乔木丰富了第一次历史决议的表述。在是否确立上，廖盖隆首次使用“确立了”,随后胡乔木也使用了这一词汇，且他们都把毛泽东的领导地位表述为“党内”和“全党”,即有了具体领导范围。之后，除1985年中共中央党史资料征集委员会采用廖和胡的说法(确立了毛泽东同志在党内……的领导地位)外，其后的党史权威著作都是采用第二个历史决议“确立了在‘红军和党中央的领导地位’”等大意相同的说法。

Fourth, the concept of “core” first proposed by Deng Xiaoping in 1965 was inherited by the 1991 edition of *The Seventy Years of the Communist Party of China* edited by Hu Sheng, and developed in the third historical resolution into the formulation “began to form the first generation of the central leadership collective with Mao Zedong as its core.” [20]

第四，1965年邓小平首次提出的“核心”概念，被胡绳主编的1991年版《中国共产党的七十年》所承袭，并在第三个历史决议发展为“开始形成以毛泽东为核心的第一代中央领导集体”的表述。

Fifth, the formulation of the third historical resolution, “began to establish the leading position of the correct Marxist line represented mainly by Comrade Mao Zedong in the Party Central Committee,” should first have originated from Liao Gailong’s “established the leading position of Comrade Mao Zedong and the correct line represented by Comrade Mao Zedong within the Party,” was subsequently inherited by the 1985 Central Party History Materials Collection Committee’s “began the correct central leadership represented by Comrade Mao Zedong,” was basically finalized in the 1991 edition of *History of the Communist Party of China*, Volume 1, and was thereafter adopted by authoritative Party history works and by Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping.

第五，第三个历史决议“开始确立以毛泽东同志为主要代表的马克思主义正确路线在党中央的领导地位”的表述，最早应该来自于廖盖隆“确立了毛泽东同志和毛泽东同志所代表的正确路线在党内的领导地位”,之后被1985年中央党史资料征集委员会“开始了以毛泽东同志为代表的新的中央的正确领导”所继承，基本定型于1991年版的《中国共产党历史》上卷，此后被党史权威著作和胡锦涛、习近平采用。

Sixth, the complete formulation of the third historical resolution regarding the Zunyi Conference — “in fact established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading position in the Party Central Committee and the Red Army, began to establish the leading position of the correct Marxist line represented mainly by Comrade Mao Zedong in the Party Central Committee, and began to form the first generation of the central leadership collective of the Party with Comrade Mao Zedong as its core” — first took shape in Hu Jintao’s speech at the rally commemorating the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Long March in 2006, and was thereafter fully adopted in Xi Jinping’s speech at the rally commemorating the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Long March in 2016 and in the 2021 edition of *A Concise History of the Communist Party of China*.

第六，第三个历史决议关于遵义会议“事实上确立了毛泽东同志在党中央和红军的领导地位，开始确立以毛泽东同志为主要代表的马克思主义正确路线在党中央的领导地位，开始形成以毛泽东同志为核心的党的第一代中央领导集体”的完整表述，最早形成于2006年胡锦涛在纪念红军长征胜利70周年大会上的讲话，此后被2016年习近平在纪念红军长征胜利80周年大会上的讲话和2021年版的《中国共产党简史》完整沿用。

Seventh, considering only the three historical resolutions: first, they increasingly clarify Mao Zedong’s core position in the Red Army and the first generation of the central leadership collective; for example, they all emphasize only Mao Zedong, without mentioning other central leaders, the self-evident meaning being that Mao Zedong’s leading position was in fact the core of central leadership and the core of Red Army leadership; second, they add the formulation of the leading position of Mao Zedong’s ideological line in the Party Central Committee, i.e., the scope and content of leadership, the core leadership position, and the fact that it was established, all becoming increasingly explicit.

第七，仅就三个历史决议而言，一是越来越明确毛泽东在红军和第一代中央领导集体的核心地位，例如都仅强调毛泽东，而没有提及其他中央领导人，其不言自明之意即为毛泽东的领导地位实即中央领导的核心、红军领导的核心；二是增加了毛泽东思想路线在党中央的领导地位的表述，即领导范围和内容、领导核心地位、事实上确立了等表述越来越明确。

Eighth, considering only the formulations of Party and state leaders: Deng Xiaoping was the first to propose the concept of the “core” of central leadership; Jiang Zemin’s formulation was the most concise and plain, deleting the categorical phrase “the Red Army and the Party Central Committee”; Hu Jintao added the formulation “began to establish the correct line of the Party Central Committee represented by Comrade Mao Zedong”; Xi Jinping, on the basis of Hu Jintao, added the qualifier “Marxist

第八，仅就党和国家领导人的表述而言，邓小平首次提出了中央领导“核心”这一概念；江泽民的表述最为简略平实，删除了“红军和党中央”这一范畴词；胡锦涛新增“开始确立了以毛泽东同志为代表的党中央的正确路线”这一表述；习近平在胡锦涛的基础上增加了“马克思主义”这一限定词，突出了毛泽东的理论贡献，同时明确毛泽东是党的第一代中央领导集体核心。若将党和国家领导人的表述与三个历史决议对比，则可发现，尽管表述不尽相同，邓小平、江泽民基本沿用了第一个和第二个历史决议的表述，而胡锦涛和习近平在沿用前两个历史决议表述的同时，进一步丰富和发展了关于遵义会议毛泽东的表述，第三个历史决议则几乎照搬了2016年习近平的表述。

