Comrades:

This high-level cadres' meeting has been held very well and has already resolved a major issue. After eleven days of meetings, this issue has been resolved very appropriately. Many comrades have spoken, and from what I have heard, the majority of comrades are good and have spoken very well, with only a few individual comrades being a bit lacking. In criticizing the erroneous line, all these criticisms, from the vast majority of comrades, I see as very good, with only a few individual comrades being a bit lacking. Among these, there is Comrade XX's conclusion and Comrade XX's speech, which I believe are completely correct, and I completely agree. This meeting, in criticizing the historical line errors of Zhu Lizhi and Guo Hongtao, has educated all of us in the midst of this struggle, and has also made the Central Committee understand the situation more clearly and comprehend the history. In this meeting, such a fact was exposed: that is, among the comrades who created the Border Region and those who later participated in the work of the Border Region, the vast majority are good comrades, and they have progressed very quickly. Comparing the various base areas, which base area's Party is stronger? Which base area's cadres are comparatively better? Of course, the Party in every base area is a Party that implements the line of the Party Central Committee, and the vast majority of cadres in every base area are good comrades. But in comparison, the Party of the Border Region and the cadres of the Border Region have better aspects, precisely because this Border Region has been through the civil war. It has been through the land revolution. The Northwest and the Border Region have been through these three periods: the Great Revolution period, the land revolution period, and the period of the War of Resistance Against Japan. As for the Parties in other base areas, taking the entire Party of each base area, the Party standing of most comrades is shorter; among the cadres, a portion are newly arrived, from the outside, and newly promoted. But our base area is different. This base area has been through three periods. During the Great Revolution period, although there was no base area yet, there was work; because there was work, this base area could later be created. For example, at that time, schools had branches, and some cities like Suide and Yan'an had branches. Perhaps there were individual intellectuals working in the countryside. It is because of them that the base area was later established. They integrated with the peasant masses, there were military barracks, there was the National Revolutionary Army, which was good. Later, a small part of the National Revolutionary Army became the Red Army. At this time, we began to have armed forces; this was the integration of the locality with the army and the people, and thus the base area was created. In terms of the performance of the comrades in this meeting: they have shown very rapid progress. On this point, many of our comrades who later joined the work, the comrades from outside, should learn from the local comrades, especially learn from the local comrades. I think this is truly the situation. Because the local comrades, especially the majority of them, have been through three periods; they have personally experienced the struggles of such a long period of three stages. Therefore, in observing and solving problems, they have experience and are comparatively better, compared to those who have only done partial work and have not independently created a base area like this, have not been through a long history, do not have such rich experience. We should understand that we are a bit lacking. These comrades should learn from the local comrades. The facts prove that they are stronger than us. Even some comrades in high positions should learn from comrades who are now in low positions. In fact, on many issues, these comrades are stronger than us, more regular, these comrades are more principled, these comrades are more Marxist-Leninist than us, more Bolshevized. So those who look down on local cadres, who have this kind of concept—of course, they don't say it out loud, they would never say, "I look down on you, I look down on you"—but in their hearts, they look down on what they call "country bumpkins." The others haven't walked such a long road, while they themselves, having walked a certain road, have become "Westernized bumpkins." For example, take two base areas: this is a base area, and that is also a base area. They haven't walked a stretch of road in this base area, so they are country bumpkins; the Westernized bumpkins are those who came from that base area to work in this base area. The only difference is having walked an extra stretch of road versus not having walked that stretch of road. It's like walking from that house to this house, and you become Westernized. You've walked an extra stretch of road; the difference is just this stretch of road. If we were to say what the