On One-Party Dictatorship

(February 2, 1938)

Question 1: Is the current political system of the Soviet Union a one-party dictatorship?

Answer: The Soviet Union is a state under the dictatorship of the working class, that is, a worker-peasant socialist state, but it is not a state under one-party dictatorship. From the perspective of Marxism-Leninism, there is a distinction between the dictatorship of a class and the dictatorship of a party. A party is merely an organization of the most politically conscious members of a class; it should and can only play a leading role in the state under the proletarian dictatorship. The party should not and cannot replace the class in exercising dictatorship. Therefore, the founders of the Soviet political system, Lenin and Stalin, never conflated the dictatorship of the party with the dictatorship of the class. When they occasionally used the term "dictatorship" in reference to the party, they were only referring to the party's leading role within the state system. To help you understand and believe this statement of mine, I am glad to introduce to you some of what Lenin and Stalin said on this issue. For ease of memory and understanding, I will specifically introduce to you some of the opinions of Lenin cited and Stalin's own views on this issue from Stalin's book *On the Problems of Leninism*. In the section "The Party and the Working Class Within the System of the Proletarian Dictatorship" of this book, Stalin elaborates in detail on Lenin's views on this issue. For example, he says: "In our Soviet Union, in the state under the proletarian dictatorship, the fact that our Soviets or other mass organizations, when resolving any important political or organizational issue, must follow the Party's directives should be regarded as the highest expression of the Party's leading role." In this sense, it can be said: "The dictatorship of the proletariat,

in essence, is the 'dictatorship' of its vanguard, the 'dictatorship' of its party, because the party is the basic leading force of the proletariat." Observe what Lenin said on this issue at the Second World Congress of the Communist International: "Tanner says he advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat, but his understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not entirely the same as ours. He thinks that the dictatorship of the proletariat as we understand it is, in essence, the dictatorship of that organized and conscious minority of the proletariat. And indeed, in the capitalist era, when the working class suffers constant exploitation and cannot develop its human talents, the greatest characteristic of a workers' party is precisely that it can only include a minority of its class. A party can only unite a minority of its class, just as in any capitalist society, truly conscious workers constitute only a minority of all workers. Therefore, we must admit that only this conscious minority can guide and lead the broad masses of workers. And if Comrade Tanner says he is an enemy of political parties and yet simultaneously advocates that the minority of the most organized and revolutionary elements of the working class should point out the path for the entire proletariat, then I would say that there is actually no difference of opinion between us." [1]

However, does this mean one can place an equal sign between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Party's leading role (the Party's "dictatorship")? Can the former and the latter be regarded as one thing? Can the latter replace the former? Of course not. Certainly not. For example, Comrade Suling once said, "The dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of our Party." [2] This statement clearly regards the "dictatorship of the Party" and the dictatorship of the proletariat as one thing. From the standpoint of Leninism, can such an identification of these two as one thing be considered correct? No, it cannot.

Thus it can be seen that the Soviet Union practices the dictatorship of the working class, not the dictatorship of the Communist Party.

[1] See *Collected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 25, p. 347.
[2] See *Lenin's Doctrine*, p. 95.

Conflating the dictatorship of a class with the dictatorship of a party is neither in accordance with the theory of Marxism-Leninism nor with the actual conditions of the Soviet Union. I think that, regarding the understanding of this aspect of the Soviet Union, the opinions of Lenin and Stalin, the founders of the Soviet political system, are the most authoritative and trustworthy.

Question 2: Although the Soviet Union is not a one-party dictatorship, what is the reason for the existence of only one Communist Party in the Soviet Union?

