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

Answer: The Soviet Union is a state under the dictatorship of the working class, that is, a state of workers' and peasants' socialism, but it is not a state under the dictatorship of a single party. From the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism, there is a distinction between the dictatorship of a class and the dictatorship of a party. The party is only the organization of the most conscious segment of the class; it should and can only play a leading role in the state under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The party should not and cannot replace the class in exercising dictatorship. Therefore, the creators 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" of the party, they were merely referring to the party's leading role within the state system. To help you understand and believe this statement of mine, I am happy to introduce to you some of what Lenin and Stalin said on this issue. For ease of memory and understanding, I will specially present to you some opinions cited by Stalin in his book "Problems of Leninism," where he quotes Lenin's views and gives his own on this issue. In the section of this book titled "The Party and the Working Class in the System of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat," Stalin elaborates in detail on Lenin's opinions on this issue. For example, he says: "Here in our Soviet Union, in the state under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the fact that our Soviets or other mass organizations, when resolving any important political or organizational question, act on the basis of the Party's directives should be regarded as the highest expression of the Party's leading role." In this sense, it can be said that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in essence, the 'dictatorship' of its vanguard, the 'dictatorship' of its party, because the party is the basic leading force of the proletariat." Consider what Lenin said on this issue at the Second World Congress of the Communist International: "Tanner says he is in favor of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but he does not understand the dictatorship of the proletariat exactly as we do. He thinks that what we understand as the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in essence, the dictatorship of that organized and conscious minority of the proletariat. And indeed, in the era of capitalism, when the working class is subjected to constant exploitation and cannot develop its human abilities, the greatest characteristic of the workers' political party lies precisely in the fact that it can include only a minority of its class. The party can only unite a minority of its class, just as in any capitalist society, the truly conscious workers constitute only a minority of all workers. Therefore, we have to 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 the party and at the same time advocates that the minority, the most organized and most revolutionary elements of the working class, should guide the entire proletariat, then I would say that, in fact, there is no difference of opinion between us." (See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XXV, p. 347)

"But does this mean that we can place an equal sign between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leading role of the party (the 'dictatorship' of the party)? Can the former and the latter be regarded as one and the same thing? Can the latter replace the former? Certainly not. Of course not. For example, Comrade Stalin once said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the 'dictatorship' of our Party (see 'On Lenin's Teachings,' p. 95). This formulation clearly treats the 'dictatorship of the party' and the dictatorship of the proletariat as one and the same thing. From the standpoint of Leninism, can this identification of two distinct things be considered correct? It cannot."

From this, it is clear that the Soviet Union practices the dictatorship of the working class, not the dictatorship of the Communist Party. To conflate the dictatorship of a class with the dictatorship of the party is neither in accordance with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, nor with the reality of the Soviet Union. I think that on the understanding of this aspect of the Soviet Union, the opinions of Lenin and Stalin, the creators of the Soviet political system, are the most authoritative and trustworthy.

**Question 2: Although the Soviet Union is not a dictatorship of a single party, what are the reasons for the existence of only one Communist Party in the Soviet Union?**

Answer: This is, on the one hand, the result of the choice made by the people during the long-term struggles among various political parties in Russia in the past—that is, the result of the Russian people, through long-term struggles, rejecting other parties and only supporting the Communist Party. On the other hand, it is because within the socialist Soviet state, there is no social basis for the existence of other political parties, and thus there is no necessity or possibility for other political parties to exist. To help you understand and believe my statement, it is best to also introduce to you what Stalin himself said on this issue. Stalin spoke very clearly about the fact that there is only one Communist Party in the Soviet Union during his conversation with the first American Workers' Delegation on September 9, 1927. He said: "Our Communist Party's position as the only legal party in the country (a position of one-party monopoly) is not artificially created, nor is it the product of deliberate fantasy. This position could never have been created artificially through administrative methods. The monopoly of our Communist Party emerged naturally from real life and took shape gradually in history; it is the result of the complete bankruptcy and downfall of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Menshevik Party."