difference is between the two base areas, it's just from that base area to this base area, just a stretch of road. One has walked a stretch of road, one has not. Does this stretch of road count as experience? It counts as experience. Because one has walked an extra stretch of road, twenty-five thousand li or several thousand li. They came from Shanghai, Tianjin, but there is a shortcoming, what shortcoming? It is that this base area still exists, but what about your Shanghai and Tianjin? They have been completely wiped out. Ten-tenths of the White Areas in the whole country, ninety-nine percent of the White Areas in the whole country have been wiped out. Ninety percent of the Soviet Areas in the whole country have been wiped out. Only this one is left. You are so brilliant, yet it was your place that was wiped out. Is every comrade to be held responsible? Are they all not brilliant? Are all who came on the Long March of ten thousand li or several tens of thousands of li to be held responsible? That's not what I'm saying. But the comrades who came from there should understand that the only difference between them and the local comrades is that they walked an extra stretch of road. From there to here. Who is responsible for the failure there? Who is responsible for the collapse of Shanghai and Tianjin? The majority of comrades must be responsible, especially the leading comrades must bear this responsibility. But we were also country bumpkins when we worked there, country bumpkins and country bumpkins. Among these, there is no reason to look down on others, because the leadership there was not good, plus objective reasons, the enemy's pressure was very great, and subjective leadership errors, so the White Areas were almost finished, and all the base areas failed. So I think many new comrades and old cadres, comrades who have come to work in the Border Region, should sincerely learn from the local cadres. This way, no one will say it out loud, looking down on them as country bumpkins. It's impossible to say it out loud; it would be unseemly. In their hearts, if not one, then ten might think this way, but there are some who think this way. This is completely baseless. This was clearly demonstrated in this meeting. Some comrades from outside, even those in higher positions, are a bit lacking compared to the local comrades; they are not as good as the local cadres. They should be made to understand that the local cadres are more principled, their work is more experienced, and they have more methods in their work. Regarding this point, I think it should be made clear in this meeting. Because there are two groups of comrades in this meeting, they must be well integrated. The local comrades are very progressive, they progress very quickly, and they grasp policies very well. So, do they have no shortcomings? Do they not need to learn from the comrades from outside? Can they not be our teachers? That is not so. Among any comrades, everyone is a teacher to each other. That is, the Central Committee and the localities, and the comrades of the Border Region, are teachers to each other. If the Central Committee does not learn from you, where does the Central Committee start? If the Central Committee does not take you as teachers, things cannot be done. For example, in resolving the historical issue this time, without these eleven days of meetings, without the materials you contributed, exposing such facts, it would be impossible for the Central Committee comrades to fully understand. Because they did not participate, if you don't speak, how can they know? So the Central Committee comrades must take you as teachers, must take the comrades they lead as teachers, and must learn from them. Similarly, they should also learn from the Central Committee comrades, and also learn from the cadres from outside, even if he is just a newcomer, who has not been in the Party for long, because he always has some strengths. For example, a new intellectual, we can ask him to be a teacher for culture classes. Isn't this a teacher? These local comrades should understand that they still have shortcomings. We need to raise our cultural level, raise our theoretical level. Comrade XX said: "We must raise our theoretical level and make up for our shortcomings." In this way, by learning from each other, respecting each other, not looking down on each other, not excluding each other, the problem will be solved well, the problem can be solved well. I think this meeting not only solves the historical problem but also solves the problem of future unity. The problem of future unity, in which there is a portion of local comrades and another portion of comrades from outside, these two groups of comrades must cooperate very well. To cooperate well, the concept of looking down on others must be eliminated, especially not looking down on the local comrades. We should learn from them. Regarding this issue, it is a stage of this meeting that has already passed. This is my opinion on it.