Answer: On the one hand, this is the result of the choice of the people's will in the long-term struggles among various parties in Russia in the past, that is, the result of the Russian people, through long-term struggles, becoming weary of other parties and only supporting the Communist Party; on the other hand, it is due to the fact that in the socialist state of the Soviet Union, there is no longer a social basis for the existence of other political parties, and therefore there is no necessity or possibility for other parties to exist. To help you understand and believe this statement of mine, it is best to introduce to you Stalin's own views on this issue. The fact that only one Communist Party exists in the Soviet Union is not a result fabricated by workers, wishful thinking, or administrative orders, but a result shaped by historical life. On this point, Stalin spoke very clearly in his conversation with the First American Workers' Delegation on September 9, 1927. He said: "The position of our Communist Party, its position as the only open political party in the country (the position of one-party monopoly), was not artificially created, nor was it deliberately imagined. Such a position could never be artificially created by administrative methods. The monopoly of our Communist Party grew naturally out of actual life, gradually formed in history, as a result of the complete bankruptcy and downfall of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Menshevik Party."

In the Soviet Union, besides the Communist Party, there is no social basis for the existence of other political parties, and there is no

necessity or possibility for other parties to exist. On this point, Stalin
specially explained in his report on the new Soviet Constitution on
November 25, 1936. He said: "Finally, there is another category of critics. If the category of critics mentioned above blames the draft of the
Soviet Constitution for abandoning the dictatorship of the working class,
then this category of critics, on the contrary, blames the draft of the
Soviet Constitution for not changing the current situation in the Soviet
Union at all, for not abandoning the dictatorship of the working class,
for not allowing freedom for various political parties, and for preserving the current leading position of the Communist Party in the Soviet
Union as still effective. At the same time, this category of critics considers the absence of freedom for various political parties in the Soviet
Union as a sign violating the foundation of democracy."
"I admit that the draft of the new Soviet Constitution indeed still retains the system of the dictatorship of the working class as effective,
and likewise preserves the current leading position of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union without any change. If the esteemed critics
consider this a shortcoming of the draft of the Soviet Constitution, I can
only express regret over this point. We Bolsheviks consider this a merit
of the Soviet Constitution."
"As for the freedom of various political parties, our views on this
issue are somewhat different. A political party is a part of a social class,
the vanguard of a social class. Only in a society where antagonistic
classes exist, whose interests are mutually hostile and irreconcilable—
in other words, only in a society where there are capitalists and workers,
landlords and peasants, rich peasants and poor peasants, and so on—
can one speak of the existence of several political parties and the freedom of political parties. In the Soviet Union, classes such as capitalists,
landlords, rich peasants, and the like have long ceased to exist. Now in
the Soviet Union, there are only two classes, namely workers and peasants. The interests of these two classes are not only not hostile to each
other but, on the contrary, are mutually harmonious. Therefore, in the
Soviet Union, there is no basis for the existence of several political parties, and consequently, there is no basis for the freedom of these parties.

In the Soviet Union, there is a basis for only one party—the Communist Party. In the Soviet Union, only one party—a Communist Party that boldly and thoroughly safeguards the interests of workers and peasants—can exist. It protects the interests of these two strata quite well, a point that I doubt anyone can dispute.”

“People all talk about democracy, but what is democracy? In capitalist countries, where there are antagonistic classes, such democracy ultimately is democracy for the powerful, democracy for the propertied minority. In the Soviet Union, democracy, on the contrary, is democracy for the working people, that is, democracy for all the people. Thus it can be seen that what violates the principles of democracy is not the new Soviet Constitution, but the bourgeois constitutions. Therefore, I believe the Soviet Constitution is the only thoroughly democratic constitution in the world.”

Thus it can be seen that the fact of one-party existence can truly take shape and be realized only in countries where other parties besides this party have been completely despised and overthrown by the masses of the people in the course of revolution and where there is no social basis for the existence of other parties—such as the socialist Soviet Union.

Question 3: Why can Germany and Italy both practice one-party dictatorship?

