The Chairman proposes a preliminary list of candidates; then it is distributed for discussion and preliminary election within each delegation; the Political Bureau then consolidates these to formulate a formal candidate list to be presented to the Congress.

Third, the issue of speeches. Many comrades among the Central Committee members wish to speak, and other delegates also want to speak. Of the 1,026 delegates, it is planned that around 80 will speak (Deng Xiaoping: If possible, it could be up to 100), depending on the length of time. In short, the principle is...
[1]
Don't make it too long; the content should be a bit more brilliant. The current arrangement for the meeting is 13 days, including breaks in between, with 12 actual meeting days. If we can save time, it would be best to actually hold meetings for 11 days. The duration should not be too long; we should not follow the method used for the Seventh Congress in Yan'an. The Seventh Congress dragged on for too long. (Deng Xiaoping: It also had one benefit—it wore Japan down.) Of course, there were also benefits. The Yan'an Rectification Movement unified everyone's thinking, rallied us to confront the enemy, and thus led to victory.
After the Seventh Congress, we achieved revolutionary victory and began construction. With this Congress, we aim to achieve victory in construction—the victory of building a great socialist country.

Our basic policy is to integrate Marxism with the actual conditions of China, to unite all forces within the Party, domestically, and internationally that can and should be united, and to strive for the building of a great socialist country. We shall refute and oppose everything that diverges from this direction. We shall criticize all thoughts and policies that are detrimental to uniting all forces and detrimental to building socialism. This is the banner of this Congress and the consistent banner of our Party.
Our Seventh Congress was a congress that united all forces within the Party, domestically, and internationally to wage revolutionary war, defeat the enemy, and begin construction. Now, having gained initial experience in construction, we still adhere to this policy: to unite all forces within the Party that can be united, to unite all forces domestically that can be united, and to unite all forces across the world that can be united. First of all, the Soviet Union, all people's democratic countries, and the socialist camp must be tightly united. Then, all revolutionary factors in the world—national movements, workers' movements in capitalist countries—any force that can isolate imperialism, we must unite with it. Even with imperialist countries, as long as they are willing to pursue peace and can establish diplomatic relations with us, we shall establish diplomatic relations with them, including the United States. All of this serves one goal: to build socialism in our country.
[1]
Once our country has built up socialism, in the future it will be visible as a powerful socialist country. Our country, our nation, historically played a significant role in the world, fulfilling its function in history. But over the last hundred-plus years, it has declined and its role has diminished considerably—this is quite disproportionate to our large population and our status as a great nation. We should build an entirely new great power, one that plays an even greater role in the world.

Additionally, there are a few points I would like to take this opportunity to address:

First, regarding the system of permanent delegates. Our draft Party Constitution includes a system of permanent delegates. This is in view of the fact that over the past 11 years, the Party's National Congress has not convened, for various reasons. I think one reason is inertia—no other justification. The Congress has been regarded as extremely sacred and extremely momentous, and the more it is viewed this way, the harder it becomes to convene. Now we want to change that inertia and hold it annually, making it a habit, a conditioned reflex. Then, does the failure to convene in the past make it completely illegitimate? That cannot be said to be completely illegitimate, because the Party Constitution states that under normal circumstances, it shall be convened every three years, and if circumstances do not permit, it may be postponed. We missed convening it twice, though actually only once, because during the three-year war it was very difficult to convene. We were different from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union first occupied the major cities, while we at that time did not yet have major cities. When the three major campaigns were being fought, everyone was engaged in battle and would not have come for a meeting. In 1949, fighting was still going on. Then came the Korean War, and we were extremely busy. If one wanted to cite reasons, one could list several more. In short, amidst the flurry of war, it was very difficult to convene. Now that circumstances have changed, it is entirely possible to convene regularly. With permanent delegates, we don't need to hold elections every time, which makes things easier. If we adopt the permanent delegate system (as written here, elections are held every five years), we can convene once a year. The draft is written flexibly—if there are special circumstances, the meeting may be skipped that year. I think it is best to convene once a year, and this should become a habit. In this way, criticism can be regularly conducted, and democratic life can develop. Recently, the various provincial and municipal congresses have, generally speaking, been held very well, marked by extensive criticism. Without convening such congresses, many opinions cannot be heard. The central level should switch to the permanent delegate system, and the local levels should also switch to the permanent delegate system, convening annually. This is an institutional issue and also a key point in the revision of the Party Constitution. Besides this, there is a lot of other content in the revisions to the Party Constitution.