Today I want to talk about Comrade Stalin's twelve points. I will talk about the twelve points on the basis of clarifying the entire Party's line and uniting the entire Party, as I just discussed.

Comrade Stalin said: "To achieve Bolshevization, at least several basic conditions must be met, without which the Bolshevization of the Communist Parties of various countries is fundamentally impossible."

Now when our comrades salute each other, they say a Bolshevik salute—a "Bu Li" salute. It's as if everyone is saying, you are a Bolshevik, I am also a Bolshevik. He writes to me, "With a Bolshevik salute," and I write to you, also "With a Bolshevik salute." But are we being empty? Is this Bolshevik salute empty talk? I say, to see if it is empty talk, we must see whether the conditions mentioned by Comrade Stalin have been met. If the necessary conditions have been met, it is not empty talk; to achieve Bolshevization, if these conditions have not been met, or have not been completely met, then we are not called Bolshevized, but are only moving towards Bolshevization. "-ization" is not easy. Stalin spoke of twelve points. If a Bolshevik has two or three conditions, but some other conditions are not met, then can you still be considered Bolshevized? You cannot. You are moving towards Bolshevization, but you have not "-ized."

Now, what is the situation with our entire Party? Taking our entire Party, I think it should be viewed this way: we are still moving towards Bolshevization. To speak of Bolshevization, how many conditions has our Party really met? How many conditions have been met? Generally speaking, we are a Bolshevik Party. In terms of its line, its work, the experience of this Party, its level of consciousness, and its relationship with the masses, it is a Bolshevik Party. But when it comes to "-ization," what does "-ization" mean? It means to be thoroughly and completely so, a complete Bolshevik. If we use this standard, to be completely Bolshevized, I think we are still lacking, still many conditions are not met, or not completely met. Let's look at these conditions, as Stalin spoke of them.

First point: "It is necessary for the Party not to regard itself as an appendage of the parliamentary electoral machine, as the Social-Democratic Party in fact regards itself; it is necessary for the Party not to regard itself as a free supplement to the trade unions, as certain anarcho-syndicalist elements sometimes prattle, but for the Party to regard itself as the highest form of class association of the proletariat, the form whose mission it is to lead all other forms of proletarian organization (from the trade unions to the parliamentary group)."

How does this point apply to our Party? Let's examine it. This point has not been implemented, or has not been fully implemented, in many places and many departments of our Party. In this, is our problem now one of a parliamentary group? Is it a problem of trade unionism, of anarchism? The examples Stalin gives are of this kind, but our problem is not one of a parliamentary group, not one of syndicalism or anarchism. Because our parliamentary group—we have a Party group in the Chongqing People's Political Council, a Party group in the Border Region People's Political Council—this Party group is not like what Stalin described, detached from the Party, regarding the Party as an appendage, and taking that thing as the main body—taking the parliamentary group as the main body, which in reality is the Central Committee. In Europe, the parliamentary group of the Social-Democratic Party is the Party's Central Committee; we do not have that kind of phenomenon. Many of our comrades say: is this point necessary for us? Many of our comrades, after reading this point, say: this point is not suitable for us, we don't have this. Then we come to other issues, that is, we see "the Party is the highest form of organization of all classes," this "highest" means leading all forms of organization. General forms of organization, here referred to as trade unions, parliamentary groups, this issue has other examples. In terms of the current facts, we have the government, we have the army, we have mass organizations. What does the Party lead? Now, in our various base areas, the Party leads the government, leads the army, and leads the mass organizations. Besides these three areas of work, what else do we lead? We don't lead anything else, because besides these three things, there is nothing else. Besides these three, we also have Party affairs work, organizing the Party's organization. So what is the purpose of organizing Party affairs work? Is it acceptable to organize Party affairs work for the sake of organizing Party affairs work? We say it is. Why? It is not for anything else, but precisely to do a good job with the army, the government, and the mass organizations, so we must do Party affairs work. Party affairs work includes cadre work. Why must we do a good job with cadres? Because these cadres are either army cadres or government cadres. The vast majority of cadres, except for a few Party affairs cadres, nine-tenths are army cadres, government work cadres, and mass organization work cadres. Within mass organization work, there are trade unions, peasant associations, youth, women, cooperatives, and cultural organizations. Within cultural organizations, there are various groups, such as literary societies, philosophical societies, drama societies—within drama, there are new plays and old plays, there is woodcutting, and so on. This whole set is mass organizations. This set is very numerous. If your Party does not manage the affairs of the army, the government, and the mass organizations, what do you manage? Where do your Party cadres work? So the purpose of Party affairs work is for nothing else. You gather so many people, give you millet to eat until you are bloated (laughter), and you must do work. What work? Party affairs work. What is the purpose of this work? It is to manage the army, manage the government, manage the mass organizations. Besides this, there is nothing else. Only by managing these well can we fight against the enemy.