Regarding the point that in the Soviet Union, aside from the Communist Party, there is no social basis for the existence of other political parties, and no necessity or possibility for their existence, Stalin gave a special explanation in his report on the new Soviet Constitution on November 5, 1936. He said: "Finally, there is another group of critics. While the group of critics mentioned above reproaches the draft of the Soviet Constitution for abandoning the dictatorship of the working class, this group, on the contrary, reproaches the Soviet Constitution for not changing the present situation in the USSR at all, for not abandoning the dictatorship of the working class, for not allowing freedom for various political parties, and for preserving the leading position of the Communist Party in the USSR as it exists today. At the same time, this group of critics believes that the absence of freedom for various parties in the USSR is a sign violating the foundations of democracy."

I acknowledge that the draft of the new Soviet Constitution indeed preserves the continued effectiveness of the system of the dictatorship of the working class, and likewise preserves the current leading position of the Soviet Communist Party without any change. If the esteemed critics consider this a shortcoming of the draft Soviet Constitution, we can only express our regret. We Bolsheviks, however, consider this a merit of the Soviet Constitution.

As for the freedom of various political parties, we have a slightly different view on this question. A political party is a part of a social class, the vanguard of a social class. Only in a society with antagonistic classes, whose interests are mutually hostile and irreconcilable—in other words, only in a society with capitalists and workers, landlords and peasants, rich peasants and poor peasants—can there be talk of the existence of several parties and freedom for political parties. In the Soviet Union, classes such as capitalists, landlords, and rich peasants have long ceased to exist. Now in the USSR, there are only two classes, namely workers and peasants, whose interests not only are not mutually hostile, but, on the contrary, are mutually harmonious. Therefore, in the USSR, there is no basis for the existence of several parties, and consequently, no basis for the freedom of these parties. In the USSR, there is a basis for only one party—the Communist Party. In the USSR, only one party—the Communist Party, which courageously and thoroughly safeguards the interests of the workers and peasants—can exist. It protects the interests of these two classes not badly at all, a fact which hardly anyone can doubt.

People all talk about democracy, but what is democracy? In capitalist countries, where there are antagonistic classes, democracy there is, in the final analysis, democracy for the powerful, democracy for the propertied minority. In the Soviet Union, democracy is, on the contrary, democracy for the working people, that is, democracy for all the people. From this it follows that it is not the new Soviet Constitution, but the bourgeois constitutions, that violate the principles of democracy. Therefore, I hold that the Soviet Constitution is the only thoroughly democratic constitution in the world.

From this it is clear that the reality of one-party existence can only truly take shape and come to pass in a country where other parties besides this single party have already been utterly despised and overthrown by the masses during the revolutionary process, and where there is no social basis for the existence of other parties—like the socialist Soviet Union.

**Question 3: Why do Germany and Italy both have one-party dictatorships?**

Answer: First, it is essential to distinguish clearly between the issue of a single party holding state power within a country and the issue of whether only one party exists within that country. In Germany and Italy, it is indeed true that only one political party holds power, but this does not mean that only the ruling party exists in these countries. In Germany, indeed, only the Fascist National Socialist Party holds power today, but the other political parties that existed before the Fascists came to power—the Social Democratic Party, which during the last (1933) Reichstag elections still had millions of voters; the Communist Party, with 5-6 million voters; and the various bourgeois parties with millions of voters and historical democratic traditions—all continue to exist and operate, though illegally and underground. Let anyone carefully investigate the cities and villages of Germany, and he will immediately see that although hundreds of thousands of members of opposition parties are imprisoned in concentration camps, the Social Democratic Party, the Communist Party, and all parties upholding democracy and opposing the Fascist dictatorship are still heroically struggling underground. They secretly publish their newspapers and magazines; they laboriously carry out educational and organizational work among the people. German political exiles in countries such as France, Czechoslovakia, and Belgium are uniting with their respective parties at home to establish a Popular Front opposing Fascism and upholding democracy. Representatives of the German Social Democratic Party and the German Communist Party are present within the leading bodies of both the Social Democratic International (i.e., the Second International) and the Communist International. The situation in Italy is no different from that in Germany. The Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, and all democratic parties are similarly heroically carrying out secret anti-Fascist activities, and representatives of these parties likewise occupy important positions within the leading bodies of the Third International and the Second International. From this, it can be seen that it is correct to say that in Germany and Italy only one party holds power and only one party has legal status; but it is entirely contrary to fact to say that only the Fascist Party exists in these countries.

**Question 4: Some people say that the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) should now implement a "one-party dictatorship." What is your opinion on this question?**

Answer: I can answer this question for you in two aspects.

