According to how things are developing, I think the report is not bad; it’s just that the first part needs to be revised. The rest is well written.
This concerns the documents.
Another matter is the election. We have already completed the preliminary selection of 111 candidates. Based on the results of this pre-selection, everyone basically approves the list proposed by the Central Committee. A few comrades still have some opinions—only a handful wish to remove names from the list, and only a very small number want to add new ones. In this situation, the issue becomes much easier to handle. During the Seventh Congress, the election also involved both additions and deletions based on the delegates’ views. The Presidium can likewise put forward new suggestions in light of these circumstances. There won’t be time tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or the day following that; we have two days for reports, but there’s still more than a week before the actual election. We therefore have ample opportunity to finalize the list of Central Committee members and alternate candidates. Any further adjustments regarding individual names can still be made. The question of the election should be left to the Presidium. In due course, the Presidium’s Standing Committee will consult with the heads and deputy heads of each delegation on this matter. Among the over one thousand of us here, there are differing opinions and discussions. These views are certainly worth noting. However, overall, everyone is prioritizing the bigger picture. This is a positive sign.
Regarding the Presidium, we discussed it last time. Here is a list of sixty-three individuals. This list has been carefully considered: most of those included were already members of the Central Committee, while sixteen were not previously on the committee, representing various sectors. From the cultural and educational fields, we have Zhou Yang and Yang Xiufeng. For ethnic affairs, there are Liu Geping and Ulanhu. Ulanhu is an old member of the Central Committee, whereas Liu Geping has long been engaged in national minority work nationwide. To propose anyone else would involve too many complications, so we are sticking with Comrade Liu Geping, whose seniority is also quite strong. Representing the military are Huang Kecheng and Tan Zheng. All delegation leaders are included, which makes it easier to conduct consultations. As for regional representation, we have leaders from major administrative regions, along with several central ministers. There are also a few female comrades, in addition to the three who are already Central Committee members.
Besides the Central Committee members, there is also Qian Ying. (Comrade Deng Xiaoping interjects: Now we’ve added Shuai Mengqi.)
In addition, there are representatives from the labor and youth organizations. In summary, the Presidium only proposes changing one person—replacing Wang Heshou with Comrade Shuai Mengqi—and keeping everything else as it is. Does this list meet with your approval? Please take this opportunity over the next couple of days to communicate it to the delegates.
The congress will appoint several additional vice-secretaries-general, including Comrades Wang Jiaxiang, Liu Ningyi, and Zhang Jichun. This is necessary for issuing documents and handling press and publicity work. Who else is there? (Comrade Deng Xiaoping interjects: Also Tan Zheng.) Comrade Tan Zheng represents the military. As for the secretary-general, I believe it should remain Deng Xiaoping. (Comrade Deng Xiaoping interjects: No secretary-general.) How could we do without a secretary-general! Do we need a secretary-general? (The entire hall responds in unison: Yes!) There is absolutely no question that we need a secretary-general.
Another issue is the speeches. Everyone should strive to keep their remarks brief and avoid overly discursive forms. Some may focus on the poor quality of our production, others on subjectivism, and still others on sectarianism. Great-Han chauvinism is a form of sectarianism, as is great-power chauvinism—the notion that “we conquered the country while others merely enjoy its fruits” falls into this category. Similarly, paternalistic interference in matters concerning ethnic minorities, where they are given titles but no real power, or the attitude displayed during the Three-Anti and Five-Anti Campaigns toward capitalists, are all undesirable practices. What we need to do is unite more people around us. Even with counter-revolutionaries, our approach should be reform through labor, guided by humanitarian principles. Why pursue such a humane policy? Precisely because our goal is to transform them into useful members of society! We must prioritize education over profit-making, ensure they are adequately fed—even if it means incurring some financial loss—and refrain from seeking personal gain or accumulating wealth by exploiting prisoners. If we were to make money off the labor of inmates or simply amass resources through their exploitation, we would inevitably fail to achieve the purpose of rehabilitation. In the past, this was our stance toward prisoners of war, including Japanese prisoners; how much more so should it apply to Chinese citizens! Such a policy can indeed reform them and enable them to serve socialism. This pertains specifically to the reformation of counter-revolutionaries. As for non-counter-revolutionaries—for example, members of the bourgeoisie, exploiters among ethnic minorities, upper-class elements, nobility, and local leaders—we need to intensify our efforts to support them. We should grant genuine authority and responsibility to good people and other individuals from working-class backgrounds, truly assisting them rather than acting in their stead. Our Party, whether you say it exhibits relatively little sectarianism or quite a lot, is correct in either case.