Answer: First, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the situation where one party holds state power within a country and whether there truly is only one party in existence in that country. In Germany and Italy, it is true that only one party holds state power, but this does not mean that only that ruling party exists in those countries. In Germany, although today only the fascist National Socialist Party holds power, the other political parties that existed before the fascist party came to power—the Social Democratic Party, which had millions of voters during the last Reichstag election (1933); the Communist Party, with five to six million voters; and various bourgeois parties upholding democratic institutions, which had millions of voters and historical traditions—all continue to exist and operate, though clandestinely

and illegally. Let anyone carefully inspect the cities and rural areas of Germany, and he will immediately see that, although hundreds of thousands of members of anti-government parties are imprisoned in concentration camps, the Social Democratic Party, the Communist Party, and all parties upholding democratic politics and opposing the fascist dictatorship are still potentially and heroically struggling. They secretly publish their own newspapers and magazines, and they arduously carry out work to educate and organize the populace. Among German political exiles in countries such as France, Czechoslovakia, and Belgium, they are uniting their own domestic parties to establish popular fronts opposing fascism and upholding democratic politics. In the leadership organs of the Social Democratic International (i.e., the Second International) and the Communist International, there are representatives of the German Social Democratic Party and the German Communist Party. The situation in Italy is no different from that in Germany. The Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, and all democratic parties are likewise heroically and secretly carrying out anti-fascist activities. Representatives of these parties are similarly working domestically and abroad to establish popular fronts opposing fascism; representatives of the Italian Communist Party and the Italian Social Democratic Party likewise hold important positions in the leadership organs of the Third International and the Second International.

Thus it can be seen that it is correct to say that in Germany and Italy only one party holds state power and only one party has legal status; but to say that only the fascist party exists in these countries is entirely inconsistent with the facts.

Question 4: Some people say that the Kuomintang should now implement a "one-party dictatorship." What is your opinion on this issue?

Answer: I can answer you on this issue from two aspects.

First, if what you mean by "one-party dictatorship" refers to the Kuomintang alone holding the state power of the National Government, then this is already an accomplished fact today, because, as everyone knows, only members of the Kuomintang, or persons willingly designated

by the Kuomintang, hold responsibilities in the National Government.
Other political parties in China currently have no representatives participating in the government. Our Chinese Communist Party is the first
major political party in China outside the Kuomintang. We do not currently seek to participate in the government. On this point, our Party
leader, Comrade Chen Shaoyu, in his conversation with American journalist Mr. Baideen on December 25 last year, as well as another leader
of our Party, Comrade Zhang Wentian (i.e., Luo Fu), in his article "Consolidating KMT-CCP Cooperation and Striving for Victory in the War
of Resistance" published in issue No. 28 of Liberation, have already
made frank and sincere statements on behalf of the CPC Central Committee. On this point, I can once again make a solemn statement on behalf of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party: Our
Chinese Communist Party now sincerely assists the Kuomintang in the
war of resistance against Japan, but we do not currently seek to participate in the Kuomintang.

Second, the so-called one-party rule, where one party holds state

power, does not necessarily have to adopt the method of "dictatorship."
If the so-called method of "one-party dictatorship" actually amounts
to the policies implemented by the Kuomintang over the past ten years,
then I think there is a need for consideration. In my view, today the
Kuomintang can maintain the situation of one party holding state power,
but in order to concentrate talents for resisting Japan and saving the nation and to manifest the will of the people for resisting Japan and saving
the nation, it seems appropriate to adopt commensurate democratic
methods. Of course, these democratic methods are those absolutely
beneficial to the war of resistance, methods that absolutely consolidate
the government and further increase the people’s support for and trust
in the government.

Question Five: Some people now say that the Kuomintang should reimplement the policy of "no parties outside the party," in other words, a policy that does not allow the legal existence of any political party other than the Kuomintang. What is your opinion on this question?