First, if by "one-party dictatorship" you mean that the Kuomintang, as one party, holds government power, with only members of the Kuomintang or persons designated voluntarily by the Kuomintang participating, and that all other political parties in China currently have no representatives participating in the government: Our Communist Party of China is the second largest political party in China besides the Kuomintang. We do not today demand participation in the government. Regarding this point, Comrade Chen Shaoyu, a leader of our Party, in his conversation with American journalist Mr. Budence on December 25 last year, and Comrade Zhang Wentian (also known as Luofu), another leader of our Party, in his article "Consolidating KMT-CPC Cooperation to Strive for Victory in the War of Resistance" published in Issue 28 of "Liberation," have already made frank and sincere declarations on behalf of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. On this point, I can once again make a solemn statement on behalf of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party: Our Communist Party of China now sincerely assists the Kuomintang in the war of resistance against Japan, but we do not currently demand participation in the National Government.

Second, the situation where one party holds state power, so-called one-party rule, does not necessarily have to adopt the methods of "dictatorship." If the methods of the so-called "one-party dictatorship" actually refer to the policies implemented by the Kuomintang over the past ten years, then I think there is reason for reconsideration. In my view, the Kuomintang today can maintain the situation of one party holding power, but in order to concentrate talent for resisting Japan and saving the nation, and to express the popular will for resisting Japan and saving the nation, it seems appropriate to adopt certain democratic measures. Of course, these democratic measures must be those that are absolutely beneficial to the war of resistance, that absolutely consolidate the government, and that further increase the people's trust in and support for the government.

**Question 5: Some people now say that a revolutionary party should once again implement the policy of "no party outside the party," in other words, a policy that does not permit the legal existence of any political party other than the Kuomintang. What is your opinion on this question, Sir?**

A: Allowing only the Kuomintang (KMT) to exist legally, while not only refusing to recognize the legal existence of the Communist Party and other political parties (such as the Chinese Youth Party, the National Socialist Party, etc.), but also attempting to use armed force to eliminate parties other than the KMT—this is by no means a new theory in China; it was, in fact, an old reality practiced for ten years. However, the bitter consequences of this reality were not only endless internal strife but also unprecedented foreign aggression. The painful lessons of China's actual political life over the past decade tell us that the KMT's policy of attempting to wipe out other political parties through force has already met with failure. At the same time, the Chinese Communist Party's attempt to establish a one-party-led regime under China's existing conditions has likewise failed to achieve the desired results. The experience of the Northern Expedition's success, achieved through the first KMT-CCP cooperation, and the fact that the decade of KMT-CCP split led to a grave national crisis, have taught the comrades of both parties and the people of the entire nation a bitter truth: the truly effective way to create a unified China is not through internal strife, where one party opposes or attempts to eliminate another, but by uniting the forces of all parties on a common political foundation to form a national united front—first and foremost, the close cooperation between the KMT and the CCP. The fundamental prerequisite that has enabled our country to carry out the War of Resistance Against Japan over the past six months is the unity and solidarity of domestic national forces. The concrete form and content of this unity and solidarity of our national forces is the establishment of an anti-Japanese national united front, formed by all political parties on the basis of KMT-CCP cooperation. This means that the KMT and the CCP have not only mutually abandoned their past stances of mutual non-recognition and opposition but have also joined hands on the basis of resisting Japan and saving the nation. Specifically, the KMT has abandoned its previous stance of denying the existence of the Communist Party and other political parties and adopted a policy of uniting all anti-Japanese parties to resist foreign aggression. Likewise, the Communist Party and other anti-Japanese parties have also abandoned their previous stances toward the KMT and cooperated with it to pursue the common cause of resisting Japan and saving the nation. From this, it is evident that the anti-Japanese national united front, formed by the forces of all political parties, is an essential prerequisite for China's war of resistance against Japan. Without this prerequisite—or if it is undermined—China would effectively be plunged back into civil war, and once civil war breaks out, the war of resistance cannot continue. This is an obvious truth universally recognized. Precisely because of this, the Japanese fascist militarists, beyond their military aggression, are constantly scheming to use the vicious tactic of "using Chinese to subdue Chinese," first and foremost by attempting to stir up internal strife among China's political parties in order to rupture the anti-Japanese national united front.

