**I. The International Situation**

Let us talk about launching satellites. The launch was a good thing. This satellite is more than twice the size of the second one. In a few months; one year, two years, or several years from now, we may perhaps launch an even bigger one, weighing two thousand kilograms. At the Moscow meeting, I talked about launching a fifty-thousand-kilogram one; reaching five thousand kilograms is only one-tenth of that. Once we break through this barrier, we can build ones weighing twenty to thirty thousand kilograms. This is a very great and good thing.

The capitalist world now has many troubles, whereas our world currently has relatively few. We are united and consolidated. Yugoslavia is not in our camp; it does not count. It is not that we do not want them, but that they themselves refuse to join. The situation among the twelve countries of our camp is very good. The situation has always been good; there has never been a day when it was not good. It is just that sometimes there are dark clouds in the sky, and some people think we are no good and others are good. I say we are good. At the Moscow meeting, I presented ten pieces of evidence proving that we have always been good. Chiang Kai-shek was in Nanjing, and we were in Yan'an. Who was truly good? At that time, Yan'an had only seven thousand people, including the suburban areas, whereas Nanjing was huge. Major cities like Nanjing and Shanghai were all in the hands of Chiang Kai-shek. They had an army of several million; we only had a few hundred thousand guerrilla fighters. It has always been the case that the small defeats the large, and the weak defeats the strong. The small and weak have vitality, while the large and strong lack it. The overall situation is very good. Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek, and U.S. imperialism are not worth mentioning. We have always regarded U.S. imperialism as a paper tiger. It is a pity there is only one U.S. imperialism; even if there were ten more, they would not be worth mentioning. Sooner or later, it is doomed to perish.

The Japanese people told me in Beijing: "We are very ashamed; we invaded you in the past." I said, you did a good thing. It was precisely because of your aggression, your occupation of more than half of China, that we united, led the people of the whole country, fought and drove you out, and arrived in Beijing. When we were in Yan'an, we said, when would we ever get to see the operas of Mei Lanfang and Cheng Yanqiu? Some people feared they would never see them in their lifetime, but we did see them. The revolutionary situation developed very rapidly. Seven years later, the whole country united, overthrew Chiang Kai-shek, and now we must unite again for construction. The Seventh Congress had a program. This meeting is also a congress of unity and a congress of victory; it also has a common program. The entire Party has unanimously formulated a general line for building socialism, which is also the general line for the people of the whole country. The unity of the entire Party and the unity of the people across the nation—this is the domestic situation.

Internationally, there are many troubles. The imperialists are quarrelling among themselves. The world is not peaceful. Troubles in France, Algeria, Latin America, Indonesia, and Lebanon all occur in the capitalist world, but they all relate to us. Everything that opposes imperialism is advantageous to us. The imperialists quarrel internally, they oppress Indonesia, Lebanon, and Latin America, and they also vie for Algeria. (I will not elaborate; you can read the materials.) In short, sometimes the situation seems poor, with dark clouds in the sky. At such times, we must have foresight and not be misled by temporary phenomena, not be misled by temporary darkness, thinking that we are no good, that the world is bad, and that we are about to suffer misfortune. That is not the case at all! The worst period in our past was the Long March, with enemies blocking the front and pursuing from behind. Our army dwindled, leaving only a tiny number. Our territory shrank, and the Party also became smaller, reduced from ten fingers to just one. We overcame even such difficulties and were tempered by them. Later, when opportunity came, we developed again, growing from one finger back to ten fingers, all the way to the establishment of the People's Republic of China and achieving nationwide victory. The first chapter on the first page of the *History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union* discusses the dialectics of growing from small to large. The CPSU began as a small group of a few people and developed into a great party of the Soviet Federation. At that time, they did not have a single gun, while their enemies—first the Tsar, later the Kerensky government—were fully armed. Which is stronger: being fully armed or being bare-handed? Tell me, which is stronger? I say the bare-handed people are stronger. Who ultimately triumphs over whom? The situation of our Party is the same. When our Party was founded in 1921, there were only a few dozen members. At the First National Congress, there were twelve delegates. Comrade Dong Biwu, you were there! You participated, didn't you? Zhou Fohai, who attended that congress, was a "good comrade" (laughter). And Chen Gongbo was another "good comrade" (laughter). Chen Duxiu did not attend the meeting but was elected General Secretary because of his prestige. However, he was not a capable man, not fit for the role. He was a Bernsteinist. He engaged in the democratic revolution as a radical, but he did not understand socialism. He did not understand uninterrupted revolution and made mistakes. Think about the history of our Party, how many hardships we have endured! There was the Long March, and also the period from the Third Plenary Session to the Fourth Plenary Session. The Fourth Plenary Session was held in Shanghai, when very few people were left. It was a crisis of survival, the Party was splitting.