Answer: Allowing only the Kuomintang to exist legally—not only refusing to recognize the legal status of the Communist Party and other parties (such as the Nationalist Youth Party and the National Socialist Party), but also attempting to use armed force to eliminate parties other than the Kuomintang—is by no means a new theory in China; it is an old fact that was once practiced for ten years. Yet the bitter and tragic result of this fact was not only incessant internal strife but also unprecedented foreign aggression. The painful experience of China's actual political life over the past ten years tells us that the Kuomintang's policy of attempting to use military force to eliminate other parties has already failed. At the same time, the Chinese Communist Party's attempt to establish a one-party-led regime under China's existing conditions also failed to achieve the expected results. The experience of the Northern Expedition's success, achieved through the first Kuomintang-Communist cooperation, and the fact that the decade of Kuomintang-Communist split caused a grave national crisis, have taught comrades in both the Kuomintang and the Communist Party and the people of the whole nation a bitter truth: that the truly effective way to create a unified situation in China is not through internal strife in which one party opposes or attempts to eliminate another party, but through uniting the forces of all parties on a common political foundation to form a national united front—first and foremost through close cooperation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. The fundamental premise that has enabled China to carry out the War of Resistance Against Japan over the past six months is precisely the unity and solidarity of internal national forces. The specific form and content of this unity and solidarity are the establishment of an anti-Japanese national united front formed by all parties on the basis of Kuomintang-Communist cooperation. That is, both the Kuomintang and the Communist Party have not only mutually abandoned their past stances of non-recognition and mutual opposition, but have also joined hands in cooperation on the basis of resisting Japan and saving the nation. The Kuomintang has abandoned its past stance of denying the Communist Party and other parties and implemented the policy of uniting all anti-Japanese parties to resist foreign aggression. The Communist Party and other anti-Japanese parties have also abandoned their past stance of opposing the Kuomintang and are cooperating with the Kuomintang to carry out the common cause of resisting Japan and saving the nation. From this it can be seen that the anti-Japanese national united front formed by the forces of all parties is a necessary prerequisite for China's War of Resistance Against Japan. Without this prerequisite, or if it is destroyed, China will effectively be plunged back into internal strife. Once internal strife occurs, China cannot continue its War of Resistance Against Japan. This is an obvious and universally acknowledged truth. Precisely because of this, the Japanese fascist militarists, in addition to their military aggression, are constantly attempting to employ the vicious scheme of "using Chinese to control Chinese." First and foremost, they try to once again stir up internal strife among China's various parties in order to rupture the anti-Japanese national united front.

From this it can be seen that the theory some people are now promoting—that no party outside the Kuomintang should be allowed to exist—is actually a theory already negated by the facts of Chinese history. It is an attempt to return China to the situation of strife that existed before solidary resistance against Japan, and at the same time it would prevent the unity that China has already achieved through the anti-Japanese national united front from continuing. Consequently, it would once again render China incapable of carrying out the War of Resistance Against Japan. Therefore, no matter how loudly those who propagate this theory shout "national unity," if their theory is unfortunately put into practice, the actual result will inevitably be the destruction of the united situation already formed today. And no matter how loudly those who propagate this theory cry "resist Japan," if their theory is unfortunately put into practice, the actual result will inevitably be the destruction of anti-Japanese solidarity, making it impossible to continue the War of Resistance Against Japan. Precisely because of this, I firmly believe that this kind of theory—which harms unity in the name of unity, harms resistance against Japan in the name of resistance against Japan, and would in practice force China to return to the tragic situation before internal unity and facing external threats—will certainly meet with opposition from patriotic people, will certainly be rejected by the nation's anti-Japanese armed forces, and will certainly be condemned and spurned by the wise and capable leaders of the Kuomintang and by all Kuomintang comrades who are willing to continue resisting Japan for the sake of the country and the people. This is not surprising at all, primarily because this theory completely departs from reality and contradicts facts. These people say: If parties outside the Kuomintang also have a legal existence, partisan disputes will hinder resistance against Japan. The facts prove that, when only the Kuomintang was allowed to exist legally and other parties were not allowed legal status, China indeed had enormous partisan strife, to the point that China did not resist Japan—at most, only partial resistance—and China was powerless to conduct a comprehensive War of Resistance Against Japan. On the contrary, as soon as the Kuomintang permitted other parties to have a legal existence and cooperated with them, China indeed ceased its civil war, dissolved partisan disputes, and created an unprecedented unification of the state's political power and armed forces, thus enabling an unprecedented sacred national war of self-defense to safeguard the nation's survival and strive for national liberation. These people say: If parties outside the Kuomintang are allowed to have a legal existence, the fact of multiple parties existing legally becomes a factor hindering and destroying national unity. China's facts prove: When only the Kuomintang had legal status and other parties were simultaneously denied legal status, domestic turmoil and constant warfare occurred. On the contrary, as soon as the Kuomintang allowed other parties a legal existence, domestic unity appeared immediately. Even if there were debates among the parties on certain issues, they would never use weapons as criticism; at most, they would use friendly criticism as a weapon. The facts of countries such as Britain, the United States, France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Switzerland prove that the fact of multiple parties having a legal existence has never hindered or destroyed the unity of those countries. From this it can be seen that the theory that only by allowing the Kuomintang alone to exist can China achieve unity and resist Japan is a theory that does not accord with China's actual life. It is a theory that would render China neither truly unified nor truly able to resist Japan. Such a theory absolutely cannot be accepted by China's military and civilians who cherish unity and are resolute in resisting Japan.