From this, it can be seen that the theory some people are now propagating—that no political party other than the KMT is allowed to exist—is, in reality, a theory already refuted by China's historical facts. It represents an attempt to return China to the state of strife that existed before unity and resistance against Japan, thereby preventing the unified situation shaped by the anti-Japanese national united front from continuing, and consequently rendering China once again incapable of waging the war of resistance against Japan. Therefore, no matter how loudly those who propagate this theory may pay lip service to "national unity," if their theory were unfortunately put into practice, the actual result would inevitably be the destruction of the unity already achieved today. Likewise, no matter how loudly those who propagate this theory may shout "resist Japan," if their theory were unfortunately realized, the actual outcome would inevitably be the undermining of anti-Japanese unity, making it impossible to continue the war of resistance. Precisely for this reason, I firmly believe that this theory—which would, in effect, push China back to the tragic situation before the nation united against external aggression—will certainly be opposed by patriotic people, rejected by the entire nation's anti-war armed forces, and simultaneously condemned and spurned by the wise leaders of the KMT and all KMT comrades who, for the sake of the country and the people, lead the continuing war of resistance. This is not at all surprising, primarily because this theory is entirely inconsistent with and contrary to reality. These people argue that if parties other than the KMT are allowed legal existence, partisan strife will hinder the war of resistance. The facts prove otherwise: when only the KMT was allowed to exist legally, while other political parties were denied legal status, there was indeed immense partisan strife in China, to the extent that China failed to resist Japan—at most, it engaged only in partial resistance—and was thus unable to carry out a comprehensive war of resistance against Japan. Quite the opposite: when the KMT allowed other political parties to have legal existence and cooperated with them, China indeed ceased civil war, dissolved partisan disputes, and created an unprecedented state of unity among government and military forces, thereby enabling an unprecedented and sacred war of national self-defense to safeguard the nation's survival and strive for national liberation. These people claim that if parties other than the KMT are allowed legal existence, the fact of legal multi-party existence becomes a factor hindering and undermining national unity. The facts in China prove otherwise: when only the KMT was given legal status while other political parties were denied such status, the country was torn by chaos and incessant civil wars. Quite the contrary: when the KMT finally allowed other political parties legal existence, a unified domestic situation immediately emerged. Even if disputes arose among the parties on certain issues, they would never resort to weapons as criticism; at most, they would use mutual friendly criticism as their weapon. The facts in countries like Britain, the United States, France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, and others prove that the reality of multi-party legal existence has never hindered or undermined the unity of these nations. From this, it is clear that the theory that China can only achieve unity and resist Japan by allowing only the KMT to exist legally is a theory inconsistent with China's actual conditions—a theory that would make China neither truly unified nor genuinely capable of resisting Japan. This theory will absolutely not be accepted by the Chinese military and people who cherish unity and are resolute in resisting Japan.

Question 6: It is now said 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 matter, sir?

