Chang Cheng: When will Volume 4 of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong be published?  Mao Zedong: It has been delayed because I have been negligent.  Before publication, I intended to review all my previous writings once more, but I always found myself too lazy to do so.  Very few of the works already published leave me completely satisfied.  For example, “On Practice” is one of those I am relatively content with, whereas “On Contradiction” does not meet my standards.  As for “On New Democracy,” it was only when I had written about halfway through the first draft that the view gradually took shape—that the first eighty years and the last twenty years of China’s recent history constitute two distinct stages. Consequently, I rewrote the entire piece from scratch and revised it repeatedly before finalizing it.  “On the United Front Government,” on the other hand, merely consisted of a compilation of policy platforms with little substantive editing; it is not a particularly good work.

Zhou Enlai: At the time, “On the United Front Government” mobilized considerable support and exerted a significant influence—perhaps even greater than that of “On New Democracy.”

Aidit: Following the publication of Volume 3 of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, did Chairman Mao have any plans to revise Volumes 1 and 2?  Mao: Not at present. My only thought is to add a few additional notes.

Aidit: There is an article [2] in the Selected Works that discusses the issue of armed revolution. I wonder whether it addresses China’s specific circumstances or applies universally to all countries.  Mao: It pertains not only to China but also to other nations.  Aidit: Does this remain true today?  Mao: Yes, it still holds.  Comrade Politt once raised this very question, asking whether the passage should be amended. On this point, our views differed from his [3].  Whether or not to engage in armed struggle is not something we can decide unilaterally. We are not the chiefs of staff of the bourgeoisie.  We may and should state that we seek to advance peacefully toward socialism; yet we must also acknowledge that, even if we do not explicitly advocate it at present, we ought nonetheless to keep such a possibility in mind. Should the bourgeoisie resort to armed force to launch an offensive, we would be compelled to respond with armed struggle in order to secure revolutionary victory.  During his lifetime, Engels observed that, under certain conditions, Britain and the United States might also achieve a peaceful transition to socialism. [4] However, by the twentieth century, as both countries had become imperialist powers, the situation had changed. Lenin no longer held that view.  Of course, it remains conceivable that, in the future, a small number of nations—under circumstances where the global balance of power undergoes a fundamental shift—may attain revolutionary victory without resorting to domestic armed struggle.  The factor of strength is crucial, including military strength.  At present, our camp comprises only about one-third of the world’s states. Once we come to hold a majority or an overwhelming majority, there will undoubtedly be some countries that, surrounded by our immense power, can achieve revolutionary victory peacefully without engaging in internal armed conflict.  In countries where the bourgeoisie controls the state apparatus and the armed forces, if we confine our strategy solely to a peaceful revolution, we shall suffer a disadvantage, for we are not the chiefs of staff of the bourgeoisie. Whether or not they permit us to achieve victory peacefully depends not on our subjective aspirations but on their own calculations.  We now likewise advocate the peaceful liberation of Taiwan; however, we are not the chiefs of staff of the United States or Chiang Kai-shek, nor can we dictate their decisions on their behalf.

Aidit: Many comrades in Indonesia believe that, having reached such a high level of ideological maturity, Chairman Mao could write his articles in one go, without ever needing to make revisions.  Mao: That notion does not accord with reality.  Our minds and thoughts are reflections of objective reality. No one, at any time, can capture that reality perfectly and without error in a single attempt.  Objective reality is intricate, multifaceted, and constantly evolving.  The way our minds and thoughts reflect reality is a process of gradual maturation—from incomplete to more complete, from vague to clearer, from superficial to profound—while simultaneously adapting to the ongoing changes in the external world.  When I wrote “On New Democracy,” many ideas were initially unclear; it was only through the writing process that they gradually became defined, and after repeated revisions that I managed to express them with reasonable accuracy.  Many of my earlier writings no longer satisfy me today.  Superstition is harmful.  When you heed our advice, analyze matters carefully, and proceed from the concrete conditions of your own country, you will recognize that even our assessments of domestic Chinese issues are not entirely free of error, let alone our judgments concerning foreign affairs.  Let me add one further point: some of the stories currently circulating about me are inaccurate and unreliable. For instance, a Hong Kong newspaper reported that one night, late at night, I traveled forty li outside Yan’an to visit a wounded soldier who claimed he wished to see Chairman Mao before he died. In fact, no such incident occurred.  I did indeed visit a wounded comrade, but it was within Yan’an itself, during daylight hours, and not at the urgent request of a soldier on the verge of death.  Another tale purports that I renounced belief in deities at the age of eight and became an atheist. Yet at that time I still believed in gods; later, I even embraced idealism and anarchism.  Such accounts are simply untrue and fall into the category of superstition, which is undesirable.

Printed based on the transcript of the conversation preserved in the Central Archives.

Notes [1] This constitutes the main portion of the conversation.  Chang Cheng (1907–1988) served at the time as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Vietnamese Workers’ Party.  Aidit (1923–1965) was then General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Indonesia.  [2] Refers to “On War and Strategic Problems” (Volume 2 of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, People’s Publishing House, 1991 edition, pp. 541–554).  [3] Politt (1890–1960) was then General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain. On March 29, 1954, he wrote to the Central Committee of the CPC, proposing that the first two paragraphs of “On War and Strategic Problems” be omitted from the English translation of Volume 2 of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong. These paragraphs read: “The central task and highest form of revolution is the armed seizure of political power; war provides the decisive solution. This revolutionary principle of Marxism-Leninism is universally valid—whether in China or abroad.” “However, within the framework of this same principle, the manner in which proletarian parties implement it varies depending on the specific conditions prevailing. Thus, there can be no uniform approach.” On August 23 of the same year, the CPC Central Committee replied to Politt, stating unequivocally: “We cannot agree to the deletion of the first two paragraphs of ‘On War and Strategic Problems’ from the English translation of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, since the principles elucidated therein by Comrade Mao represent universal truths of Marxism-Leninism and require no revision simply because of changes in the international situation. Moreover, Russian and other foreign-language editions of the Selected Works have already been published without making any such alterations.”  [4] See Engels’s “Critique of the Draft Socialist Program of 1891.” The original text reads: “It is conceivable that, in a country where the representative bodies of the people have concentrated all power in their own hands and can, with the support of a majority, act at will in accordance with the constitution, the old society might peacefully evolve into the new—one might imagine such a development taking place in democratic republics like France and the United States, or in a monarchy like Britain.” (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 4, People’s Publishing House, 1995 edition, p. 411)