Question Six: Some now say that since the Communist Party has declared its belief in the Three Principles of the People, it can no longer believe in communism. What is your opinion on this question?

Answer: First, I must declare: Some claim that the Communist Party's announcement that it will strive for the realization of the Three Principles of the People is tantamount to abandoning its belief in communism. I can once again solemnly state on behalf of our Party: This is nothing but a rumor spread by troublemakers; it absolutely does not correspond to the facts. We are members of the Communist Party. We announce our willingness to join with the comrades of the Kuomintang in striving for the unfinished revolutionary cause of Mr. Sun Yat-sen—that is, the cause of the Three Principles of the People, which seek China's equality in international status, political status, and economic status. At the same time, we will absolutely never abandon our belief in communism, a belief we have devoutly held for many years and for which we have sacrificed and struggled. Second, some say: If you declare you are striving for the realization of the Three Principles of the People while at the same time believing in communism, this does not conform to the standpoint of the Three Principles of the People, because the Three Principles of the People and communism are fundamentally incompatible. On this point, I can once again solemnly point out: This assertion is completely wrong. It conforms neither to the theory and actions of Mr. Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Three Principles of the People and the revolutionary mentor of the Kuomintang, nor to the actual circumstances of the Chinese revolution. From a theoretical perspective, the main contents of the Three Principles of the People—nationalism, democracy, and people's livelihood—are fully compatible with the ideas advocated by communism: the thorough overthrow of imperialist oppression so that the Chinese people can achieve national independence; the thorough destruction of feudal oppression so that the Chinese people can obtain democracy and freedom; and the thorough transformation of China's economic system so that the Chinese people can attain well-being in their livelihood. Therefore, communism and the Three Principles of the People are by no means irreconcilable. Consequently, our Party and the Kuomintang are not incapable of coexisting legally and cooperating hand in hand. On this point, Mr. Sun Yat-sen clearly indicated it more than once in his lectures on the Principle of People's Livelihood. For example, in the Second Lecture on the Principle of People's Livelihood, Mr. Sun Yat-sen publicly criticized the error of certain Kuomintang members holding this view. He said: "So whenever social issues are raised, most young people favor the Communist Party and want to implement Marxism in China. What exactly is the intention of those young patriots who favor Marxism? Their intention is very good. Their proposition is to fundamentally solve problems. They think that to address political and social issues, one must trace things to their source and that it cannot be done without a fundamental solution. Therefore, they strongly organize the Communist Party to be active in China. Our old comrades in the Kuomintang now harbor many misunderstandings about the Communist Party, thinking that the Kuomintang's advocacy of the Three Principles of the People is incompatible with communism." From this it can be seen that Mr. Sun Yat-sen openly pointed out that some comrades in the Kuomintang considering the Three Principles of the People and communism to be incompatible was a misunderstanding. Why did this misunderstanding arise? In this part of the lecture, Mr. Sun Yat-sen specifically indicated that it was generally because these people did not understand the interconnectedness of the Three Principles of the People, especially because they did not understand the Principle of People's Livelihood. Therefore, after explaining this reason, Mr. Sun Yat-sen continued in this lecture: "Why do I dare to say that our revolutionary comrades have not yet understood the Principle of People's Livelihood? It is precisely because during this reorganization of the Kuomintang, many comrades, out of opposition to the Communist Party, actually said that communism and the Three Principles of the People are different, that in China it is enough to practice the Three Principles of the People, and that communism cannot be accommodated. Then what exactly is the Principle of People's Livelihood? In my previous lecture, I made a slight discovery, saying that the development of social civilization, the improvement of economic organization, and the progress of morality—what are they all centered on? They are centered on the people's livelihood. The people's livelihood is the driving force behind all social activities. Because the people's livelihood is not satisfied, social civilization cannot develop, economic organization cannot be improved, morality regresses, and all kinds of injustices arise. Phenomena like class war and the various oppressions and workers' suffering are all because the problem of an unsatisfied people's livelihood cannot be solved. Thus, all these abnormal conditions in society are the effects, while the problem of the people's livelihood is the cause. Judging it this way, what exactly is the Principle of People's Livelihood? The Principle of People's Livelihood is communism, it is socialism. Therefore, regarding communism, not only can we not say it conflicts with the Principle of People's Livelihood, but it is a good friend. Those who advocate the Principle of People's Livelihood should study it carefully." Mr. Sun Yat-sen continued his lecture by asking: "Since communism is a good friend of the Principle of People's Livelihood, why do members of the Kuomintang want to oppose the Communist Party? The reason for this may be that some members of the Communist Party also do not understand what communism is and often make statements opposing the Three Principles of the People, thus provoking resentment from the Kuomintang. However, such ignorant and reckless party members cannot be blamed on the entire party or its doctrine; it can only be said to be their individual behavior. Therefore, we absolutely cannot use the bad personal behavior of individual Communist Party members as a standard to oppose the Communist Party. That is, we cannot use individual behavior to oppose an entire doctrine. So, why does this issue arise among our comrades? The reason is that they do not understand what the Principle of People's Livelihood is. They little realize that the Principle of People's Livelihood is communism." What conclusions should we draw from this section of Mr. Sun Yat-sen's lecture? The conclusions should be: First, the Three Principles of the People and communism are compatible and can coexist; they are in a relationship of good friends. Second, those who believe that the Three Principles of the People and communism are incompatible are actually people who do not understand the Three Principles of the People, especially people who do not know what the Principle of People's Livelihood is. These people should be a very small minority within the Kuomintang.