But now it seems there is such a concept, this concept truly exists, that your Party department should just manage your Party affairs work, and you should manage my government less, manage my army less, manage my mass organizations less. Is this situation imaginary? Or does it exist in fact? From managing less to not managing at all, from not managing to opposing. Who are the ones who oppose? It is Zhang Guotao. He is the one who opposes us. He doesn't want us to manage him. He set up his own Central Committee, "a mutiny at Chenqiao, the yellow robe added to his body," asserting independence. He has his own army, opposes the Central Committee managing him, and he wants to overthrow this Central Committee.

There is another one, that is, during the War of Resistance, there were still such comrades. They did not carry out the orders of the Central Committee. This happened before the Southern Anhui Incident. Other armies did not have such serious incidents, not to that extent. Zhang Guotao is the most standard, the most prominent. The second is Xiang Ying, who is a bit less so, and did not openly expose these things. Then there are those who obey in part and do not obey in part. Are there such cases in the army? There have been in the army. If it suits my temper, I obey; if it doesn't suit my temper, I don't obey. They don't openly say they won't obey, but they think so in their hearts, and they act that way. In the relationship between the Party, government, army, and people in the Border Region, there is such a phenomenon where the Party's will, its resolutions, cannot be implemented. For example, in the relationship between the Party, government, army, and people, can military-civilian cooperation not be implemented? For a considerable period, it could not be implemented. Is this non-implementation a matter of principle? It is a matter of principle; that it cannot be implemented, that there is no way to carry it out, is an important matter of principle. The work of the government, our actual policies, the policies implemented by the government, should be very much in line with the Party's policies. Do we have shortcomings in this area? There are shortcomings. The pace is not uniform. The pace within the government is not uniform. The pace between the government and the Party, between the Party members working in the government and the Party leadership in the government, is not uniform.

Second, mass organizations. Have such things happened in mass organizations? Such things have also happened. This problem has now been solved. In the past, such things also happened among mass organizations, such as in youth work, the so-called assertion of independence, what they were asserting, I am not very clear, but in any case, it was not in line with the Party's policies, they just did their own thing. The relationship of Party members in cultural organizations to the Party's policies, to the Party's leadership, also had many problems in the past. For example, the fourth page of the *Liberation Daily*, for a period, was an independent kingdom, no one could interfere. This page and other pages even became such that it was like the various colonies of the British Empire and Britain itself. At a certain point, it was even worse. In reality, this page was asserting independence. The will of the newspaper office could not be implemented on this page. Now, on any page, in any article, if we want to interfere with even a single character, we can. There are a total of forty thousand characters. If thirty-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine are obedient, what does it matter if one character is not? When it is not brought up, it is not a principle; when it is not brought up, it does not affect the overall situation. But if he does not allow the newspaper editors to interfere with a single character, and this continues, all forty thousand characters will assert independence. To say that the Party must manage even a single character seems to be very sarcastic, that you have to manage even a single character. What if you don't manage a single character? Allow him to make a treaty, saying: you can assert independence. Then the second character, the third character will all come. If he can assert independence, why can't I? It is not allowed. The Party manages everything. If it wants to manage everything, it can. What is the Party? Now, in the "September 1st" Decision, we have already made it clear. It seems that government work is not considered the Party, the Northwest Bureau is not considered the Party, woodcutting and drama are not considered the Party, but only mass organizations. Then this Party is still very small, only these few houses below are called the Party. Such a concept is an erroneous concept. What we call the Party is all Party members. The Party is composed of Party members... (original manuscript unclear). There is a Party in old plays, a Party in new plays, a Party in trade unions, peasant associations, youth, and women. For example, besides the army, government, mass organizations, workers' organizations, peasants' organizations, and cultural organizations, what else is there? There is no Party left, it's finished. If the Party's leadership is respected in this way, but we here cannot be called the Party, I am called the army, I am called a mass organization, then in reality it means not wanting this Party, and therefore there is no Party. The Northwest Bureau is just a few houses where a few people live.