II. Changes in the Academic Historical Writing on Mao Zedong’s Status at the Zunyi Conference

二、学界关于遵义会议毛泽东地位历史书写的变迁

The earliest academic historical writing on Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference may be the expressions found in textbooks compiled by Hu Hua, He Ganzhi, and others. In early 1950, Hu Hua simplified and revised part of his original lecture notes from North China University, *History of the Chinese Revolution*, and published it as *A History of China’s New Democratic Revolution (First Draft)*, which was used as a textbook for senior high schools and senior normal schools, as well as a general reference for studying politics and history. This book recorded: The Zunyi Conference “established the correct leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Mao Zedong.” In the same year, entrusted by the Political Education Department of the Ministry of Higher Education, He Ganzhi, in order to solve the problem of the lack of teaching materials for the course on the History of the Chinese Revolution in higher education institutions, invited the teaching and research offices of the History of the Chinese Revolution from some universities in Beijing. Based on the outline and lecture notes of the Teaching and Research Office of the History of the Chinese Revolution at Renmin University of China, they collectively compiled and published *Lectures on the History of the Modern Chinese Revolution (First Draft)* in 1954. This book recorded: The Zunyi Conference “affirmed Comrade Mao Zedong’s correct military line,” “established a new leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong”; “established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading position in the entire Party and the Central Committee”; “the beginning of the leadership of the new Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong was an extremely important turning point for our Party. From then on, the Communist Party of China and the Chinese revolution have been under the Marxist-Leninist leadership of this outstanding, great, and fully trustworthy leader, advancing from victory to victory.” In 1953 and 1954, Hu Hua edited *Lectures on the History of the Chinese Revolution*. Starting from 1954, this book was “printed in separate parts and volumes and issued as internal lecture notes,” and was published by Renmin University of China Press in 1959, with a revised edition in 1979, intended to be “used as a textbook for Party history courses and modern history courses in higher education institutions.” This book recorded: The Zunyi Conference “affirmed Mao Zedong’s Marxist-Leninist military line,” “established Mao Zedong’s leading position in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee.”

学界关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的历史书写，最早的可能是胡华、何干之等编写的教材中的表述。1950年初，胡华将其原在华北大学的讲义《中国革命史》的一部分，简化修改后以《中国新民主主义革命史(初稿)》出版发行，作为高级中学和高级师范的教材，以及学习政治和历史的一般参考读物。该书记述：遵义会议“确立以毛泽东为首的党中央的正确领导”。同年，何干之受高等教育部政治教育司的委托，为了解决高等学校中国革命史课程教材缺乏问题，约请北京一些高校的中国革命史教研室，以中国人民大学中国革命史教研室的提纲和讲义为蓝本，集体编写并于1954年出版了《中国现代革命史讲义(初稿)》。该书记述：遵义会议“肯定了毛泽东同志的正确军事路线”,“确立了毛泽东同志为首的党中央的新的领导”;“确立了毛泽东同志在全党和中央的领导地位”,“以毛泽东同志为首的新中央的领导的开始，是我们党极端重要的一个转变。从此以后，中国共产党和中国革命，就一直在这位杰出的伟大的完全可以信赖的领袖的马克思列宁主义的领导之下，从胜利走向胜利”。1953年和1954年，胡华主编了《中国革命史讲义》。从1954年开始，该书“分编分册陆续印出，作为校内讲义”,1959年由中国人民大学出版社出版，1979年修订后再版，目的是“用作高等学校的党史课和现代史课的一种教材”。该书记述：遵义会议“肯定了毛泽东的马克思列宁主义的军事路线”,“确立毛泽东在红军和党中央的领导地位”。

Shortly thereafter, after the 1959 National Liberal Arts Textbook Conference, Li Xin and others convened many experts from higher education institutions to collectively compile *A General History of China’s New Democratic Revolution Period* (Volumes 1–4), published in 1962. At the time of compilation, “the name ‘revolutionary history’ was still used, but the overall style, structure, and content of the book were of a modern history nature, making it the main textbook for modern history.” Therefore, this book became the model for compiling modern Chinese history in universities. Regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference, Volume 2 of this book records: the conference “reaffirmed the correct military line represented by Mao Zedong,” “established the new leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Mao Zedong”; “it was especially fortunate that, after fourteen years of arduous, tortuous, and complex struggles, the Party finally found in Mao Zedong this outstanding and fully trustworthy leader. Over fourteen years, Mao Zedong correctly and vividly integrated the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, resolving a series of major issues in the Chinese revolution. Over fourteen years, Mao Zedong waged irreconcilable and effective struggles against various reactionary ideological trends outside the Party and various opportunisms within the Party. In these struggles, Mao Zedong proved himself a model for the creative application of Marxism-Leninism, a model for combining a high revolutionary spirit with a high scientific spirit.”

稍后，李新等人在1959年全国文科教材会议后，召集许多高等院校专家集体编写了《中国新民主主义革命时期通史》(1—4卷),1962年出版。编写时“仍用革命史名称，但全书的体例、结构和内容都是现代史性质，成为现代史主要教材”。因此，该书成为高校中国现代史的编写范本。关于遵义会议毛泽东的地位，该书第2卷记述：会议“重新肯定了以毛泽东为代表的正确军事路线”,“确立了以毛泽东为首的党中央的新的领导”；“特别值得庆幸的是，党经过十四年英勇的曲折复杂的斗争之后，终于找到了毛泽东这位杰出的完全可以信赖的领袖。十四年来，毛泽东正确地和生动地把马克思列宁主义的普遍真理和中国革命的具体实践结合起来，解决了中国革命的一系列的重大问题。十四年来，毛泽东不断地对党外的各种反动思潮及党内的各种机会主义，进行了不可调和的和有成效的斗争，在这些斗争中，证明了毛泽东是创造性地运用马克思列宁主义的典范，是把高度的革命精神和高度的科学精神相结合的典范”。

Apart from the representative works above, before reform and opening up, a small number of articles discussed Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference. An earlier one was by Yang Shengqing, who in his 1965 article “The Great Historical Significance of the Zunyi Conference” cited the expression of Mao’s status from the first historical resolution [16]16 The “first historical resolution” refers to the “Resolution on Certain Historical Questions” adopted at the Seventh Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC in April 1945, which officially assessed the Party’s history up to that point., arguing that the Zunyi Conference “established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the entire Party.” In 1975, the Party History Group of the Philosophy Department at Guizhou University, in the article “The Zunyi Conference Shines Forever,” argued: the Zunyi Conference “established Chairman Mao’s leadership position in the entire Party,” “reaffirmed the correctness of Chairman Mao’s Marxist-Leninist military line.” The former article was written by the author to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Zunyi Conference, and the latter to commemorate the 40th anniversary; both were strongly commemorative and propagandistic in nature.