At present, the central issue remains the speeches. Comrades, please pay close attention. Those of you present today include Central Committee members, heads and deputy heads of various delegations, secretaries of provincial party committees, and responsible officials from municipalities directly under the central government and autonomous region party committees. You should maintain contact with representatives from all sectors. The current focus has shifted—not on the reports, not on the documents, and essentially not even on the election—but on the speeches themselves. Of course, the core of the congress revolves around the documents; without solid reports, what would be the point of holding a congress at all? After all, the entire Party, the people of the whole country, and people around the world are watching to see what kind of reports we deliver. Resolutions will be addressed after the opening of the meeting. For now, the spotlight is on the speeches, and all comrades must pay particular attention to this matter. Speeches should be engaging, vivid, diverse, and concise. They should contain substantive content—praise as well as criticism, recognition of achievements alongside acknowledgment of shortcomings—and offer concrete solutions, avoiding rote repetition. A single, uniformly laudatory article published in the newspaper would hardly be appealing. This sort of writing is possible; for instance, the Political Report originally ran to 100,000 characters, was later trimmed to over 40,000, and now stands at less than 50,000. Therefore, a piece can be crafted in multiple ways—there might be a third or fourth variation as well. If our speeches can also reach a high standard, then this conference will proceed smoothly. Currently, these few reports are of considerable quality, and the election will likely go well too. The documents reflect collective input and collaborative creation, which in turn prepares everyone mentally. Without such mental preparation, any decision risks being imposed upon others—a practice we have also employed with non-Party members. Every important law we have enacted, such as the Common Program and subsequent constitutions, the Forty Articles on Agriculture, and the Regulations of Agricultural Cooperatives, were all developed over extended periods, repeatedly revised and refined based on widespread consultation. Why do we always pass resolutions by a show of hands? People often wonder: isn’t this just a forced command? Yet, when the Land Reform Law was being debated, Liu Wenhui himself raised his hand. This was no accident; it was preceded by thorough discussion, revisions, and clear explanations, allowing matters to move forward swiftly. Once consensus was reached, subsequent steps proceeded more harmoniously, ultimately fostering unity and solidarity.
Do any comrades have any comments?
In the draft of the Political Report, the phrase “We have consistently pursued a policy combining punishment and leniency toward counter-revolutionaries and other criminals” was previously expressed as “suppression and leniency.” It was I who changed it to “punishment.” The term “suppression” carries a frightening connotation, so I opted for “punishment.” I am considering revising this phrasing further. Previously, it was stated as “a combination of suppression and leniency,” leading some to interpret suppression as equivalent to killing. However, in recent years, executions have become extremely rare, and related issues have largely disappeared, leaving only the matter of punishment. Combining punishment with leniency does not mean adopting an exclusively punitive approach.