At the time of the 25,000-li Long March, the Party was also splitting. The Party went through a split and later reunited. After Zhang Guotao fled, the Party restored its unity. Later, in Yan'an, Chiang Kai-shek and Japan besieged us, dividing us into more than a dozen base areas. In such a difficult situation, was Yan'an stronger, or was Nanjing stronger? Were we stronger, or was Chiang Kai-shek stronger? It is now proven that we are stronger. Otherwise, why can we now hold a meeting in Huairen Hall, and why did he flee to Taiwan? Who is the victor?

China is an important component of the international situation. When speaking of the international situation, one must speak of China. Citing China's example proves that the oppressed working people have vitality. Now, socialism has a large allied army. The national independence movements in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are our allied army. These regions are the rear areas of imperialism. In their rear, we have our allies; we have circled around to the rear of imperialism. Lenin said, "Advanced Asia, backward Europe." Europe—Britain, France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, Portugal—has become backward. The United States is also backward. Look, are they advanced or are we advanced? Stalin understood this point. In June 1949, Comrade ××× led our Party delegation to the Soviet Union. At a banquet, Stalin raised a toast, congratulating China on surpassing the Soviet Union in the future. Comrade ××× said, "We cannot drink this toast. You are the teacher, and we are the students. If we catch up with you, you will have already advanced further." Stalin said, "No, if a student does not surpass the teacher, what kind of good student is that? You must drink." A standoff lasted for ten to twenty minutes, and finally, Comrade ××× drank it. The teacher teaches the student; if the student cannot surpass the teacher, the student has no fighting spirit. This shows that not only Lenin but also Stalin saw the advanced East. A strong teacher produces strong students. We must not be arrogant, sticking our tails up to the sky, nor should we have a sense of inferiority, belittling ourselves unjustly. We must break down superstitions and place ourselves in the proper position. We should dare to think, dare to speak, and dare to act, based on Marxism-Leninism. Tito also dares to think, dares to speak, and dares to act, but his basis is imperialism and capitalism, not Marxism-Leninism. Our basis is Marxism-Leninism; therefore, we are correct. So, in daring to think, speak, and act, no chaos will ensue.

**II. The Domestic Situation**

Let us talk about domestic issues. The domestic issue remains a question of the peasantry as the allied army. The Chinese revolution has always been a question of the peasant allied army. If the working class lacks the peasant allied army, it cannot achieve its own liberation, nor can it build a strong nation. Before liberation, the number of workers in our country was only four million (excluding handicrafts workers). Now, it is twelve million, a threefold increase. Including their families, the number is only about forty million. Meanwhile, there are over five hundred million peasants. The issue of China has always been the issue of the peasant allied army. Some comrades are not very clear on this question—unclear even after spending decades in the countryside. Why was the mistake of opposing rash advance made in 1956? The main reason lies in this issue. Not understanding the thoughts and sentiments of the peasants well, one lacks roots and is easily shaken when storms come. In 1956, we published a book on the socialist upsurge in the countryside, compiling materials from over 190 cooperatives across various provinces and autonomous regions, with several articles from every province, except Tibet. Actually, so many were not needed. The materials from the Wang Guofan cooperative in Zunhua County, Hebei Province, were almost sufficient. There was also a poor people's cooperative in Central Hebei. The middle peasants ran away, leaving only three poor peasant households that did not disperse; they persisted. These three households pointed the direction for five hundred million peasants. Many cooperatives in every province increased their production, doubling or multiplying it several times over. Do you still not believe it? That the forty-article agricultural program can definitely be realized, do you still not believe it? I think it can be realized. In 1955, 1956, and the first half of 1957, quite a number of people did not believe—there were many so-called "wait-and-see" faction members, from the central level down to various levels. There are still those Comrade ××× calls the "settle-accounts-after-autumn" faction, who look not for positive factors but only for negative ones. They listen to a few cadres saying things are not so good in the countryside. Three or four people whisper in their ears, saying cooperatives are no good, so their vision turns pitch black: peasants cannot eat their fill, production has not increased, there is no surplus grain, and so on. Family members write letters exaggerating hardships to ask for money, making things sound very bitter, claiming grain, oil, and cloth are all gone. Otherwise, you would not send money. You must analyze this: is grain, oil, and cloth really all gone? Comrade Ke Qingshi told me about a survey he did in Jiangsu. In 1955, thirty percent of the cadres at the county, district, and township levels stirred up trouble most fiercely, crying "bitterness" on behalf of the peasants, saying the state monopoly for purchasing and marketing had taken too much. What were their class backgrounds? These cadres were all from rich middle-peasant backgrounds, or originally poor or lower-middle peasants who later rose to become rich middle peasants. The so-called "peasants' bitterness" is the bitterness of the rich middle peasants. The rich middle peasants want to hoard grain and not hand it over; they want to engage in capitalism, hence they loudly proclaim the peasants' bitterness. If the lower levels cry out like this, is there no one at the prefectural, provincial, or central levels who cries out as well? Is there no one who is more or less influenced by their families or the countryside? The question is from which class standpoint you view the issue: do you view it from the standpoint of the working class and the poor and lower-middle peasants, or from the standpoint of the rich middle peasants?

