Speech at a Meeting [1]
(August 27, 1949)

On the historical question of centralization and decentralization, only we can provide an explanation. We should centralize as much as possible what must be centralized and firmly grasp what must be firmly grasped—for example, the diplomatic issue concerning John Leighton Stuart. Some say we only manage policies and not affairs. It is impossible to manage all affairs, whereas policy issues concern the political and economic lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people. We focus on major personnel matters and major policies. We need a mix of centralization and decentralization to do things well, so in some areas, local authorities must be granted supervisory powers. Taking into account Chiang Kai-shek’s excessive centralization, we adopt a dual approach of centralization and non-centralization, centralizing only what is necessary.

This is a speech by Mao Zedong on the issue of centralization and decentralization delivered at the Fourth Standing Committee Meeting of the Preparatory Conference for the New Political Consultative Conference.

Why Discuss the White Paper?
(August 28, 1949)

Regarding the U.S. White Paper and Dean Acheson’s letter, we have already offered criticism in three articles (“A Forlorn Confession,” “Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle,” and “Farewell, Leighton Stuart”). These criticisms have sparked widespread attention and discussion among various democratic parties, people’s organizations, newspapers, schools, and democratic figures from all sectors across the country, and they have issued many correct and beneficial statements, remarks, or commentaries. Symposia of various kinds to discuss the White Paper are being held, and the discussion continues to develop. The scope of the discussion encompasses Sino-American relations, Sino-Soviet relations, foreign relations over the past century, the mutual relationship between the Chinese revolution and the forces of world revolution, the relationship between the reactionary faction of the Kuomintang and the Chinese people, the stance that various democratic parties, people’s organizations, and democratic figures from all sectors should adopt in the struggle against imperialism, the stance that liberals or so-called democratic individualists should adopt in all domestic and international affairs, how to deal with new imperialist schemes, and so on. This phenomenon is highly positive and serves a great educational purpose.

Now the whole world is discussing the Chinese revolution and the U.S. White Paper, and this is no coincidence. It underscores the immense significance of the Chinese revolution in world history. For us Chinese, our revolution has essentially been victorious, but for a long time, we had not had an opportunity to engage in an exhaustive discussion about this revolution and its interrelated domestic and international aspects. Such a discussion is necessary, and now we have found the opportunity—namely, through discussing the U.S. White Paper. The reason such a discussion had not been possible before was that the revolution had not yet achieved basic victory, the reactionaries at home and abroad had cut off major cities from the liberated areas, and furthermore, the development of the revolution had not yet fully exposed the various aspects of its contradictions. Now the situation is different: more than half of China has been liberated, and the various facets of both internal and external contradictions have been fully revealed. Just at this moment, the United States published its White Paper, presenting us with this opportunity for discussion.

The White Paper is a counterrevolutionary book, openly demonstrating U.S. imperialism’s intervention in China. In this respect, it shows that imperialism has deviated from its usual course. The great, victorious Chinese revolution has compelled one faction, one wing within the U.S. imperialist bloc, to openly publish a portion of the truthful material opposing the Chinese people and draw reactionary conclusions, in order to respond to attacks from another faction, another wing—otherwise, they could not hold their ground. Open exposure has replaced concealment and disguise; this is a manifestation of imperialism straying from the norm. A few weeks ago, before the White Paper was published, the imperialist government was engaged daily in its counterrevolutionary undertakings, yet in its rhetoric and official documents, it was all full-blown benevolence and morality, or at least tinged with it, never speaking the truth. The wily, seasoned British imperialists and several lesser imperialist countries continue in this vein to this day. But the late-coming, upstart, neurotically frail imperialist system represented by Truman, Marshall, Acheson, Leighton Stuart, and others in the United States—besieged by opposition both from the people and from a faction among their own partners—believed it was necessary and feasible to openly expose some (not all) truth about their counterrevolutionary methods in order to debate with their rival camp which counterrevolutionary approach was the more effective. They sought by this means to convince their opponents, so as to continue applying what they themselves considered the cleverer counterrevolutionary methods. Two factions of counterrevolution compete: one declares our methods are best, the other declares ours are best. The dispute grows so intense that one faction suddenly lays its cards on the table, bringing out a host of its well-used magical implements and calling it the White Paper.

In this way, the White Paper has become educational material for the Chinese people. For many years, on many issues—chiefly regarding the nature of imperialism and the nature of socialism—what we Communists said was always met with skeptical belief among some Chinese (at one time, many), who thought, “That may not be the case.” This situation underwent a change after August 5, 1949. Acheson took the podium; speaking in his capacity as U.S. Secretary of State, what he said, with respect to certain materials and certain conclusions, was almost identical to what we Communists and other progressive figures had said. This time, it can no longer be doubted; the scales have fallen from the eyes of vast numbers of people, and they see the true picture.

At the beginning of his letter to Truman, Acheson recounts the story of how he compiled the White Paper. He claims his White Paper is uniquely compiled, highly objective, and candid. “This is an honest record of the most complex and distressing period in the life of a great nation that has long maintained extremely cordial and friendly ties with the United States. None of the material uncovered has been omitted, even though some of it contains criticism of our policies and some may serve as a basis for criticism in the future. The ability of our government to be responsive to informed and critical public opinion is the inherent strength of our system. Such informed and critical public opinion is precisely what neither right-wing nor Communist totalitarian governments can tolerate or countenance.”