除以上代表性著作外，改革开放以前，为数不多的文章论述了遵义会议毛泽东的地位。较早的是杨盛清，他在1965年发表的《遵义会议的伟大历史意义》一文中引用了第一个历史决议关于毛泽东地位的表述，认为遵义会议“确立了毛泽东同志在全党的领导地位”。1975年，贵州大学哲学系党史组在《遵义会议永放光芒》一文中论述：遵义会议“确立了毛主席在全党的领导地位”,“重新承认毛主席的马克思列宁主义军事路线的正确性”。前一篇文章是作者为纪念遵义会议30周年而作，后一篇文章是纪念遵义会议40周年而作，纪念性和宣传性意味浓厚。

Synthesizing the above academic discussions from 1949 to 1978, the following points can be understood:

综合上述1949年至1978年学界的论述，可以得出以下几点认识：

First, all agreed that the Zunyi Conference in fact established Mao Zedong’s leadership status. In terms of expression, the descriptive term “began” from the first historical resolution was largely developed into the uniform qualitative term “established.”

第一，都认同遵义会议事实上确立了毛泽东的领导地位。在表述上，将第一个历史决议“开始了”这一描述性词汇，大致发展为统一的“确定了”这一定性词汇表述。

Second, the expression of Mao Zedong’s leadership status was enriched, specifying that his leadership scope was the entire Party and the entire military. He Ganzhi’s edited *Lectures on the History of China’s Modern Revolution (Draft)* was the first to express the first historical resolution’s “new leadership of the Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong” as “established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the entire Party and the Central Committee.” Hu Hua’s 1950 *A History of China’s New Democratic Revolution (Draft)* followed the expression of the first historical resolution, with slight modifications in wording, but in his later edited *Lectures on the History of the Chinese Revolution*, he expressed it for the first time as “established Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee,” i.e., clearly stating that the Zunyi Conference established Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the entire Party and the entire military (the Red Army).

第二，丰富了毛泽东领导地位的表述，确定了其领导范围是全党全军。何干之主编的《中国现代革命史讲义(初稿)》首次将第一个历史决议的“以毛泽东同志为首的中央的新的领导”表述为“确立了毛泽东同志在全党和中央的领导地位”。胡华1950年的《中国新民主主义革命史(初稿)》承袭了第一个历史决议的表述，用词上稍微作了一些修改，但在之后主编的《中国革命史讲义》中首次表述为“确立毛泽东在红军和党中央的领导地位”,即明确遵义会议确立了毛泽东在全党和全军(红军)的领导地位。

Third, emphasis was placed on the historical writing of Mao Zedong’s theoretical contributions to adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. From the “affirmed Comrade Mao Zedong’s correct military line” in *Lectures on the History of China’s Modern Revolution (Draft)*, to the “affirmed Mao Zedong’s Marxist-Leninist military line” in *Lectures on the History of the Chinese Revolution*; from the emphasis in *Lectures on the History of China’s Modern Revolution (Draft)* on Mao Zedong as a Marxist-Leninist leader, to the emphasis in Volume 2 of *A General History of China’s New Democratic Revolution Period* that, since the founding of the Communist Party of China, Mao Zedong had correctly and vividly integrated the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, resolving a series of major issues in the Chinese revolution, and was a model for the creative application of Marxism-Leninism. Although the major proposition of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context had already been raised at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC in 1938, it was not yet a hot topic in the seventeen years after the founding of New China, but Mao Zedong’s theoretical contributions to adapting Marxism to the Chinese context had already been clearly expounded.

第三，注重对毛泽东关于马克思主义中国化理论贡献的历史书写。从《中国现代革命史讲义(初稿)》的“肯定了毛泽东同志的正确军事路线”,到《中国革命史讲义》的“肯定了毛泽东的马克思列宁主义的军事路线”;从《中国现代革命史讲义(初稿)》强调的毛泽东是马克思列宁主义的领导，到《中国新民主主义革命时期通史》第2卷强调的毛泽东是中国共产党成立以来，正确地和生动地把马克思列宁主义的普遍真理和中国革命的具体实践结合起来，解决了中国革命一系列的重大问题，是创造性地运用马克思主义列宁主义的典范。尽管马克思主义中国化这一重大命题早已在1938年的中共六届六中全会上提出，在新中国成立后的17年时还不是热词，但毛泽东对马克思主义中国化的理论贡献已得到明确阐述。

On the one hand, Hu Hua, He Ganzhi, Li Xin, and others were authorities in the fields of Chinese revolutionary history and modern Chinese history. The works they edited were not only long used as blueprints for various textbooks on Chinese revolutionary history and modern Chinese history in many universities, but their expressions regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference were also inherited by the academic community, even becoming a mainstream expression to this day. Scholars in the 1980s, such as Li Anbao, Huang Yuanqi, Liu Zhongliang, Wang Weili, Zhang Xianwen, Cao Qinwen, Zheng Derong, Tian Keqin, Lin Feng, Wang Huilin, and in the 1990s, Liu Pinrong, Li Jie, Song Zhongfu, Kong Fanling, Wang Rongxian, Liu Zhonggang, Zhang Huateng, Wang Kaiming, and since the new century, Cheng Zhongyuan, Shi Zhongquan, Li Liangming, Li Fangxiang, Jiang Jiannong, Chen Yangyong, Xu Jing, and others, all uphold this mainstream narrative. Although their specific expressions differ, and their emphases vary due to different article topics—for example, some emphasize the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leadership in the entire Party, some emphasize the Party Central Committee, some emphasize the entire military, some emphasize the entire Party and the entire military, some emphasize the leadership collective, some argue for distinguishing between leadership status and supreme leadership status, and others say it established Mao Zedong’s core status.