The situation is somewhat better now. There has been a Great Leap Forward in the countryside. After the rectification movement and the anti-rightist campaign, with cadres participating in labor and workers participating in some management work, the political atmosphere in urban and rural areas has changed. The "pessimism" about agriculture, the "no hope," the "forty articles cannot be realized" talk—it can be said these have been swept away entirely. However, there is still a portion of the "wait-and-see" faction and the "settle-accounts-after-autumn" faction. These people have not yet been completely swept away, so we must still pay attention to our work. Comrade Tan ××'s report mentioned the need to guard against being showy but not solid, superficial but not deep, crude but not meticulous. These words were put forward by Jiangsu. That is to say, we must see our own shortcomings. Among ten fingers, nine are bright, and one is a shadow side. "Showy" refers to flowers; do not just bloom without bearing fruit. "Crude but not meticulous"—Zhang Fei was crude but had his wits about him. We should just be like Zhang Fei: be crude yet meticulous. Do not be showy but not solid. Do not be crude but not meticulous, lest we fail to meet the targets by autumn. Comrades in all trades and departments must pay attention. Whatever the work—industry, agriculture, commerce, culture and education, novel writing—all must pay attention.

The domestic situation is excellent; it is a picture of brightness. In the past, thinking was not unified, including on the issue of "more, faster, better, more economical"—there was no confidence. "More, faster, better, more economical" refers to all industrial, agricultural, and transportation work. The basic issue is agriculture, the issue of the forty articles. Now confidence is high, due to the Great Leap Forward in agricultural production. The agricultural leap forward puts pressure on industry, forcing industry to catch up and advance together, propelling all work forward. At the Nanning Conference, a question was raised: in five years, or seven years, or exactly how many years, will the output value of local industry catch up to or surpass agricultural output value? The provinces then began planning. Once this guiding principle was raised, not counting January, just within three months—February, March, April—local industry in provinces, counties, and townships flourished vigorously. Now many comrades understand. In the second half of 1956, some comrades in the Central Committee did not quite understand. After going through 1956 and the first half of 1957—April, May, June—the issue is now resolved. Last June, Comrade Enlai's report to the National People's Congress was very good; he declared war on the bourgeoisie with the posture of a proletarian fighter. That article is well worth reading again. At that time, the issue was truly resolved. A deeper understanding came later.

