Unity benefits both sides; division harms both sides[1]

(May 4, 1938)

Comrades are very concerned about the issue of cooperation between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist Party. The problem lies not in the present but in the future. At present, the cooperation is fairly solid and will become even more so. The question is: after we have defeated Japanese imperialism, will the two parties continue to cooperate? Will the two parties fight each other? Many people have raised this question—not just you, but also KMT members and some Communist Party members. The entire Chinese populace is also concerned about it. I have answered this question for others before. We have several reasons to say that the KMT and the Communist Party will not fight, and should not fight.

There are two main reasons: first, international; second, domestic. These two reasons make it possible for the two parties to continue cooperating, and they should continue cooperating.

The domestic aspect can be further divided into three perspectives: first, the KMT; second, the Communist Party; third, the people. Let me first address the first perspective.

From the KMT’s standpoint, what reasons are there to continue cooperation? I am not the KMT’s chief of staff, so how can I make guarantees on their behalf? However, looking at the overall situation, that is, from the general trends, we can still say something about whether they should and whether they can cooperate. Now, let me first talk about the significance of KMT-CPC cooperation.

The history of KMT-CPC relations can be divided into three stages: the first stage was cooperation between the two parties; the second stage was their split; the third stage is their renewed cooperation. As the classical Chinese novel *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* begins, “The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide.” The KMT and the Communist Party, having been divided for ten years, have now united again. But taking this saying and applying it to the present is incorrect—now that they’ve united, it does not necessarily mean they will divide again. We can rephrase this saying as: For the KMT and the Communist Party, unity benefits both sides; division harms both sides. This has already been proven by the past. If you look at the history of KMT-CPC cooperation and division, you will understand this point. The victory of the Northern Expedition fundamentally stemmed from the correct program implemented by the united front of the two parties at that time. In January 1924, the KMT held its First National Congress in Guangzhou and issued a manifesto, establishing the program for the first KMT-CPC united front. I personally attended that congress, which was presided over by Mr. Sun Yat-sen. In the same year as the 1924 congress, the Whampoa Military Academy was established. In 1925, Guangdong was unified and the forces of Chen Jiongming were eliminated. Chen Jiongming’s entrenched presence in Guangdong had resisted defeat for many years; two Eastern Expeditions thoroughly wiped out his power, again relying on the strength of KMT-CPC cooperation. At that time, Mr. Chiang Kai-shek served as the commandant of the Whampoa Military Academy, and Comrade Zhou Enlai served as the director of its Political Department. Likewise, in the First Army, Mr. Chiang Kai-shek was the army commander, and Comrade Zhou Enlai was the deputy party representative. The Northern Expedition that began in 1926 swept through with irresistible force, capturing Wuhan and Nanchang, and assaulting Shanghai and Nanjing, utterly routing Wu Peifu and Sun Chuanfang. All this relied on the power of the united front; without this power, it would have been impossible. Therefore, the victory of the Great Revolution from 1925 to 1927 was unprecedented in history, and the revolution’s deep impact among the grassroots masses was also unprecedented. This is evidence that “unity benefits both sides.”