Answer: First, I must state that some people say that when Communists declare they are striving for the realization of the Three Principles of the People, it is tantamount to abandoning their faith in communism. I can once again solemnly declare on behalf of our Party: this is nothing but a rumor spread by troublemakers, and it absolutely does not conform to the facts. We are Communists, and we declare our willingness to work together with comrades of the Kuomintang to strive for Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s unfinished revolutionary cause—namely, the cause of the Three Principles of the People, which aims for China's equality in international status, political equality, and economic equality. At the same time, we will absolutely not abandon the communism we have devoutly believed in for many years and for which we have sacrificed and struggled for many years. Secondly, some say that if you declare you will strive for the realization of the Three Principles of the People while still 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. This assertion is entirely inconsistent with both the theory and actions of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the revolutionary mentor who first advocated the Three Principles of the People and the Kuomintang, and with the actual circumstances of the Chinese revolution. Theoretically speaking, the main content of the Three Principles of the People—nationalism, democracy, and people’s livelihood—is entirely compatible with the ideas advocated by communism, such as thoroughly overthrowing imperialist oppression to achieve national independence for the Chinese people, thoroughly destroying feudal oppression to enable the Chinese people to attain democratic freedoms, and thoroughly transforming China's economic system to bring the Chinese people well-being in their livelihood. Therefore, communism and the Three Principles of the People are by no means incompatible, and consequently, our Party and the Kuomintang are not incapable of legally coexisting and cooperating hand in hand. On this point, Dr. Sun Yat-sen stated more than once in his lectures on the Principle of People’s Livelihood: "So whenever social issues are discussed, the majority of young people are in favor of the Communist Party and want to implement Marxism in China. After all, what is the intention of those young patriots who support Marxism? Their intentions are very good. Their proposition is to solve problems fundamentally, believing that to address political and social issues, one must go to the root and resolve them fundamentally. That is why they vigorously organize the Communist Party to operate 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." (See *Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen*, Volume 1, *The Principle of People’s Livelihood, Second Lecture*, p. 42). He particularly pointed out that this is generally due to these people not understanding the interconnected nature of the Three Principles of the People, and especially due to their not understanding the Principle of People’s Livelihood. Therefore, after explaining this reason, Dr. Sun went on to say in the same lecture: "Why do I dare say that our revolutionary comrades still do not understand the Principle of People’s Livelihood? It is because, during this reorganization of the Kuomintang, many comrades, in opposing the Communist Party, went so far as to say that communism differs from the Three Principles of the People, that in China it is enough to implement the Three Principles of the People, and that communism cannot be accommodated. Well then, what exactly is the Principle of People’s Livelihood? In my last lecture, I made a discovery, saying that social civilization and progress, the improvement of economic organization, and the advancement of morality—what is the center of gravity for all these? It is people’s livelihood. People’s livelihood is the driving force behind all social activities. Because when people’s livelihood is not fulfilled, social civilization cannot flourish, economic organization cannot be improved, morality regresses, and all manner of inequities arise, such as class warfare and the suffering of workers—all these forms of oppression stem from the unresolved problem of people’s livelihood. Thus, the various abnormal phenomena in society are the effects, while the problem of people’s livelihood is the cause. Judging from this, what exactly is the Principle of People’s Livelihood? The Principle of People’s Livelihood is communism, and it is socialism. Therefore, not only can we not say that communism 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." Dr. Sun went on to ask in his speech: "Since communism is a good friend of the Principle of People’s Livelihood, why do Kuomintang members want to oppose the Communist Party? The reason might be that some Communist Party members also do not understand what communism is, and moreover, they may have made remarks opposing the Three Principles of the People, thus provoking the Kuomintang’s resentment. But such ignorant and rash members cannot be blamed on the whole party or its doctrines; it can only be said to be their personal actions. Therefore, we absolutely cannot take the bad personal conduct of individual Communist Party members as a standard to oppose the Communist Party. That is, we cannot oppose an entire doctrine because of individual actions. So why does this problem arise among our comrades? The reason is that they do not understand what the Principle of People’s Livelihood is. They do not know that the Principle of People’s Livelihood is communism." What conclusions should we draw from this passage in Dr. Sun’s speech? The conclusions should be: First, the Three Principles of the People and communism are compatible and can coexist; they are in the relationship of good friends. Second, those who think that the Three Principles of the People and communism are incompatible are, in fact, people who do not understand the Three Principles of the People, especially those who do not know what the Principle of People’s Livelihood is. These people should be a tiny minority within the Kuomintang. Similarly, those who think 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 people should also be a tiny minority within the Communist Party. As for resolving this issue, Dr. Sun believed that this was merely the individual actions of one side, and neither side could, on this account, oppose the entire party and its doctrines of the other side. Third, Dr. Sun believed that not only should those who advocate communism understand the Three Principles of the People, but he also pointed out that those who advocate the Principle of People’s Livelihood should also carefully study communism. This is an open, upright, and selfless attitude. We Communists greatly admire this attitude of Dr. Sun’s. Indeed, no great thought or doctrine in the world is the exclusive property of any one group or party. It should, and necessarily must, welcome any other person or party to study and implement it. We are not only willing to strive for the realization of the Three Principles of the People, but similarly, we welcome anyone—first and foremost, comrades of the Kuomintang—to follow Dr. Sun’s instruction and carefully study communism. Because we firmly believe that anyone who is willing to struggle 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 great social problems, a culmination of thousands of years of human thought, and that communist society is the most beautiful, most joyful, and happiest society for all humanity, with nothing fearful about it. It is precisely for this reason that Dr. Sun, the greatest modern revolutionary in our country, said: "...In the past, after mankind conquered nature and beasts, money soon emerged, and recently machinery has been invented. Those clever people monopolized the world’s material resources, and for their own personal gain, they want to enslave everyone else, thus turning it into an era of intense human competition. When can this struggle be resolved? It must return to a new era of communism before it can be resolved. What exactly are people struggling over? They struggle for bread and for a livelihood. In communism, everyone will have bread and food, so there will be no more struggle, and human conflict can be avoided. Therefore, communism is the highest ideal for solving social problems." (See *Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen*, Volume 1, *The Principle of People’s Livelihood, First Lecture*, p. 38). Regarding the value of Marxism, Dr. Sun once said: "As for the books written by Marx and the doctrines he created, they can be said to be the culmination of thousands of years of human thought. So once his doctrines appeared, the whole world followed, and scholars everywhere believed in him and followed in his footsteps."