Second, regarding the composition of the central leadership. Primarily for national security and for the smooth functioning of work, the central level intends to establish several layers of safeguards and create the position of General Secretary. The Political Bureau of the Central Committee is prepared to propose to the new Central Committee to recommend Comrade Deng Xiaoping for the position of General Secretary. Because he is already serving as General Secretary. What is a secretary-general? According to the English usage, it is General Secretary. But in the minds of Chinese people, there is a distinction—a secretary-general is a secretary-general, and a General Secretary is something else. Well then, let us establish a General Secretary.
In the past, the Secretariat of the Central Committee consisted of five comrades: Comrade Zhu De, Comrade Enlai, Comrade Chen Yun, Comrade Shaoqi, and myself, along with one alternate secretary, Comrade Peng Zhen. Before that, there were two alternate secretaries, Comrades Chen Yun and Peng Zhen, with Comrade Chen Yun filling Comrade Bi Shi's vacancy. When these several comrades held meetings, the Secretary-General often participated, and occasionally other comrades joined as well. There were many times when a large number of comrades attended meetings—for instance, when discussing the issue of counter-revolutionaries, the leaders of the five-person group and responsible comrades from the Ministry of Public Security all participated. When discussing other issues, such as the issue of *Dream of the Red Chamber*, Comrade Zhou Yang participated; for industrial issues, commercial issues, cooperative transformation issues, and various other matters, the relevant comrades all participated. However, what is lacking is a working body, that is, a secretariat. The current secretariat is still not very convenient for work. Therefore, we plan to organize a Secretariat under the Political Bureau and its Standing Committee. As for its composition—full and alternate members—it has not yet been discussed. Henceforth, this Secretariat will be responsible for the daily work of the Central Committee, such as preparing documents and reviewing the implementation of work.
The Political Bureau of the Central Committee will also establish a Standing Committee. The Standing Committee will be equivalent to the old Secretariat. Because it is estimated that the new Political Bureau may have more than just 13 members; the combined number of Political Bureau members and alternate members could reach over 20. We believe it is necessary to organize a small Standing Committee, a small "cabinet."
There are also the positions of Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Central Committee. In the past, there was only the Chairman of the Central Committee, no Vice Chairman, and no General Secretary. Now we are establishing the position of General Secretary and also that of Vice Chairman. Should there be one Vice Chairman or several? We have also considered this question and discussed it with some comrades, feeling that several would be better. In a large country like ours, with a population of 600 million and 11 million Party members, having only one Chairman and one Vice Chairman feels too solitary. We plan to propose to the new Central Committee that the several former secretaries all serve as Vice Chairmen. "The weather has unpredictable storms, and people have unforeseen misfortunes morning or evening." Whether one falls from an airplane, or a bomb drops and kills the Chairman—there would still be a Vice Chairman; if one Vice Chairman is killed, there are still three others; if two are killed, there are still two; if three are killed, there is still one; if all are killed, there is still the General Secretary. (Laughter) In short, preparedness averts peril.
Additionally, when necessary, an Honorary Chairman should be established. This is also for the sake of preparedness. Some people do not approve of establishing this position now; that can be considered. Whether to establish it or not depends on whether it benefits the Party and the nation.

Third, was the line implemented by the Central Committee and its Political Bureau between the previous two congresses correct? There can be two answers: one saying it was correct, the other saying it was wrong. Why can there be two answers? For instance, the Yugoslav ambassador sought out a Bulgarian Central Committee member, along with several others from the Bulgarian embassy, gathered at his place for a meeting, and said that the Chinese Communist Party is an opportunist party, that without overthrowing Stalin, socialism in China could not be built, because Stalin's portrait still hangs on Tiananmen in China.