一方面，胡华、何干之、李新等是中国革命史和中国现代史研究领域的权威，他们主编的著作不仅长期被众多高校作为中国革命史和中国现代史各式教材的蓝本，其编著关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述也被学界所承袭，乃至迄今仍成为一种主流表述。1980年代的李安葆、黄元起、刘仲良、王维礼、张宪文、曹钦温、郑德荣、田克勤、林风、王桧林和1990年代的刘品荣、李捷、宋仲福、孔凡岭、王荣先、刘中刚、张华腾、王开明等，以及新世纪以来的程中原、石仲泉、李良明、李方祥、蒋建农、陈扬勇、徐静等都秉持这一主流叙事。尽管他们具体表述不尽相同，因论文主题不同侧重点也不尽相同。例如，有的强调确立了毛泽东在全党的领导地位，有的强调党中央，有的强调全军，有的强调全党全军，有的强调领导集体，有的强调应区分领导地位和最高领导地位，还有的说确立了毛泽东的核心地位。

On the other hand, since reform and opening up, with the discovery of new historical materials, especially the relaxation of the research environment, new formulations and viewpoints have emerged in the academic community regarding the expression of Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference. Among these, the most important formulation or viewpoint is that the Zunyi Conference did not establish Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the entire Party and the entire military; the traditional expression is not entirely accurate, and the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leadership status was a historical process of development. This formulation or viewpoint is divided into the following seven situations:

另一方面，改革开放以来，随着新史料的发现，尤其是研究环境的宽松等，关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述，学界出现了新提法、新观点。其中，最重要的提法或观点是，遵义会议没有确立毛泽东在全党全军的领导地位，传统的表述不甚确切，毛泽东领导地位的确立有一个历史发展过程。这种提法或观点分为下列七种情形：

First, some believe that the Zunyi Conference did not establish Mao Zedong’s leadership status; it was only the beginning of Mao Zedong’s entry into the Party Central Committee to take charge of important powers, and he was an important member of the collective leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Zhang Wentian. In 1987, Yuan Jiang clearly stated that “the customary formulation, i.e., that the Zunyi Conference ‘established Chairman Mao’s leadership position in the entire Party and the entire military,’ is not entirely accurate.” At the Zunyi Conference, Mao Zedong began to enter the leadership core of the Politburo, but at that time he was not assigned overall responsibility for the Party’s central work; after the conference, Mao Zedong’s status was not yet stable, some leading comrades had complaints about him, and some even proposed replacing the leadership. Therefore, the Zunyi Conference was only the beginning of Mao Zedong’s entry into the Party Central Committee to take charge of important powers, not its establishment. In 1994, Dong Shiming directly pointed out that after the Zunyi Conference, Mao Zedong neither held the main leadership position in the entire Party nor played the role of the main leader in practice; thus, the Zunyi Conference did not establish Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the entire Party. A related viewpoint is that the Zunyi Conference established the collective leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Zhang Wentian, with Mao Zedong playing a particularly important role as a member of this collective, but he did not become the core.

一是认为遵义会议并未确立毛泽东的领导地位，只是毛泽东进入党中央掌管重要权力的开始，是以张闻天为首的党中央的集体领导的一名重要成员。1987年，元江明确提出“习惯的提法，即遵义会议‘确立了毛主席在全党全军的领导地位’这一表述不甚确切”。遵义会议上，毛泽东开始进入中央政治局的领导核心，但是当时并未确定他担负中央工作的总责；会后，毛泽东的地位还不稳固，有些领导同志对他颇有烦言，甚至有人提出要求撤换领导。因此，遵义会议只是毛泽东进入党中央掌管重要权利的开始，而不是确立。1994年，董世明直指遵义会议后，毛泽东既没有担任全党的主要领导职务，在实践中也没有起主要领导人的作用，因而遵义会议没有确立毛泽东在全党的领导地位。与此相关的观点是，遵义会议确立的是以张闻天为首的党中央的集体领导，毛泽东作为这一集体的一员起了特别重要的作用，但未成为核心。

Second, some believe that the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leadership status began only at the Zunyi Conference and was actually established after the formation of the three-person military command group at the Gouba Conference on March 10, 1935. An earlier proponent of this view was Bai Yuwu, who argued that the Tongdao Conference, the Liping Conference, and the Houchang Conference laid the foundation for the Zunyi Conference to establish Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee; the Zunyi Conference affirmed the correct line represented by Mao Zedong, and Mao Zedong was elected as a member of the Politburo Standing Committee; in the village where the rooster crows at the border of three provinces [17]17 This refers to the village of Jiguan (literally “rooster’s crow”) in the border region of Guizhou, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces, where the Standing Committee division of labor took place after the Zunyi Conference., the Standing Committee divided work, with Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai responsible for military affairs; after the Gouba Conference, it was decided to form a three-person military command group of Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and Wang Jiaxiang, which indicated that Mao Zedong’s new central leadership status was further consolidated throughout the Party. Bai Yuwu’s view actually came from the 1984 “Investigation Report on Several Situations of the Zunyi Politburo Enlarged Conference” written by the CPC Central Committee’s Party History Materials Collection and Research Committee. Subsequently, Feng Jianhui, Zhao Bei, Du Xuebin, and others put forward similar views.