Those who believe that communism and the Three Principles of the People are incompatible are, in fact, people who do not understand communism, especially those who do not understand the interrelationship between communism and the Three Principles of the People. Such individuals should also be an extremely small minority within the Communist Party. As for the solution to this issue, Mr. Sun Yat-sen believed that it was merely a matter of individual actions on one side, and that no side should oppose the entire party or doctrine of the other because of it. Thirdly, Mr. Sun held that not only should those who advocate communism understand the Three Principles of the People, but he also instructed that those who advocate the Principle of People’s Livelihood should diligently study communism. This is a broad-minded and selfless attitude, which we Communists greatly admire. Indeed, no great thought or doctrine in the world can be the exclusive preserve of a particular group or party. It should and surely must welcome other individuals and parties to study and implement it. We are not only willing to strive for the realization of the Three Principles of the People; similarly, we welcome all people—first and foremost, comrades of the Kuomintang—to earnestly study communism in accordance with Mr. Sun’s instructions. We are deeply convinced that anyone who is willing to fight for the cause of human liberation and who truly studies and understands communism (or Marxism) will certainly recognize that Marxism is the highest ideal for solving social problems, a synthesis of the greatest thoughts of humanity over thousands of years. Communist society is the most perfect, joyful, and happy society for all humanity, with nothing to fear. Precisely because of this, the greatest modern revolutionary of our country, Mr. Sun Yat-sen, said: "...In the past, after humanity overcame nature and wild beasts, money soon emerged, and in recent times, machines were invented. Those extremely clever people monopolized the world’s materials, seeking their own selfish interests and wanting everyone else to be their slaves, thus creating an era of intense struggle among people. When will this struggle be resolved? It can only be resolved when we return to a new era of communism. What is it that people fight over? They fight over bread and jobs. Under communism, when everyone has bread to eat and food on the table, there will be no need to fight, and human conflict can be avoided. Therefore, communism is the most noble ideal to solve social problems." Regarding the value of Marxism, Mr. Sun said: "As for the books authored and theories developed by Marx, they can be said to synthesize the greatest thoughts of humanity over thousands of years. Therefore, once his theories emerged, the whole world followed him, and scholars everywhere believed in him and followed his lead."