From everything said above, you can see that in Dr. Sun’s own writings on the theory of the Three Principles of the People, there is absolutely no indication that the Three Principles of the People and communism are incompatible. As for Dr. Sun’s manifestation of this issue in his actions, it is a fact known to all. The Communist Party of China was formally established in 1921. After its establishment, Dr. Sun maintained close relations with Communists. So when Dr. Sun resolved to reorganize the Kuomintang in 1924, he openly cooperated with the Communist Party, and the manner of cooperation was very intimate. That is, not only was a National Revolutionary Alliance between the two parties, the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, established, but Communist Party members were also allowed to join Kuomintang organizations in their individual capacity, jointly undertaking revolutionary work. At that time, the Communist Party had only a few hundred members nationwide and had been established for only a few years. Even though Communist Party members joined the Kuomintang in their individual capacity to jointly fight for the National Revolution, under those circumstances, did Dr. Sun ever demand that Communist Party members not be allowed to simultaneously believe in communism alongside the Three Principles of the People? No, he did not. Under those circumstances, did Dr. Sun ever propose that only the Kuomintang should exist as a single party, forbidding the simultaneous legal existence of the Communist Party? No, he did not. Not only did he not, but Dr. Sun also resolutely opposed others making such demands and proposals. This is where Dr. Sun’s greatness, foresight, and thorough understanding of the facts lay. For Dr. Sun deeply understood that the emergence of any doctrine or political party is never accidental; it has its social foundations and historical roots. No one’s beliefs can be coerced or abolished. Throughout history, countless people have sacrificed themselves for their beliefs. No organization with a social basis and popular support can be forcibly disbanded or eliminated; throughout history, many revolutionary groups have continued to exist and develop under immense oppression and extreme suppression. And the current situation is even more different than it was then. The Communist Party of China now has a revolutionary history of seventeen years of struggle, with hundreds of thousands of party members, a strong organization tempered by long battles, leaders and cadres who are indomitable and heroically struggling for their doctrine, for the Party, for the revolution, for the liberation of the Chinese people, and for the liberation of all humanity, and the faith and support of millions upon millions of the masses. How could one possibly talk about canceling the communist beliefs and party organization of Communist Party members? If it is said that just because we have declared our willingness to strive for the thorough realization of the Three Principles of the People we should be required to abandon our communist beliefs, that is entirely a misunderstanding. Because our mutual understanding of the Three Principles of the People and communism is indeed just as Dr. Sun’s was—namely, we consider them to be good friends and compatible. Therefore, we Communists not only strove together with Kuomintang comrades in our capacity as Communists during the first Kuomintang-Communist cooperation for the realization of the Three Principles of the People, but even after the separation of the Kuomintang and Communist Party, in our own solitary bitter revolutionary struggle, we still aimed for the goals of China’s national independence, democratic freedoms, and the well-being of the people’s livelihood—goals that are fundamentally consistent with the core ideas of the Three Principles of the People. What is different today from the time when the Kuomintang and Communist Party split in the past is simply that whereas previously, after the breakdown of Kuomintang-Communist cooperation, we Communists struggled alone for the cause of communist ideals and the revolutionary Three Principles of the People, today with the renewed cooperation between the Kuomintang and Communist Party, we Communists are once again striving together with Kuomintang comrades for the common revolutionary cause. Therefore, under these circumstances, if anyone demands that Communists abandon their communist ideology and organization, this not only cannot be accepted by the Communist Party, but directly contravenes Dr. Sun’s theory and actions.