So regarding this point, our current example, to implement Stalin's point now, is to have unified leadership, to recognize the Central Committee's "September 1st" Decision, to recognize the resolution on the overall relationship of this conference. To recognize that the Party is the highest form of all proletarian organizations. All organizations outside the proletarian party must be led by the Party through its members. This kind of assertion of independence has existed almost since the beginning of the Red Army. These things happened especially in the base areas; outside the base areas, this problem was less common.

Based on this situation, we say we are comparatively Bolshevized. When we write this word, we should think about the degree of our "-ization." The degree of our Bolshevization is still a bit lacking. Taking the entire Party, we are a Bolshevik Party. Taking a portion of the cadres, even a considerable number of comrades, they are not yet Bolshevized, they have not yet been Bolshevized.

Second point: The second discussion, "It is necessary for the Party, and especially its leaders, to completely master the revolutionary theory of Marxism, which is inseparably linked with revolutionary practice."

The second is to say that one must master Marxism, and Marxism cannot be separated from practice; it is linked with practice, completely inseparable. Regarding this point, our Party has a history. What is our history? In the first period, we accepted Marxism with great enthusiasm. Under the guidance of Marxism, we carried out a revolution, called the First Great Revolution. From the founding of the Party to 1927, the first stage was preparing for the Great Revolution, and the second stage was carrying out the Great Revolution. Under what principle was this? Under what ideology? It was under the principle of Marxism, under the guidance of Marxism. Is this a fact? It is a fact. Because the Chinese Party was established in 1921. The October Revolution was victorious in 1917, and the Communist Party of China was established in 1921. At that time, not only Marxism, but also Leninism was widely disseminated in China. The widespread dissemination of Marxism in China was after the "May Fourth" Movement. Before the "May Fourth" Movement, the Chinese working class, the Chinese intellectuals, were not very aware of what was called Marxism in the world, and what was called developed Marxism—Leninism. It can be said that they were generally unaware. Because China was very backward, such a major event occurred, Marxism had been created for so long in the world, the proletarian movement had existed for such a long time, and now Leninism had a victory in Russia, there had been several revolutions. Before the October Revolution of 1917, the Chinese people were not very aware. There were some people, some translations and printings, but generally not. But during this period, the October Revolution itself was a great propaganda for China. The October Revolution itself influenced many Chinese intellectuals to lean towards socialism and believe in socialism. After the October Revolution, many things spread to China. In addition, with the First World War, there were major events in world history. Under these circumstances, China produced the "May Fourth" Movement, the "May Fourth" Movement of 1919. At this time, the propaganda of Marxism became more widespread. There were some intellectuals, China itself produced a portion of intellectuals, led by Li Dazhao, who began to study Marxism, to study it consciously. Therefore, it was possible to establish the Communist Party of China in 1921. Otherwise, would it have been possible to establish the Communist Party of China in 1921? This possibility did not exist. Because before 1921, the October Revolution of 1917 was a great propaganda for China. After several years of fermentation, the "May Fourth" Movement was produced. Without the October Revolution, the emergence of the "May Fourth" Movement would have been difficult. With the October Revolution, and the "May Fourth" Movement, and the propaganda of Marxism-Leninism, it was possible to begin building the Communist Party of China in 1921. In the six or seven years from 1921 to 1927, our Party was a young Party. A young Party did a great thing, which was the Great Revolution. Such a history is not common in foreign countries, to carry out such a great revolution in only six or seven years. The cooperation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, in