二是认为毛泽东领导地位的确立，遵义会议只是开始，到1935年3月10日苟坝会议后三人军事指挥小组成立才实际确立。较早提出这一观点的是白玉武，他认为通道会议、黎平会议、猴场会议为遵义会议确立毛泽东在红军和党中央的领导地位奠定了基础；遵义会议肯定了以毛泽东为代表的正确路线，毛泽东被选为政治局常委；在鸡鸣三省的村子里，常委分工，毛泽东和周恩来负责军事；苟坝会议后决定组成毛泽东、周恩来、王稼祥三人军事指挥小组，这表明毛泽东新的中央领导地位在全党得到了进一步巩固。白玉武的观点实际上来自于1984年中共中央党史资料征集委员会撰写的《关于遵义政治局扩大会议若干情况的调查报告》。此后，冯建辉、赵蓓、杜学斌等提出类似观点。

Third, some argue that from the convening of the Zunyi Conference to August 19, after an eight-month transitional period, Mao Zedong became the principal person responsible for military affairs in the Central Committee. In 1996, Li Ping analyzed this from an organizational perspective, pointing out that the Zunyi Conference determined that Zhou Enlai was the person responsible for making the final decision on military matters, and Mao Zedong was Zhou Enlai’s assistant in military command; on August 19, 1935, the Politburo meeting decided that Mao Zedong would be responsible for military affairs, and at that point, organizationally speaking, Mao became the main leader in military affairs. Chen Guoquan and Qin Haoyang also hold a similar view.

三是认为从遵义会议召开到8月19日，经过8个月的过渡阶段，毛泽东才成为中央军事上的主要负责人。1996年，力平从组织的角度进行了分析，指出遵义会议确定周恩来是军事上下最后决心的负责者，毛泽东是周恩来军事指挥上的帮助者；1935年8月19日，中央政治局会议决定毛泽东负责军事，这时从组织上说毛泽东在军事上成为主要领导人。陈国权、秦昊扬也持近似观点。

Fourth, some argue that it was not until November 3, 1935, that Mao Zedong became the supreme military leader of the CPC. In 2016, Yang Kuisong pointed out that after the Zunyi Conference, Mao Zedong, through the organizational form of the Three-Person Group [18]18 The third historical resolution refers to the “Resolution on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century,” adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in November 2021., in fact obtained considerable power over the operational command of the Central Red Army, but this did not mean he became the highest person responsible for military work within the Party. The landmark event that truly showed Mao Zedong had become the supreme military leader of the CPC was on November 3, 1935, when the CPC Central Committee, in the name of the Soviet Central Government, proclaimed the establishment of the “Northwest Revolutionary Military Committee,” explicitly ordering that “Mao Zedong be Chairman, Zhou Enlai and Peng Dehuai be Vice-Chairmen.” From then on, Mao Zedong had become the supreme military leader of the CPC not only in practice but also in name.

四是认为直至1935年11月3日，毛泽东才成为中共最高军事领导人。2016年，杨奎松指出，遵义会议后，毛泽东通过三人团这一组织形式，在事实上取得了中央红军作战指挥的相当权力，但并不意味着他成为党内军事工作的最高负责人。真正显示毛泽东已经成为中共最高军事领导人的标志性事件是1935年11月3日，中共中央以苏维埃中央政府的名义，宣告成立“西北革命军事委员会”,明令以“毛泽东为主席，周恩来、彭德怀为副主席”。自此，毛泽东不仅在实际上，而且在名义上都已经成为中共最高军事领导人。

Fifth, some argue that the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leading position in the entire Party was completed at the 1943 Politburo meeting. In 1994, Dong Shiming argued that the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leading position began at the Zunyi Conference, passed through the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee [19], and was completed at the 1943 Politburo meeting. At this meeting, Mao Zedong was elected Chairman of the Politburo and Chairman of the Secretariat, and had “the power of final decision.” Subsequently, Chen Songyou repeated Dong Shiming’s research, and Tong Jing and Li Dunsong held the same view.

五是认为毛泽东在全党领导地位的确立，完成于1943年的中央政治局会议。1994年，董世明认为，毛泽东领导地位的确立始于遵义会议，中间经过中共六届六中全会，完成于1943年中共中央政治局会议。在这次会议上，毛泽东被选为中央政治局主席、中央书记处主席，“有最后决定之权”。之后，陈松友重复了董世明的研究，佟静、李敦送持相同观点。

Sixth, some argue that from the Zunyi Conference to the Seventh National Congress of the CPC, Mao Zedong’s leadership or leader status was truly established and fully established. In 1992, Gu Guanlin proposed that the true establishment of Mao Zedong’s leading position was fully realized through a developmental process that began with the Zunyi Conference and culminated in the successful convening of the Party’s Seventh Congress. In 1995, Qi Weiping proposed that “leadership” and “leader” are two different concepts, with the scope of “leader” being broader than “leadership”; the Zunyi Conference established Mao Zedong’s leading position in the entire Party, but his leader status was ultimately established at the Seventh Congress. Qin Sheng, Xie Junchun, Zeng Jingzhong, Zheng Fuzhi, Shi Zhongquan, and others hold roughly the same view.