Looking at China’s actual conditions, the first cooperation between the two parties, the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, led to the vigorous development of the revolution from 1925 to 1927 and the great victory of the Northern Expeditionary Army. Conversely, the rupture of Kuomintang-Communist relations resulted in the unprecedentedly severe ten-year situation of external aggression and internal strife. Now, once the two parties cooperate again, externally, we have been able to launch an unprecedented, glorious war of national self-defense and resistance, and internally, we have achieved a degree of political unity unknown for decades, as well as an unprecedented great unity of various parties, factions, and strata within the nation. This has made compatriots nationwide and people around the world feel that this is the sole vitality and hope at this moment of life or death for the Chinese nation. Whether the simultaneous legal coexistence of two parties with two doctrines is beneficial or harmful to the Chinese people and the nation should be judged based on living, universally recognized facts, not based on the prejudices and subjective wishes of a minority. Ironclad facts from China’s past and present have repeatedly proved that when the Three Principles of the People and communism cooperate with each other, the nation unifies and the revolution develops; when the Three Principles of the People and communism oppose and negate each other, the nation splits and the revolution faces difficulties. Therefore, any opinion that goes against this fact will inevitably be unrealizable; should it ever, by chance or misfortune, be realized, it would certainly bring disaster to the nation and the people.

From this, it is clear that the opinion that the Three Principles of the People and communism are incompatible, and the consequent opinion that the Kuomintang and the Communist Party cannot legally coexist simultaneously, are both groundless views that are harmful to the cause of national and people’s liberation. Such views not only violate the testament of Dr. Sun’s theory and actions but also contradict the actual circumstances of China. The practical danger of such views lies in the potential to transform the current favorable political situation of nationwide unity against foreign aggression into a possible scenario of turning attention inward and increasing internal difficulties.

Therefore, at the end of our conversation, I must reiterate and solemnly inform you on this issue: If the so-called content of one-party dictatorship by the Kuomintang means that the Kuomintang single-handedly holds the political power of the government, this is already an established fact and there is no problem. Although we Communist Party members do not ourselves participate in the government, we absolutely support the National Government which leads the War of Resistance. Today, only the Japanese fascist militarists deny the National Government and seek to overthrow it. Today, only the Trotskyists and their followers, acting on the directives of the Japanese aggressors' secret services, would fabricate lies claiming that the National Government is a transitional government of the Kerensky type, and thus adopt a traitorous policy of "feigning compliance outwardly while actually preparing to overthrow it." Our Communist Party members' support for and assistance to the National Government are absolutely sincere, proceeding from the fundamental interests of the nation and the state. At the same time, if the content of the Kuomintang's one-party dictatorship is extended and distorted to mean that no Communist Party members or other political parties are permitted to exist outside the Kuomintang, and that Communist Party members are not allowed to hold their own beliefs outside the Three Principles of the People, etc., this is by no means a new theory but an old reality. It represents a return to a path that was impassable and methods that proved impossible over the past ten years. If this idea were unfortunately put into actual practice, it would harm both unity and the War of Resistance, leading to the disintegration of the already-formed Chinese Anti-Japanese National United Front and thereby endangering the cause of resisting Japan and saving the nation. Consequently, these ideas would objectively be fully exploited by the Japanese fascist militarists and traitors. Precisely for this reason, I find it truly hard to believe that such views could gain sympathy within the Kuomintang from far-sighted individuals who prioritize the fundamental interests of the nation and the state. Still less can such views gain sympathy from those who cherish unity and thorough resistance against Japan, free from the biases of specific parties. However, the fact that this issue is being openly raised at a moment when the national crisis is becoming even more urgent cannot but arouse serious vigilance among Communist Party members and all other parties and compatriots committed to resisting Japan and saving the nation. This indeed concerns not only the relationship between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, but also the very life and death of all parties and factions and the entire Chinese nation. Therefore, I hope that compatriots from all walks of life across the country, and far-sighted and wise figures from all parties, will pay serious attention to the development trends of this issue. I hope they will exert every effort to ensure that the Chinese Anti-Japanese National United Front based on cooperation among all parties is not threatened, and that all undertakings regarding national unity and the resistance against Japan to save the nation are free from danger, so as to fulfill the task of prosecuting the war to the end and securing the final victory of the nation and the state.

Copied from *Selected Words on National Salvation by Mao Zedong*