which Marxism-Leninism played a great role. The Great Revolution movement itself was under the guidance of the Comintern, under the guidance of the Communist Party of China. The Communist Party of China was under the guidance of the Comintern. At that time, the activities of the Comintern, the CPC Central Committee, and the entire Party were all based on Marxism-Leninism, and at the same time, they put forward programs and carried out activities according to the actual situation of the Chinese Party. Some people seem to feel that the Chinese Party had no theory at the beginning, especially in the later period, there were some comrades who felt that only they themselves had theory. We talk about before the May Fourth Movement, we talk about the four years from 1917 to 1921, Marxism-Leninism already had a fairly widespread propaganda in China. Although there was no Communist Party of China at that time, there were communist small groups. The Communist Party itself was produced under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism. Otherwise, how can one imagine it? How did a Communist Party suddenly emerge? If this Communist Party is not Marxism, what ism is it? Is it Christianism? Or Confucianism? (Laughter) Later, some comrades felt that the old set was not Marxism-Leninism, only what they themselves had was Marxism-Leninism. I think this is incorrect. There are also some comrades who feel that our old set was not Marxism-Leninism, and only the newly translated things are Marxism-Leninism. How can that be? It's not like that. The facts are not like that. Before there was a Communist Party, there was Marxism. If there was no Marxism, how could there be a Communist Party? In fact, the newspapers, periodicals, and books of that time are all there. At that time, Li Dazhao and others were doing this work. From 1921 to 1924, Li Dazhao propagated communist historical materialism. If that is not Marxism-Leninism, what ism is it? It is not Christianism, nor Confucianism, it is Marxism-Leninism. There are indeed books to prove it. So from the establishment of the Party to the First Great Revolution, it was under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism. Later, there was a civil war stage, and an anti-Japanese stage, which was a struggle between two things: one was Marxism-Leninism, and the other was anti-Marxism-Leninism; one was true Marxism-Leninism, and the other was false Marxism-Leninism. This meeting has been held for eleven days. Comrade XX also said this. One side's slogan was "Struggle for Marxism-Leninism." Zhu Lizhi's article was written like this, with more than twenty thousand characters. This side was called "right-wing opportunism," which also counts as an ism, but it's an "opportunism." (Laughter) History now proves, this now does not need to be proven by books, there is also proof in books and people to prove it, which one is correct? It is the one called "right-wing opportunism" that is correct. Those who were killed were correct. Two hundred and forty were killed. What kind of people were killed? Marxist-Leninists were killed. Two hundred and forty Marxist-Leninists, resolute Marxist-Leninists, very good Marxist-Leninists were killed. There was another batch that was not killed in time because the Central Committee arrived, with a loud shout of "Spare them from the sword!" (Laughter) Was this situation in only one Soviet area? It was not in just one Soviet area. There were three particularly serious Soviet areas: E-Yu-Wan, Xiang-E-Xi, and here. The Central Soviet Area, Gan-Dong-Bei, and the Sichuan Soviet Area also had it, but not as serious as here. This was an erroneous line. Once it started, this erroneous line damaged the entire revolution, damaged the Chinese revolution. This included a portion of Communist Party members, Marxist-Leninists. Communist Party members and Marxist-Leninists were massacred. This was one result. In addition, ten-tenths of the Soviet area work and ten-tenths of the White area work in the whole country were wiped out in this way. In the first stage, based on Marxism-Leninism, the Communist Party of China began to lead the Great Revolution. In the later period, it split. Chen Duxiu also called himself a Marxist-Leninist, but the political line at that time was erroneous. What kind of Marxism-Leninism was his Marxism-Leninism in the later period? It was false Marxism-Leninism. What was the result? The result was that it was overcome by correct Marxism-Leninism.