From everything stated above, you can see that in the theory of the Three Principles of the People as personally authored by Mr. Sun, there is absolutely no indication that the Three Principles and communism are incompatible. As for Mr. Sun’s actions on this issue, they are well-known to all. The Communist Party of China was formally established in 1921, and since its founding, Mr. Sun maintained cordial relations with Communists. By 1924, when Mr. Sun resolved to reorganize the Kuomintang, he openly cooperated with the Communists, and the form of cooperation was very intimate. That is, they not only established a National Revolutionary Alliance between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party but also permitted Communists to join the Kuomintang as individuals to jointly undertake revolutionary work. At that time, the Communist Party had only a few hundred members nationwide and had been established for just a few years, and Communists were joining the Kuomintang as individuals to strive together for the National Revolution. Under such circumstances, did Mr. Sun ever demand that Communists adhere to the Three Principles of the People while prohibiting them from simultaneously believing in communism? No! Under those circumstances, did Mr. Sun ever propose that only the Kuomintang be allowed to exist as a single party and not permit the simultaneous lawful existence of the Communist Party? No! Not only did he not, but Mr. Sun resolutely opposed anyone making such demands or proposals. This was precisely where Mr. Sun’s great foresight and profound understanding of reality lay, because he deeply understood that the emergence of any doctrine or political party is never accidental but has its social basis and historical roots. No one’s beliefs can be forcibly imposed or abolished; throughout history, countless people have sacrificed their lives for their beliefs. No organization with a social foundation and mass support can be forcibly dissolved or eliminated; throughout history, many revolutionary groups have persisted and developed under immense pressure and extreme suppression. The situation today is vastly different from what it was then. The Communist Party of China now has a seventeen-year revolutionary history of struggle, hundreds of thousands of members, a battle-hardened, resilient organization, leadership and cadres who, unwavering and heroic, strive for their doctrine, their party, the revolution, the liberation of the Chinese people, and the liberation of all humanity, and the trust and support of millions of people. How can there be any talk of abolishing the Communist Party members’ belief in communism and their party organization? If it is said that merely because we declare our willingness to strive for the thorough realization of the Three Principles of the People, we should abandon our belief in communism, this is a complete misunderstanding. Our understanding of the interrelationship between the Three Principles of the People and communism is indeed the same as Mr. Sun’s: we believe they are good friends and compatible. Therefore, not only during the first Kuomintang-Communist cooperation did we Communists, in our capacity as Communists, work together with Kuomintang comrades to strive for the realization of the Three Principles, but even after the split between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, in our independent revolutionary struggles, we still aimed for China’s national independence, civil rights, freedom, and the happiness of the people’s livelihood—goals aligned with the fundamental thoughts of the Three Principles of the People. What is different today compared to the past, when the two parties split, is that in the past, after the breakdown of Kuomintang-Communist cooperation, we Communists independently strove for the cause of communist thought and revolutionary Three Principles; today, as the Kuomintang and the Communist Party renew their cooperation, we Communists again work together with Kuomintang comrades for the common revolutionary cause. Therefore, under such circumstances, if anyone demands that Communists abandon their communist thought and organization, this not only cannot be accepted by the Communist Party but also directly contradicts Mr. Sun’s theory and actions.