The opposition was not thorough enough, and there were many other issues as well. Therefore, he asserted that socialism in China could not be successfully built. If it later fails, that would mean our current and past line has been wrong. There is also an old comrade from the Indian Party who says our line is anti-Leninist and anti-Marxist. In short, there are quite a few people internationally who doubt our line. At one time, a considerable number of people regarded our Party as an opportunist party, saying there is not just one Tito in the world but two—one in Yugoslavia and one in China. The Tito in China is me. I am Tito, and you all are somewhat suspect too! (Laughter) Moreover, quite a few people say we are a nationalist party, a bourgeois party, not a proletarian one, not a Marxist one. When did this atmosphere begin to change? First, it was when the Sino-Soviet Treaty was signed, and especially during the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea. Once the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea came, the world situation changed, and whether it was the Chinese Party or the government, neither was pro-American anymore. If you resist U.S. aggression, how can you be pro-American? Being pro-American means not resisting U.S. aggression. Just because there are relatively few people criticizing us domestically, we should not assume our line is correct. The international community's recognition of our Party has involved a historical process, a process of understanding. Do all 11 million comrades within our Party fully endorse this line? Not necessarily. Eleven million Party members—can you check so thoroughly that not a single one opposes it? It is not like that. From the Zunyi Conference, through the Yan'an Rectification, to the present, although we must still adopt the policy of "learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones and curing the sickness to save the patient" within the Party, the policy of developing and consolidating the united front domestically, and the policy of cooperating well with the Soviet Union internationally, cooperating well with the people's democracies, cooperating well with the worldwide communist movement and the communist parties of various countries, and forming alliances with national liberation movements, this does not mean there is no doubt about our line. Should such issues be discussed during the preparatory meeting? I think it would be better to discuss them. Because when convening a congress, it is always necessary to talk about whether the past was right or wrong, and this does not hinder the criticism of mistakes. The Central Committee has made mistakes in these twelve years—we cannot say there have been none; quite a number of mistakes can be cited. But as for the line, I suggest—and perhaps I can gain the agreement of the comrades present—that we should affirm that our line is correct, that it is not an opportunist line but a line that emerged in the course of struggling against opportunist lines. Our line is not anti-Marxist-Leninist; it is a line established after criticizing anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist lines. Specifically, it is the line that came into being through the rectification movement and the adoption of resolutions on certain historical issues—the line set forth at the Seventh Congress. We have carried out two revolutions, and we have two general lines: the general line of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the general line of the transition period for socialist transformation. If you want to say the general line of the democratic revolution was wrong, you could argue so—for example, the Trotskyites criticize us this way, always calling us a peasant party. This label of "peasant party" has spread far and wide; the U.S. State Department once particularly appreciated this characterization, though now they say we are not one. I say we have a confidant, who is also Chinese—"Generalissimo Chiang," Chiang Kai-shek. This man understands us quite well; internationally, he has always defended us, saying: You must never trust the Communist Party; it is a thoroughly despicable party, bent on implementing communism and will never compromise with you. Do not fantasize about separating China from the Soviet side or creating a Yugoslav-style Tito—this won't work. Without our paying him a salary, the newspapers and periodicals he controls in Hong Kong and Taiwan have all been spreading this propaganda and doing this explanatory work for us. (Laughter) At the same time, the Americans have also been doing explanatory work for us—after we overthrew Chiang Kai-shek, they took over this task, also without us paying them a salary. The British sometimes explain and sometimes do not, saying: There is still a possibility of dividing China from the Soviet Union, a possibility of a Tito emerging in China; look, their land reform is different, and their approach to capitalists is different. When the Americans curse us and Chiang Kai-shek curses us, is that not enough to show that China is not Yugoslavia? When the Americans curse us, everyone then understands that the Chinese Communist Party probably has a touch of Marxism; otherwise, why would the Americans curse us so much? Even so, has this issue now been completely settled? It has not yet been settled. Internationally, people are still watching: What exactly are you doing? For instance, regarding our approach to the bourgeoisie, many foreigners do not understand, and some Chinese comrades do not understand either.