The "August 7th" Meeting purged him. It settled accounts with the failure of the Great Revolution, opposed right-wing opportunism, and opposed Chen Duxiu's right-wing opportunism. Did this Chen Duxiu right-wing opportunism conform to Marxism-Leninism? It did not. Was it true Marxism-Leninism or false Marxism-Leninism? It was false Marxism-Leninism. Who purged this group of false Marxist-Leninists, Chen Duxiu, and struggled against him? The correct Marxism-Leninism within the Party. Later, there was also a struggle against the Li Lisan line, and a struggle against right-wing opportunism. Li Lisan also used the name of Marxism-Leninism, but what he did violated the principles of Marxism. After that was the period from "September 18th" to the Zunyi Conference. So our Party, from the beginning of the First Great Revolution, had a struggle against Chen Duxiu's opportunism. Later, throughout the civil war period, there was a struggle against Li Lisan's line, a struggle against the "left" opportunism of Zhu Lizhi and Guo Hongtao. This entire period of struggle included a struggle against Zhang Guotao. Zhang Guotao was a "left" opportunist. Throughout the civil war period, there were these three struggles. What were these three struggles against what? They were struggles of Marxism-Leninism against non-Marxism-Leninism, struggles against principles that did not conform to Marxism-Leninism, struggles against these several lines, against the Li Lisan line, the line of the later Soviet period, and the Zhang Guotao line. Conclusions have been drawn for two, and one has not yet had a conclusion drawn. I have now drawn a conclusion for the Northwest, which is very good. Regarding the conclusion for the entire Party, is it like this? It is of this nature, but that is for the entire Party, and yours is for the Northwest. Is it necessary to draw such a conclusion? It is. The "Seventh and Sixth" will draw this conclusion. After the Zunyi Conference, what kind of line did we follow? Now the comrades have all spoken. The current line is relatively correct, relatively in line with reality. Is this a fact? I think this is a fact. After the Zunyi Conference, the Party's political line, the Party's leading ideology, and the organizational line are relatively correct, relatively good. Because in view of the victory of the Great Revolution period, the failure of that period, and in view of Chen Duxiu's opportunism, and in view of the fact that we had great victories during the civil war period, but we also had failures, we committed the Li Lisan line, the line in our midst and Zhang Guotao's line, we have had this series of history. These two stages: the first KMT-CPC cooperation, the second KMT-CPC split. Such experience can make it possible for us to do things a bit more correctly on this basis. The consciousness of the entire Party in these three stages has also been raised somewhat compared to the past. But are there shortcomings? I think there are still great shortcomings. On the opening day, I once said that within our Party, there is now a kind of liberalism. As the Central Committee has pointed out, we oppose subjectivism, sectarianism, and Party formalism. These are not the dominant lines, but there are still remnants in the entire Party. Do these remnants conform to the principles of Marxism-Leninism? They do not. What attitude should be taken towards these remnants that do not conform to Marxism-Leninism? There can be two attitudes: one is a liberal attitude, to conceal and cover up, not to pay attention; the other is to struggle against it, to eliminate these remnants. Why was the rectification of the three styles proposed? Since July 1st of last year, the Central Committee issued a decision on strengthening Party spirit, a decision on investigation and research. In February of this year, the Central Committee again proposed the rectification of the three styles. It has been almost a year now. The work of rectifying the three styles has been carried out throughout the Party, such a large-scale study has been conducted, and work has been inspected. What is this? It is that towards the incorrect remnants, towards the remnants of this evil wind, a liberal attitude should not be adopted. A critical attitude, a corrective attitude should be adopted. After the Zunyi Conference (January 1935), this liberal attitude emerged. Before the Zunyi Conference, there was a "left" deviationist error. In terms of the attitude towards Marxism-Leninism, in terms of political struggle and inner-Party relations, it was a "left" deviationist error. After the Zunyi Conference, the line was correct, but were there still problems within the Party? There were problems. A bad tendency of liberalism emerged. During this period, what was the main deviation in our Party's performance? It was a bad phenomenon of liberalism, not a kind of excessive struggle. After the Zunyi Conference, in these few years, was the main bad phenomenon in our Party excessive struggle? Or liberalism? It was liberalism. Was there excessive struggle? There still was. In some places, the struggle was still great, but it was not the main bad tendency. Since the Zunyi Conference, the main bad tendency in the Party has been the tendency of liberalism. In the past, comrades who made this "left" deviationist error were prone to make this liberal tendency after the Zunyi Conference. In your eleven-day meeting this time, what was the attitude of Zhu Lizhi and Guo Hongtao? In the past, it was excessive "left" deviationist struggle, a "left" error. Since the War of Resistance, what has been their attitude? Is it mainly "left" deviationist or liberalism? Zhu Lizhi worked in the bank and asserted independence. Guo Hongtao spread rumors and sowed discord. Is this left or liberalism? It is liberalism. The past "left" has turned into a rightist attitude.

Now we come to the second point. We divide the Chinese Party into three periods: the Northern Expedition period