六是认为从遵义会议到中共七大，毛泽东领导或领袖地位才真正确立、完全确立。1992年，顾关林提出，毛泽东领导地位的真正确立，是通过遵义会议开始到党的七大的成功召开这样一个发展过程才得以完全实现的。1995年，齐卫平提出，“领导”和“领袖”是两个不同的概念，领袖的范围比领导更大；遵义会议确立了毛泽东在全党的领导地位，但领袖地位最终是在中共七大确立的。秦生、谢俊春、曾景忠、郑福志、石仲泉等持大致相同观点。

Seventh, some argue that the Zunyi Conference was only a beginning, or provided a possibility, and Mao Zedong’s status in the Party Central Committee was not yet stable. This view emphasizes that Mao Zedong’s leading position was not yet stable at the time of the Zunyi Conference, or that the establishment of his leading position after the conference was a complex process with multiple causes. Holders of this view include Liu Jinxiang, Li Shuxin, Yang Feng, Huang Daoxuan, Wang Jipeng, and others. Their main bases are: organizationally, although Mao Zedong began to enter the Party Central Committee after the Zunyi Conference, he was not actually designated to assume overall leadership of the Party Central Committee and military work, and was not the core leader; politically, the Zunyi Conference did not correct the past erroneous political line of the Party Central Committee, but rather affirmed its correctness; the realization of Mao Zedong’s leadership power was constrained by the objective conditions of the time. Therefore, for a long period after the Zunyi Conference, Mao Zedong’s status in the Party Central Committee was not stably established; the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leading position in the Party Central Committee was the result of the combined effect of a series of meetings centered on the Zunyi Conference, and was also inseparable from the support of the Comintern.

七是认为遵义会议只是开始，或提供了可能，毛泽东在党中央的地位尚未稳固。该观点重在说明遵义会议时毛泽东领导地位尚未稳固，或会后毛泽东领导地位的确立是一个复杂的过程，有多种致因。该观点的持有者有刘金详、李曙新、杨凤、黄道炫、王纪鹏等。其根据主要有：从组织上看，虽然遵义会议后毛泽东开始进入党中央，但实际上并没有确定他担负党中央和军队工作的总的领导，不是核心领导者；从政治上看，遵义会议并没有纠正过去党中央政治上的错误路线，反而肯定了它的正确；毛泽东领导权的实现受当时客观条件的制约。因此，在遵义会议后直至很长一段时间，毛泽东在党中央的地位尚未稳固地建立起来；毛泽东在党中央领导地位的确立，是以遵义会议为核心的系列会议共同作用的结果，与共产国际的支持也是分不开的。

Conclusion

结语

Overall, since 1945, and especially since 1949, the expressions regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference have not only differed in official formulations but have also varied in academic circles, or rather, the official and academic expressions have differed, with both similarities and differences. These expressions exhibit the following characteristics:

总体看来，1945年以来尤其是1949年以来关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述，不仅官方的表述不尽相同，学界的表述更是有异，或者说官方和学界的表述不尽相同，有同有异。这些表述呈现出以下特点：

First, the official historical writing on Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference has a certain flavor of “stratified accumulation” [20], undergoing a process of development, i.e., the expressions have become increasingly rich, detailed, and accurate, showing a clear characteristic of “seeking commonality.” From the concise expression of the first historical resolution [21], “began the new leadership of the Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong,” to the most detailed and complete expression of the third historical resolution [22], “factually established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading position in the Party Central Committee and the Red Army, began to establish the leading position of the correct Marxist line mainly represented by Comrade Mao Zedong in the Party Central Committee, and began to form the Party’s first generation of central leadership collective with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core,” this result is the outcome of mutual promotion, mutual learning, and mutual absorption among many Party leaders and academic scholars.

第一，官方关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的历史书写，颇有“层累构成”的意味，有一个发展的过程，即表述越来越丰富、详细、准确，呈现出明显“求同”的特点。从第一个历史决议“开始了以毛泽东同志为首的中央的新的领导”简明扼要地表述，到第三个历史决议“事实上确立了毛泽东同志在党中央和红军的领导地位，开始确立以毛泽东同志为主要代表的马克思主义正确路线在党中央的领导地位，开始形成以毛泽东同志为核心的党的第一代中央领导集体”的最为详细和完整的表述，这一结果是众多党内领导和学界学者相互促进、相互学习、相互吸纳的结果。

Second, the official historical writing on Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference has greatly standardized the academic expressions on this matter. That is, since 1949, the expression that the Zunyi Conference factually established Mao Zedong’s leading position has been the mainstream historical writing in academia.

第二，官方关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的历史书写，极大地规范了学界对此的表述，即1949年以来，关于遵义会议事实上确立了毛泽东领导地位的表述，一直是学界的主流历史书写。

Third, since reform and opening up, new viewpoints have emerged in academia arguing that the Zunyi Conference did not establish Mao Zedong’s leading position in the entire Party and the entire army, suggesting that the traditional expression is not entirely accurate, and that the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leading position was a historical developmental process. There are various claims, such as: Mao Zedong was an important member of the central collective leadership headed by Zhang Wentian; establishment after the Gouba Conference [23]; establishment on August 19, 1935; establishment on November 3, 1935; establishment at the 1943 Politburo meeting; establishment at the Seventh Congress in 1945; and the Zunyi Conference as a beginning. Clearly, these claims do not completely deny the traditional expression but rather supplement and refine it. This shows that although the official expression has greatly standardized academic expressions, it has not completely replaced academic viewpoints. Since reform and opening up, academia has upheld the academic atmosphere of letting a hundred schools of thought contend, and in the study of Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference, has practiced the principle and concept of “no forbidden zones in academic research,” with the specific principles and concepts being seeking truth from facts and being pragmatic and truth-seeking.