Among Chinese comrades, there are many "Leftists." The original method of the October Revolution is deeply ingrained in people's minds, and many within our Party who have contact with capitalists, given the "Three Antis" and "Five Antis" campaigns, believe the bourgeoisie to be so bad—this view is also deeply ingrained. In these recent months, there has been some change because education has been carried out. With regard to China's bourgeoisie, the "Three Antis" and "Five Antis" were the most intense struggles; afterward, there may still be various civilized struggles such as persuasion and criticism, and it is possible to carry out transformation and confiscation without resorting to additional coercive methods. This is not opportunism; this is applying Marxism-Leninism in accordance with China's specific conditions. Therefore, can we affirm that the Central Committee between these two congresses has carried out the line of the Seventh Congress, and that the line of the Seventh Congress was correct? May I put this forward for the comrades to discuss.

--- Notes

At this meeting, while Deng Xiaoping was explaining several documents submitted to the Seventh Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee, Mao Zedong interjected: "Regarding the number of members for this Central Committee, the Political Bureau has also considered whether it could be 200 or 300. Later, we considered that expanding the scope so broadly would be difficult to arrange. The so-called '38-style' cadres involve many connections. If you are elected but I am not, or I am elected but he is not, there will be great problems. Therefore, the principle remains to select those before the '38-style.' But the delegates may break through this '38-style' boundary. The so-called '38-style' refers to cadres who emerged during the Anti-Japanese War period. Indeed, there are many outstanding cadres of the '38-style,' but because the connections are too extensive, generally, '38-style' cadres will not be selected. Our current policy is to persuade them to wait a few years, which also has benefits. Waiting a few years is not bad; they will be more mature and enjoy greater public trust. For now, let those comrades before the '38-style' continue to hold power in the Central Committee. The number of Central Committee members is planned to be set between 150 and 170, including both full and alternate members." When Deng Xiaoping mentioned that several members of the previous Central Committee had been relieved of their duties, Mao Zedong said: "When the Political Bureau discussed this issue, we felt that we should suggest to the delegates that it would be more advantageous for all the original Central Committee members to be re-elected. For ordinary comrades, re-election is naturally not a problem. The main issue concerns several leading comrades who made mistakes in the past. For example, regarding the two lines, seated here today are representatives of the Li Lisan line and representatives of the Wang Ming line. Asking the delegates to elect them may cause some resistance among some delegates. We believe that including both of them in the election would be more advantageous. The world is full of strange things. At the Seventh Congress, it was also initially not passed, but later they were elected. Was their election ultimately harmful or beneficial to our cause? Not harmful, but beneficial. Because this is not a personal issue for them; it involves many people within the Party who share their ideas, and it also affects perceptions outside the Party—that we do not lightly cast people aside, that even when they have made such serious mistakes, we still accommodate them. Can we persuade the delegates? Of course, we cannot impose our will on others. If the delegates are determined not to elect them, what can you do? But we hope to persuade everyone. The heads and deputy heads of delegations, and the Central Committee members seated here, must all work on this, so that all members of the previous term are re-elected. This time, the situation with the French Communist Party was the same—all members of their previous term were re-elected. We are also adopting their approach; let's see if it works. This is one suggestion."


While Deng Xiaoping was explaining several documents, Mao Zedong also said: "This time, the focus is on construction. The report touches on several major topics: the domestic situation, socialist transformation, construction, the people's democratic dictatorship, and the Party. All can be discussed. But there are two focal points: one is socialist transformation, and the other is economic construction. Of these two focal points, the main emphasis is still on construction, which takes up the major portion of this report—about half of the 30,000 characters are devoted to construction."