What is the evidence that division harms both sides? That would be the period from the split of the two parties in 1927 up to the Xi'an Incident. This period not only harmed both sides but harmed three sides—because the common people also suffered. What benefit did the KMT gain? They fought for ten years, attempting to annihilate the Communist Party, but ended with no result and no achievement to speak of. Previously, the Communist Party had joined the KMT. At that time, they opposed cooperation, expelled the Communists, and carried out the so-called “Party Purification.” They prohibited the organization of trade unions, peasant associations, and student unions in various places, forbade the development of worker and peasant movements, and said we were too extreme in opposing feudalism and too excessive in opposing imperialism. However, in the eyes of the entire nation, this was not the case, because what we did at the time not only did not exceed the manifesto of the KMT’s First National Congress but was actually quite insufficient in implementing that manifesto. Who, after all, faithfully implemented that manifesto? Even KMT comrades cannot help but say it was the Communist Party. The principles of nationalism, democracy, and people’s livelihood laid out in that manifesto were carried out by the Communist Party honestly and thoroughly. After the failure of the Great Revolution, hundreds of thousands of Communist Party members and worker-peasant masses were killed. What was their crime? Their “crime” was simply that they implemented the Three Principles of the People. At that time, we had not yet carried out the agrarian revolution; in fact, the agrarian revolution is precisely the principle of people’s livelihood, the equalization of land rights. Carrying out the slogan “land to the tiller” proposed by Mr. Sun Yat-sen—is that communism, or is it bourgeois democracy? I consider it bourgeois democracy, because when peasants obtain land, they own it privately. This still falls within the scope of the bourgeois democratic revolution and does not abolish the system of private property. You might ask: Why doesn’t the Communist Party implement communism? We do intend to implement communism, but that is a matter for the future. Implementing bourgeois democracy now is the path leading to future communism. Then, some might say: You did one more thing wrong—you set up soviets. Actually, soviets are the principle of democracy. The right of the common people to speak, to travel, to hold meetings—all these were stipulated under the soviet government in the past, and are still stipulated under the border region government today, only excluding traitors to the nation. In the past, if we walked around Hankou, they would arrest you and your head would be relocated. You all know the Seven Gentlemen who were imprisoned in the Suzhou jail. Why were the Seven Gentlemen jailed? Because they advocated resistance against Japan, and there, the people had no rights; they were not allowed to advocate resistance. Here, we have implemented the principle of democracy. "Soviet" is a foreign term, essentially meaning representative assembly. All those who oppose imperialism and feudalism can send representatives to attend the assembly to discuss and decide issues—this is precisely the principle of democracy! As for nationalism, does it exist here? Over these ten years, the things we have done have displeased the imperialists, because wherever we went, the imperialists trembled with fear—for example, in Changsha, at Huangshigang, at Tianjiazhen. When we attacked Zhangzhou in 1932, the imperialists deployed twenty-three warships to blockade us, their cannons aimed at us. We collected tariffs: for goods from any country, those we needed could be exempted from tax; those less needed were taxed relatively heavily; those completely unnecessary were not allowed to be imported at all. We made all the decisions ourselves. Which imperialist power dared to interfere with us? Missionary work also had to receive our consent. Outside, in all these years, how have they treated foreigners, “foreign dignitaries”? There, the common people fear the officials, and the officials fear the “foreign dignitaries”—this has become the established rule. The Communist Party is not afraid of “foreign dignitaries”; if they do business with us on an equal footing, we naturally welcome them. This is the nationalism we have practiced.

For ten years, we implemented the Three Principles of the People, accomplishing these three major matters—nationalism, democracy, and people’s livelihood—and nothing else. Why did they attack us? It is truly incomprehensible. Now we will not dwell on old scores. In summary, we carried out the manifesto of the KMT’s First National Congress and implemented the united front program of KMT-CPC cooperation. “Party Purification” was what they wanted to carry out; we were forced to take to the hills. Why did we go to the Jinggang Mountains? Because we could not stay down below. We had no choice but to head for the mountains and fight guerrilla warfare. To accomplish the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country, we raised the banner of opposing imperialism and feudalism. But they forbade us from planting this banner in the cities, so we had no alternative but to plant it on the mountaintops, never to lower it. Before, it was planted on Jinggang Mountain, on the Snowy Mountains, on the Kunlun Mountains; now it is planted on Qingliang Mountain. You comrades have come here precisely because this great banner flies on Qingliang Mountain. Since its birth, the Communist Party has held high this banner for seventeen years. You have traveled from the South Seas, from Yunnan, from Sichuan, from Guizhou, climbing mountains to reach Yan’an—not because there are no mountains where you come from, but because this mountain here flies this banner. We warmly welcome you comrades. Politically, you and we are united, sharing a common goal: to transform old China into a new China.

Previously, we cooperated with the KMT; after the failure of the Great Revolution and before the Xi'an Incident, we did not cooperate; now we are cooperating again.

Cooperation exists under certain conditions. What are those conditions? They are opposition to imperialism and feudalism. Whoever can abide by this, we will cooperate with them to the end. At the time of the Xi'an Incident, many people said we had acted wrongly by releasing our enemy. Now it has been proven that the peaceful resolution of the Xi'an Incident was correct. Some people thought the KMT would not make progress—for example, after the peaceful resolution of the Xi'an Incident, the trial of the Seven Gentlemen in Suzhou and the pressure on Yang Hucheng to go abroad, etc., worried some KMT members greatly. But look, the fighting truly broke out at the Lugouqiao Incident on July 7th. Recently, the KMT convened an Extraordinary National Congress and issued a manifesto and the “Program of Resistance and National Reconstruction.” This program is fundamentally good, marking progress by the KMT over the past decade. If the KMT reflects on its own history, it will not want to fight a civil war. What benefit has there been in these ten years? The leaders of the KMT have also admitted there was no benefit. If they implement this program, if they continue to make progress, the Communist Party will certainly cooperate with them to the end, because unity benefits both sides and division harms both sides. The current cooperation to resist Japan yields great benefit. In the decade of civil war, the KMT tried to annihilate the Communist Party but failed. Every time their hundreds of thousands of troops came to “suppress” us, we gained greatly in terms of rifles and guns. Our arsenals were established in Hankou, Berlin, London, Tokyo, and other places. Every time the KMT army attacked, they made the Red Army and the Communist Party grow larger! I think it is better not to fight. If I may engage in a bit of dialectics here, this is a case of: the outcome achieved is the opposite of what was intended.

That covers the KMT side.