The issue of capital punishment has been discussed within the Politburo on two occasions, once during a session of the National People’s Congress. The prevailing view is as follows: “The CPC Central Committee believes that, except for a very small number of heinous criminals whose crimes have aroused public outrage and thus warrant the death penalty, all other offenders should not be sentenced to death. Instead, they should receive fully humane treatment during their imprisonment. Any cases requiring the death penalty should invariably be adjudicated or approved by the Supreme People’s Court.” The subsequent phrase “in order to exercise utmost caution” can be omitted. The statement “Thus, we can gradually move toward the complete abolition of the death penalty” is a commitment without a specific timeline; the phrase “gradually” does not specify a year, merely indicating that one day the death penalty will be entirely abolished. Marxists advocate for the abolition of capital punishment. This constitutes our current policy. Through capitalist transformation, further public-private joint ventures, and agricultural collectivization, the base of counter-revolutionary forces has been significantly reduced, dramatically altering the balance of class forces. Our side has grown stronger, while the exploiting classes have weakened, and the influence of counter-revolutionaries has diminished accordingly. Consequently, we feel less apprehension, and our regime has become more secure. We have consulted with comrades in various localities and with ordinary people, and they all perceive that the current policy no longer centers on execution; there is no longer a need to kill so many people. Opening the floodgates to executions would inevitably lead to widespread terror. In the past, we carried out executions to liberate productive forces, which had been shackled by certain elements. The so-called old society was one dominated by outdated relations of production, and counter-revolutionaries were the most concentrated embodiment of those relations. Unless a portion of them were eliminated, the masses would be unable to rise up and achieve liberation. The Liberation War and the broader liberation movement were undertaken precisely to free up productive potential. Were there instances of indiscriminate killings? Indeed, there were cases of severe crimes receiving lenient sentences and minor offenses being punished harshly. However, fundamentally speaking, using the death penalty to dismantle this small segment of society served the purpose of unleashing productive forces. As a result, the number of counter-revolutionaries has steadily declined year after year. Only a very small number of particularly heinous criminals, whose actions have sparked widespread public indignation—whether at the township, district, county, or national level—still warrant the death penalty. By retaining this provision, we can avoid executing them. For all other offenders, the death penalty should not be applied, and they should instead receive humane treatment. Regarding the concept of “combining punishment and leniency,” is it feasible to revise the earlier formulation of “combining suppression and leniency”? Absolutely. Our nation has essentially ceased carrying out executions; any future executions require central approval. This matter has not yet been formally discussed within the central leadership itself, though it has been debated at expanded meetings of the Politburo. During the Tang Dynasty’s golden age, only about a dozen death sentences were handed down annually, all decided at the central level. Similarly, during the Song Dynasty, when the empire enjoyed relative stability, executions were exceedingly rare and likewise required central authorization and imperial ratification. What are your thoughts—are there any flaws in this approach?
Throughout Chinese history, there has always been a binary choice: either you destroy me, or I destroy you—there has never been a middle ground or a compromise. Our approach, however, takes a different path: we do not seek to annihilate former rulers, those who have erred, or those whom we ourselves have overthrown. Back in Yan’an, we established a rule stipulating that no one should be executed, in order to prevent unintended consequences and irreversible mistakes. By adopting a policy of complete preservation toward counter-revolutionaries, we have effectively neutralized their disruptive potential. As for ideological or political errors, those are treated separately. This approach contrasts sharply with the principle of “one emperor, one set of officials,” ensuring far greater stability in positions. The bourgeois model operates differently: when one faction comes to power, the other must step down—but they are not destroyed. Our relationship with democratic parties is characterized by the united front, involving long-term coexistence, shared prosperity, and mutual support in times of adversity. All democratic parties are welcome to participate, finding their place within this framework. Within our own Party, the same principle applies: everyone should have access to food and stable positions, serving as an alternative to the bourgeois system. The bourgeois model, in contrast, is relatively progressive: in democracies like the United States or the United Kingdom, rival political parties do not eliminate each other; instead, they compete through elections. Should they lose, they can run again, and if the people choose them, they return to power. We cannot adopt this bourgeois approach, but rather continue to follow our current method. Regardless of whether someone is classified as a counter-revolutionary, an enemy, or simply someone with opposing views, anything that can be preserved should be preserved and provided with opportunities for work, while clarifying right from wrong. This represents a third way. We have been implementing this approach since the Seventh National Congress, and it has proven effective over the past eleven years, without causing any unrest. Moreover, decisions are made only after thorough prior consultation, rather than sudden, arbitrary actions imposed upon others. That is why this conference has lasted for half a month, with all delegates present, despite preliminary selections, document revisions, and various opinions—yet foreign media have portrayed it as merely news.
Regarding the documents (II), they have basically been approved today, and comrades can still review them; there is still time. Tomorrow (the 14th) and the 15th are fine, but changes cannot be made on the 16th. Xinhua News Agency must broadcast the final version by 8 PM on the 16th, and it will be published in the newspapers on the 17th. (A report will be delivered on the 15th, while only news items will appear in the papers on the 16th.) Therefore, there are still two and a half days available for submitting comments, which should be submitted in writing to the Secretariat. Is it acceptable that they have been basically approved today? The task of making further revisions should be entrusted to the Secretariat and the drafting committee.