第三，改革开放以来，学界出现了遵义会议没有确立毛泽东在全党全军领导地位的新观点，认为传统的表述不甚确切，毛泽东领导地位的确立有一个历史发展过程，存在毛泽东是以张闻天为首的中央集体领导重要一员说、苟坝会议后确立说、1935年8月19日确立说、1935年11月3日确立说、1943年中央政治局会议确立说、1945年中共七大确立说、遵义会议开始说等说法。显然，上述说法并非完全否认传统说法，而是对传统说法的补充和完善。这说明，官方表述虽极大地规范了学界的表述，但并没有完全代替学界观点。改革开放以来，学界秉持了百家争鸣的学术氛围，在关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的研究中实践了“学术研究无禁区”的原则和理念，其具体原则和理念是实事求是、求真务实。

Fourth, the official historical writing has greatly absorbed the “truth-seeking” research results of academia. For example, the first use of “establishing Mao Zedong’s leadership in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee” in *Lectures on the History of the Chinese Revolution* edited by Hu Hua, as well as the historical writing by He Ganzhi, Hu Hua, and Li Xin in their edited university textbooks on Mao Zedong’s correct military line, Mao Zedong’s Marxist-Leninist military line, and Mao Zedong’s theoretical contributions to adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, were all absorbed by the second and third historical resolutions. Additionally, the phrase “actually established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leading position in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee” in the initial draft of the second historical resolution had the word “actually” deleted

第四，官方的历史书写极大地吸纳了学界的“求真”研究成果。例如，胡华主编的《中国革命史讲义》首次关于“确立毛泽东在红军和党中央的领导地位”,以及何干之、胡华和李新等主编的高校教材对毛泽东正确军事路线、毛泽东马克思列宁主义军事路线、毛泽东对马克思主义中国化理论贡献的历史书写，都被第二个历史决议和第三个历史决议所吸纳。另外，第二个历史决议初稿“遵义会议实际上确立了毛泽东同志在红军和党中央领导地位”应邓小平的要求删去的“实际上”三个字,在第三个历史决议中又加上了，变为“事实上确立了毛泽东同志在党中央和红军的领导地位”,这一增加应该是对改革开放以来学界对遵义会议没有确立毛泽东在全党全军领导地位讨论的回应、吸纳和完善。

From this it can be seen that mutual promotion, mutual learning, and mutual absorption between the official sphere and the academic sphere are beneficial and harmless, and have positive value and significance. This not only makes “truth become clearer through debate,” allowing historical facts to be sorted out, but also makes the expression of Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference in the third historical resolution [18]18 The third historical resolution refers to the “Resolution on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century,” adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in November 2021. increasingly scientific. In recent years, regarding research on the history of the CPC, there seems to be an implicit consensus in the academic sphere, namely that discussions of the Party’s history, figures, events, etc., should not exceed the boundaries of the Party’s historical resolutions and should take the Party’s historical resolutions as the criterion. Obviously, if one upholds such a concept, it would be impossible to have had the discussion since reform and opening up on whether the Zunyi Conference established Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the entire Party and the entire army, nor would it be possible to have arrived at much new knowledge about the Long March journey before and after the Zunyi Conference. In fact, as a commentator pointed out more than 20 years ago, over the 20 years of reform and opening up, “the process of academization of CPC history research has been driven to a great extent by these in-depth studies of historical facts”; although the 1991 edition of *The History of the Communist Party of China* “still had a propaganda-oriented value orientation and was not entirely for academic research, it did not insist on ‘establishing one sole authority,’ nor did it artificially set a forbidden boundary for progress,” and “from the perspective of the academic development of CPC history research, this cannot but be a progress worth mentioning.” Since reform and opening up, the changes in the historical writing on Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference are precisely a typical footnote to the academization of CPC history research.

于此可见，官方与学界的相互促进、相互学习、相互吸纳是有益无害的，是有积极价值和正面意义的。这不仅使得“真理越辩越明”,历史事实得以梳理清楚，而且使得第三个历史决议关于遵义会议毛泽东地位的表述越来越科学。近年来，关于中共党史研究，学界似乎有一个隐然的共识，即对于党的历史、人物和事件等的探讨，以不超过党的历史决议为限界、以党的历史决议为准绳。显然，如果秉持这样一种观念，则不可能有改革开放以来对遵义会议是否确立毛泽东在全党全军领导地位的讨论，也不可能得出关于遵义会议前后长征途中的许多新知。实际上，正如论者20多年前所指出，改革开放20年来“中共党史学术化的进程，在很大程度上就是靠这些深入的史实研究来推动的”；1991年版的《中国共产党历史》尽管“仍存在着宣传的价值取向，不完全是为了学术研究，但不坚持‘定于一尊’,不人为地设定一个禁止前进的界限”,“从中共党史研究的学术发展角度，这不能不是一个值得提及的进步”。改革开放以来，关于遵义会议毛泽东地位历史书写的变化，正是中共党史研究学术化发展的一个典型脚注。

A leaf tells the arrival of autumn. The lesson from the case of the changes in the historical writing on Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Conference is that, for the official sphere, there must be sufficient self-confidence, the concept of “no forbidden zones in academic research” must be put into practice, sufficient openness and freedom must be given to the academic sphere, research and propaganda must be distinguished, and Party history research cannot be treated merely as propaganda for governing and educating people. Although Party history research work “can play an important role in ideological and political work,” the prerequisite “should be scientific research, not simplistic propaganda.” If Party history research and propaganda are equated, then Party history research can only be interpretation, there can be no innovation, and ultimately the discipline of Party history will inevitably become equivalent to the discipline of ideological and political education, thereby dissolving itself. For the academic sphere, especially the CPC history academic sphere, “no forbidden zones in academic research” is not only a matter of concept but also a matter of academic practice; one must have the courage to explore, seek truth from facts, let a hundred flowers bloom, and let a hundred schools of thought contend, and must not rest on one’s laurels or confine oneself, otherwise it will be difficult to discover new problems, open up new fields, and advance new understandings. At a time when CPC history and Party building have been established as a first-level discipline, it is even more necessary to vigorously promote research on CPC history and Party building from an academic perspective, and to build the study of CPC history and Party building into a truly scientific discipline.