Certain ties between the peoples of China and the United States do exist. Through the efforts of the peoples of both countries, these ties may well develop in the future to the point of “extremely cordial friendship.” However, due to obstruction by the reactionaries of both China and the United States, these ties have been, and continue to be, severely hampered. Moreover, because the reactionaries of both countries have spread many lies and wrought much mischief—that is, conducted much harmful propaganda and committed many misdeeds—the connections between the two peoples are far from close. When Acheson speaks of “the extremely cordial and friendly ties,” he is not referring to the two peoples, but to the reactionaries of the two countries. Here, Acheson is neither objective nor candid; he conflates the relationships between the peoples and the reactionaries of both nations. For the Chinese people, the victory of the Chinese revolution and the defeat of the reactionaries in both China and the United States are the most joyful events of their lives, and the present period is the most joyful period in their lives. Only Truman, Marshall, Acheson, Leighton Stuart and other U.S. reactionaries—along with Chiang Kai-shek, H.H. Kung, T.V. Soong, Chen Lifu, Li Zongren, Bai Chongxi, and other Chinese reactionaries—find this on the contrary “the most complex and distressing period” of their lives.

Acheson and his ilk, in their view of public opinion, confuse the opinion of the reactionaries with that of the people. To the people’s opinion, the Achesons are utterly incapable of being “responsive”; they are blind and deaf. For years, the people of the United States, China, and the whole world have opposed the reactionary foreign policy of the U.S. government, but the Achesons have turned a deaf ear. What, then, does Acheson mean by “informed and critical public opinion”? He means the numerous newspapers, press agencies, periodicals, radio stations, and the like, manipulated by the two reactionary political parties of the United States—the Republicans and the Democrats—as propaganda organs specializing in lies and threats against the people. On this point, Acheson is right: the Communists (and indeed the people too) truly “cannot tolerate or countenance” them. Hence, the news offices of imperialism have been shut down by us, the distribution of news drafts from imperialist press agencies to Chinese newspapers has been banned by us, and they are not permitted to freely poison the souls of the Chinese people any longer within China’s borders.

There is also a half-truth in the claim that the government led by the Communist Party is a “totalitarian government.” This government is one that exercises dictatorship or autocracy over internal and external reactionaries, denying them any freedom to carry out counterrevolutionary activities. The reactionaries are outraged and hurl the epithet “totalitarian government.” In fact, as far as the people’s government’s power to suppress reactionaries is concerned, this is entirely accurate. This power is now written into our program and will in the future be written into our constitution. For the victorious people, it is as indispensable as cloth, millet, or grain—something they cannot do without even for a moment. It is an excellent thing, a protective talisman, a family heirloom, and it must never be discarded until the day when imperialism abroad and classes at home are completely and thoroughly eliminated. The more the reactionaries rail against “totalitarian government,” the more it proves to be a treasure. But there is a half of Acheson’s claim that is wrong. The people’s democratic dictatorship government led by the Communist Party is not dictatorial or autocratic toward the people themselves; it is democratic. This government is the people’s own government. The personnel of this government must listen to the people with the utmost respect and attentiveness. At the same time, they are also teachers of the people, educating them through the methods of self-education and self-criticism.

As for Acheson’s phrase “right-wing totalitarian government,” since the collapse of the three fascist governments in Germany, Italy, and Japan, the U.S. government has become the foremost such government in the world. All bourgeois governments, including the reactionary governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan that were shielded by imperialism, are governments of this kind. The Tito government of Yugoslavia has now also joined as an accomplice. Governments of the type found in the United States and Britain are governments in which a single class—the bourgeoisie—exercises dictatorship over the people. In every respect, they are the opposite of the people’s government: there is so-called democracy within the bourgeoisie, but dictatorship over the people. Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Franco, Chiang Kai-shek, and others abolished or simply dispensed with the fig leaf of internal bourgeois democracy because the domestic class struggle had intensified to such a point that it was more advantageous to remove or discard that cover, lest the people seize upon it to dance and revel. The U.S. government still possesses a shred of that democratic fabric, but it has been cut very small by the U.S. reactionaries and has greatly faded in color; compared to the eras of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln,[1] it has fallen far behind. This is a result of the class struggle tightening a few notches. Tighten it a few more notches, and America’s democratic fabric will inevitably be thrown to the winds.

As can be seen, Acheson is wrong on so many points right from the start. This is unavoidable, for he is a reactionary. As for his claim that the White Paper is an “honest record,” we believe there is some honesty, and there also is not. When it comes to things subjectively believed to benefit their own faction or party, the Achesons are frank; conversely, they are not. Pretending to be forthright serves the purpose of waging their struggle.

[1]George Washington (1732–1799), Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), and Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) were all prominent bourgeois statesmen in early U.S. history. Washington was the commander-in-chief of the colonial uprising forces during the American War of Independence (1775–1783) and the first president of the United States. Jefferson was the drafter of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and also served as president of the United States. Lincoln advocated for the abolition of slavery in the United States; during his presidency, he led the war against the slaveholding Southern states (1861–1865) and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

On August 28, 1949, Mao Zedong received officers and men from the Second Fleet of the Kuomintang Navy who had defected during the uprising.
On August 28, 1949, Mao Zedong, together with Zhou Enlai and Zhang Zhizhong, met Soong Ching-ling, who had traveled north from Shanghai, at the Beiping railway station.
In August 1949, Mao Zedong was together with his old friend Liu Yazi.