I would also like to discuss the issue of establishing a Vice Chairman and a General Secretary. We touched upon this previously: the Central Committee plans to appoint four Vice Chairmen—Comrades Shaoqi, Enlai, Zhu De, and Chen Yun. Additionally, a Secretariat is being prepared, although the list of its members has not yet been finalized. However, the plan is to nominate Comrade Deng Xiaoping as General Secretary. Are these choices for the four Vice Chairmen and the General Secretary appropriate? Of course, this is the responsibility of the Central Committee, and the election will be conducted by the Central Committee itself. Nevertheless, to ensure that the delegates are informed, I suggest you solicit their opinions—is this a good idea? For a large organization like ours, and for a major country such as China, for the sake of national security and Party security, it might be preferable to have a few more people involved.
[I]
Refers to the Political Report to the Eighth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, delivered by Liu Shaoqi at the Eighth National Congress of the CPC.

It's better to have a few more people.
The Party Constitution currently proposes an amendment titled “Establishment of Several Vice Chairmen.” The initial proposal to appoint four Vice Chairmen came from Comrade Shaoqi. With just one Chairman and one Vice Chairman, both Shaoqi and I felt rather isolated. Having one Chairman accompanied by four Vice Chairmen, along with a General Secretary, creates multiple layers of protection for me—an analogy akin to a windbreak. As the saying goes, “Heaven may bring unforeseen storms, and humans face unexpected fortune or misfortune,” this arrangement makes it easier to manage such uncertainties. Unless a nuclear bomb were to strike directly and hit all of us simultaneously, if only a few individuals were harmed—due to illness or accident—and needed to be replaced immediately, there would still be others to step in, preventing any impact on the nation, unlike the Soviet Union, where Stalin’s death led to immediate chaos. We aim to prepare for such contingencies. At the same time, having more personnel offers practical benefits in terms of workload distribution. Appointing a General Secretary is entirely necessary.
I consider myself, along with the Commander-in-Chief, Comrade Shaoqi (though excluding Comrades Enlai, Chen Yun, and Deng Xiaoping—who belong to the younger generation)—to be merely supporting players. We lack the qualifications to take center stage; our role is limited to maintaining continuity and providing assistance. Please do not assume that I am backing down or losing interest in my duties. In truth, I am physically, age-wise, and energetically less capable than others. I belong to the camp of those who prefer to maintain the status quo, relying on my seniority for sustenance. Seniority does offer advantages, as it reflects experience. However, my abilities have waned—particularly in areas such as writing and delivering speeches. My colleagues are concerned that having too many individuals in such roles might prove counterproductive, and their concerns are valid. So, who should serve as Chairman and Vice Chairmen? Primarily, these positions should be filled by existing members of the Secretariat. This does not preclude other comrades from being nominated; they can certainly be proposed as well. However, according to convention, for now, the arrangement will consist of one Chairman and four Vice Chairmen. I have already prepared myself to step down from the position of Chairman when the time comes and request that the comrades appoint me as Honorary Chairman. Does being an Honorary Chairman mean doing nothing? Not at all. As long as there is work to be done, I will continue to contribute. I urge my colleagues to deliberate and determine whether this arrangement is appropriate. The primary objective is to enhance national security by having more individuals share responsibility. As for changing the title from General Secretary to Chief Secretary, it is merely a matter of translating between Chinese and foreign terminology. (Comrade Deng Xiaoping: I am still comfortable serving as General Secretary.) He prefers to hold the Chinese title of General Secretary rather than the foreign designation of Chief Secretary. In fact, a foreign Chief Secretary is equivalent to a Chinese General Secretary, and vice versa. If he feels uncomfortable with this change, I can help promote the idea; if the majority agrees, the transition will proceed smoothly. I find Deng Xiaoping to be a fair-minded individual. Like me, he is not without flaws, but he tends to be more equitable. He is also highly competent and efficient. Some might argue that he excels at everything, but that is not the case. Similar to me, he has made numerous mistakes and occasionally spoken inaccurately. Nevertheless, compared with others, he demonstrates greater capability in getting things done. He is thoughtful, fair, and possesses a warm, approachable demeanor that puts people at ease. Today, I will offer him a few words of encouragement. Despite his reservations, I believe he is capable.