见一叶而知秋。遵义会议毛泽东地位历史书写变化的案例给我们的启示是，对官方来说，要有足够的自信，践行“学术研究无禁区”的理念，给学界足够的开放度和自由度，要将研究与宣传区分开来，不能将党史研究仅仅当作是资政育人的宣传。党史研究工作虽然“可以在思想政治工作方面起重要作用”,但前提“应是科学的研究，不是简单化的宣传”。如果将党史研究和宣传等同起来，那么党史研究就只能是阐释，不可能有创新，党史学科最终必将等同于思想政治学科，从而消解了自己。对学界尤其是中共党史学界来说，“学术研究无禁区”不仅是一个理念问题，更是一个学术实践问题；要勇于探索、实事求是、百花齐放、百家争鸣，不能固步自封、画地为牢，不然难以发现新问题、开拓新领域、推进新认识。在中共党史党建已被设置为一级学科的当下，更要从学术的角度大力推进中共党史党建研究，把中共党史党建学建设成为名副其实的科学学科。

In addition, scholars of CPC history urgently need to strengthen their own academic self-discipline. If this is not achieved, CPC history research will not only find it difficult to rise to the level of science but will also be easily criticized by other academic circles. Judging from the history of expressions of Mao Zedong’s status in the academic sphere, the academic self-discipline of CPC history scholars should include at least the following three aspects: First, it is necessary to strengthen original research on academic achievements, and not to reheat leftovers or engage in repetitive research. For example, the article “A New Discussion on the Time of Establishment of Mao Zedong’s Leadership Status,” published in 2002, was called a new discussion, but its content and viewpoints almost completely repeated Dong Shiming’s 1994 research. This kind of repetitive research without innovation is a relatively common phenomenon in the CPC history academic sphere. In today’s era when online databases are complete and retrieval is very convenient, this phenomenon should be eliminated. If an article has no new ideas and cannot innovate, it should be abandoned; one should not become a copycat just to publish articles, thereby losing the original aspiration of academic research. Second, there must be a good academic style, and the phenomenon of duplicate publication of articles must be eliminated. For example, some articles have already been published, and after many years they are published again, but the two articles are almost completely identical in materials, viewpoints, and content. Some articles are published in different journals within a short period of time. The latter may not be entirely the author’s problem, but it should be avoided and eliminated as much as possible. Third, research must be conducted adhering to the academic principle of seeking truth and being pragmatic, and especially, academic work and propaganda must be distinguished. For example, from the early 1950s to before the “Cultural Revolution,” the academic sphere’s expressions of Mao Zedong’s leadership status and contributions began to feature numerous modifiers and commendatory terms. For instance, from the “outstanding, great, fully trustworthy leader” and “from victory to victory” in *Lectures on the History of the Chinese Modern Revolution (Draft)*, to the “outstanding, fully trustworthy leader” in Volume 2 of *A General History of the Chinese New Democratic Revolution Period*, as well as the expression of being consistently correct for 14 years. Although this kind of expression was influenced by the specific era, scholars should still adhere to the rationality and boundaries of academic research. Although academic research and mass propaganda have some connection, their tasks are different, their concepts are different, and their target audiences are different, so they should be distinguished.

另外，中共党史学者迫切需要加强自身的学术自律。如果做不到这点，中共党史研究不仅难以上升为科学，而且易被其他学界所诟病。从学界关于毛泽东地位的表述历史看，中共党史学者的学术自律起码包括以下三个方面：一是要加强学术成果的原创性研究，不要炒现饭，搞重复研究。例如，2002年发表的《毛泽东领袖地位确立时间新论》一文，名为新论，可是内容、观点几乎完全重复了1994年董世明的研究。这种没有创新的重复研究，在中共党史学界是比较普遍的现象。在网络数据库完备且检索十分方便的今天，这种现象应该杜绝。文章如果没有新意，不能创新，就应该放弃，不能为了发文章而做文抄公，从而失去了学术研究的初心。二是要有良好的学风，杜绝文章重复发表现象。例如，有的文章已经发表，相隔多年又拿出再次发表，但两文在材料上、观点上、内容上几乎完全一致。有的文章，前后相隔不久，在不同期刊上发表。后者可能不完全是作者的问题，但应尽量避免、杜绝。三是要秉持求真务实的学术原则展开研究，尤其要将学术和宣传区分开来。例如，1950年代初至“文化大革命”之前，学界对毛泽东领导地位和贡献的表述，开始出现了众多的修饰词和褒义词。如从《中国现代革命史讲义(初稿)》的“杰出的伟大的完全可以信赖的领袖”、“从胜利走向胜利”,到《中国新民主主义革命时期通史》第2卷的“杰出的完全可以信赖的领袖”,以及14年来一贯正确的表述。虽然这种表述是特定时代影响所致，但学者还是应该坚守学术研究的理性和界限。尽管学术研究与大众宣传有一定的关联，但两者的任务不同、理念不同、受众对象不同，应有所区别。

(Author bios: You Haihua, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism and the Institute of CPC History and Party Building, Nanjing University; Tu Guodong, 2020-level Master’s student at the School of Marxism, Zhejiang Gongshang University)

（作者简介：游海华，南京大学马克思主义学院暨中共党史党建研究院教授，博导；涂国栋，浙江工商大学马克思主义学院2020级硕士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心