Judging from China’s actual circumstances, the first Kuomintang-Communist cooperation led to the vigorous development of the revolution from 1925 to 1927 and the great victories of the Northern Expeditionary Army, while the breakdown of Kuomintang-Communist relations resulted in a decade of unprecedented foreign invasions and internal strife. Now, with the renewed cooperation between the two parties, externally, it has enabled an unprecedented, glorious national self-defensive war of resistance; internally, it has brought about a level of political and military unity unseen for decades, fostering unparalleled unity among all parties, factions, and strata across the nation. This makes compatriots nationwide and people around the world feel that it is the sole source of life and hope at this critical juncture of the Chinese nation’s existence. Whether the simultaneous lawful existence of two doctrines and two parties benefits or harms the Chinese people and the nation should be judged based on living, universally acknowledged facts, not on the prejudices and subjective wishes of a minority. China’s ironclad facts, past and present, have repeatedly proven: when the Three Principles of the People and communism mutually support and cooperate, the nation unifies and the revolution advances; when the Three Principles of the People and communism oppose and negate each other, the nation divides and the revolution faces difficulties. Therefore, any opinion contrary to these facts is bound to be unattainable—and if, unfortunately, it is realized, it will certainly bring new calamities to the nation and its people.

From this, it is evident that the opinion that the Three Principles of the People and communism are incompatible, and the consequent view that the Kuomintang and the Communist Party cannot simultaneously exist lawfully, are utterly groundless and harmful to the cause of national liberation. Such views not only contravene the legacy of Mr. Sun’s theory and actions but also contradict China’s actual circumstances. The practical danger of such views lies in the possibility of transforming the current favorable political situation of nationwide unity against external threats into one where attention is diverted inward, increasing internal difficulties.

Therefore, as I conclude this discussion, let me reiterate to you with solemnity: If the so-called one-party dictatorship of the Kuomintang means that the Kuomintang alone holds governmental power, that is an established fact and poses no issue. Although we Communists ourselves do not participate in the government, we absolutely support the National Government leading the war of resistance. Today, only the Japanese fascist warlords deny the National Government and attempt to overthrow it. Today, only Trotsky and his followers, acting on the instructions of Japanese imperialist espionage agencies, spread rumors that the National Government is a provisional transitional government akin to the Kerensky government, thereby adopting a traitorous policy of "feigning superficial compliance while actually preparing to overthrow it" toward the National Government. Our Communists’ support and assistance to the National Government are absolutely sincere, stemming from the fundamental interests of the nation and its people. At the same time, if the content of the Kuomintang’s one-party dictatorship is expanded and distorted to mean that, aside from the Kuomintang, no other parties, including the Communist Party, are allowed to exist, and that, apart from the Three Principles, Communists are not permitted to hold their own belief in communism and so forth, this is by no means a new theory but an old reality. It is a return to a path that has been unworkable for the past decade and a method that cannot be realized. If this idea is unfortunately put into practice, it will harm both unity and resistance against Japan, leading to the dissolution of the already-formed Anti-Japanese National United Front and thereby endangering the cause of the war of resistance and national salvation. Thus, objectively, this idea will surely be exploited by the Japanese fascist warlords and their Chinese collaborators. Precisely because of this, I find it hard to believe that such an opinion could win the sympathy of far-sighted individuals within the Kuomintang who prioritize the fundamental interests of the nation and its people. Naturally, it is even less likely to gain the sympathy of the military and civilian masses who cherish unity and thorough resistance against Japan without partisan bias. However, the fact that this issue has been openly raised at a time when the national crisis is becoming more pressing calls upon us Communists and all other parties and compatriots dedicated to resisting Japan and saving the nation to be gravely vigilant. This is a matter that concerns not only the relations between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party but also the fate and survival of all parties, factions, and the entire Chinese nation. Therefore, I hope that compatriots from all walks of life across the country, as well as wise and visionary individuals from all parties, will pay serious attention to the development of this issue and make every effort to ensure that the cooperation among all parties in China’s Anti-Japanese National United Front is not threatened, that the cause of national unity and resistance against Japan and national salvation is not endangered, so as to achieve the ultimate victory of the war of resistance and secure the final liberation of the nation and its people.