Whether Ji Dingshun finds this arrangement satisfactory depends on public opinion. From my observation, he seems relatively accepting. Dissatisfaction is bound to exist, much like some people harbor grievances against me. Certain individuals resent me because I have offended many, yet they chose me today precisely to uphold the larger interests of the Party. Can it be said that Deng Xiaoping has never incurred anyone’s displeasure? I find that hard to believe. Overall, however, he appears to be a pragmatic and compassionate leader who handles matters with fairness and rigor. He is particularly self-critical. He admits to feeling somewhat apprehensive, as he has experienced intense internal struggles within the Party.
As for Comrade Chen Yun, his objections are similarly straightforward. I view him as a commendable figure—honest, capable, and steady. He possesses a keen insight into problems. Although I did not know him well in the past, after moving to Beijing and working alongside him in recent years, my understanding of him has deepened. Despite his calm exterior, he has a sharp mind and an ability to grasp the essence of issues. Therefore, I believe Comrade Chen Yun is suitable for the role. As for Ji Dingshun’s acceptance or rejection of this appointment, I leave that judgment to everyone else. Isn’t it true that the proportion of workers among our Central Committee members is relatively low? On the contrary, I believe it is quite substantial. Among the five members of our Presidium—Chairman, Vice Chairmen, and General Secretary—there is at least one worker. I encourage you to deliberate on this matter within your respective delegations, as the Politburo members, Secretariat officials, Chairman, Vice Chairmen, and General Secretary should jointly present a unified list. Regarding the Standing Committee, it is planned to be composed of the Chairman, Vice Chairmen, and General Secretary. This does not mean that others cannot serve on the Standing Committee; alternatives are certainly possible. One person can be nominated, followed by a second and then a third, so for now, we are adopting this approach. Essentially, this transforms the previous Secretariat into a Standing Committee, with the addition of a General Secretary. Furthermore, a separate Secretariat will be established, potentially comprising a larger number of members—with perhaps a dozen or more secretaries and deputy secretaries. Many tasks will be handled there, and proposals will be put forward. The quota for Politburo members will also be expanded—from thirteen to around twenty—since our Central Committee currently consists of 170 members, possibly slightly more. Let us explore whether such an arrangement is feasible. No decision will be made today.
The Complete Works of Mao Zedong, Volume 36
This book is exclusively licensed by Mr. Zhang Dijie, the chief editor, to rr Publishing in Hong Kong. All rights reserved. Reproduction prohibited.
Title:
The Complete Works of Mao Zedong, Volume 36
Editor-in-chief: Zhang i!!!jie
Responsible department: Editorial Committee of The Complete Works of Mao Zedong
Committee Director: Liuxing
Planning: Shuwang
Publisher: Rundong Press
Printer: Rundong Press Co., Ltd.
Distributor: ii Write East Press Co., Ltd.
Telephone:
(852) 23500066
Email:
I 236688@enricheast.com
Website:
www.en richeasl.com
Address: Room 09, 5th Floor, Xingli Industrial Center, No. 7 Hongguang Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong
Consultant: Advisory Group of Rundong Press Co., Ltd.
Leader: Yanchen
Binding: Paperback
Format:
170mm × 240mm, special edition of 16 open pages
Pages:
544 pages
Edition:
First edition released on January 1, 2013
First printing on January 1, 2013
Second printing on February 1, 2013
Print run:
500 sets
Total word count of the complete works:
2015 million characters
ISBN: 978-988-12907『0-0
Price:
$26,800 per volume for all 52 volumes
If this book is damaged, missing pages, or improperly bound, please contact this publisher for replacement.

--- Notes

[I] Preliminary selection refers to the process preceding the official convening of the Eighth National Congress, whereby candidates for the Central Committee were nominated. The procedure was as follows: First, each delegation conducted its own election based on individual nominations from attending delegates, resulting in a list of candidates for their respective delegations. These lists were then consolidated, and the Politburo, together with the heads and deputy heads of each delegation, agreed upon a unified preliminary list, which was subsequently submitted to the delegations for another round of voting. Finally, based on the outcomes of this preliminary vote, the Politburo presented the formal list of candidates to the Congress.