The Central Committee now stipulates that responsible comrades should spend four months each year at the grassroots, dissecting a few sparrows, a few factories, and a few cooperatives. Root yourselves in the masses, and root the masses in your minds; otherwise, understanding will never be deep. I am grateful for the speech by the First Secretary of Changge County, Henan. It was an excellent speech, and I have read it again. Deep-plow all 1.2 million mu of land once a year, to a depth of one foot and five inches, and strive for yields of several hundred jin per mu. This raises a new question: can every county achieve this? Changge County in Henan can do it—can other counties not? If not in one year, then in two; if not in two, then in three; can it be done in four or five years? I think in five years it can always be done—they can plow all the county’s land once more in the second Five-Year Plan. Without good tools, use the tools like those in Changge County and adopt their methods. Their method is this: first, move the mature soil to one side, then apply fertilizer to the raw soil, then use a spade to turn over the second layer of raw soil, mix it with the fertilizer, break up the clods, and still leave it unmoved on the lower layer. Plow the second row next to it, turning the mature soil of the second row onto the raw soil of the first row, and continue in sequence, leaving the surface soil unchanged. This is a great invention—deep plowing once doubles the yield, or at least increases it by several tens of percent. Among measures to increase production, soil should be placed first: soil, fertilizer, water, seeds, and also close planting, which should be listed separately—rational close planting is essential. In Guangdong, they aim for 30,000 clusters per mu, with three seedlings per cluster, each seedling producing three shoots, yielding 270,000 ears, with an average of 60 grains per ear, totaling 16.2 million grains. With 20,000 grains per jin, that’s 800 jin per mu. Isn’t an 800-jin yield calculated that way? Wheat, corn, millet, sorghum, soybeans, and the like in the north can all be calculated in this manner. Close planting is about fully utilizing air and sunlight. Aren’t we opposing waste now? Then we should also oppose the waste of air and sunlight. The sun works diligently every day, yet you don’t make use of it; carbon dioxide in the air is absorbed by plants and transformed into carbohydrates through photosynthesis, producing what plants need—carbohydrates equal carbon dioxide plus sunlight. Grain is a storehouse of thermal energy, and every structure is a small reservoir. I’m digressing; the main point is about rooting and linking, studying a few cooperatives, a few factories, linking with a few military companies, a few schools for education, a few shops for commerce—don’t overdo it. In short, every sector should study a few, grasp a few sparrows, and only then will you gain deep impressions. We must respect materialist dialectics, and first respect materialism. Why respect materialism? Worldview, methodology, and epistemology—these three are one and the same. Where do human ideas come from? Are they innate at birth, or do they come only after practice? Human thought is not innate; it consists of concepts formed later through the reflection of external things. By seeing a dog, seeing a person, a child, a tree, a horse, a stone, and so on, concepts are formed. Only after concepts are initially formed can reasoning and judgment occur. Ask a three-year-old child, "Is your mother a dog or a person?" He can answer that she is a person, not a dog—this is the child’s judgment. The mother is particular; the person is general. Here there is identity. This unity of opposites between the particular and the universal—this is dialectics. So it can be said that a three-year-old child already understands the unity of contradictions and understands dialectics. Our ideas can only be formed through the stimulation of our senses by the objective world; they are formed by objective practice. Where do concepts come from? From the objective world. The present concept of "more, faster, better, more economical" was formed only after accumulating much experience—China’s experience, the Soviet Union’s experience, the experience of base areas, and years of construction experience. The phrases "go all out and aim high" are absolutely indispensable; without them, nothing will do. A person, a group, a party—without drive, or with insufficient drive, cannot get things done properly. Of course, we must strive for the upper reaches, strive to reach Sichuan; do not strive for the lower reaches—the lower reaches are Jiangxi. This borrows physical geography to discuss the issue. We must align with the advanced...

Our comrades must stay connected to the masses, truly understand the feelings of the masses, and let the feelings of the masses penetrate deep into our minds. If the masses’ feelings do not penetrate our minds, we are prone to waver. Once they penetrate, when problems arise in work, we will have ways to deal with them. In the past, when we fought battles, we often encountered difficulties—even at midnight we still had no solution, but after a night's sleep, a solution would emerge the next day. Difficult things, hard things, are always common. Sun Yat-sen accumulated forty years of experience; we have accumulated several decades of experience and know well that whenever difficulties arise, consult the masses, sleep on it, hold a meeting, and the problem can be solved. Is there now no problem, no difficulty? Do not be daunted by momentary darkness. We often have two factors: one is light, the other is darkness. Right now, northern Hebei is suffering from drought and no rain—do you think comrades in Hebei are not worried? They produced 4 billion jin last year and aim for 8 billion jin this year; even with drought, they must increase output by 5 to 6 billion jin. The domestic situation is very good; if there is darkness, do not fear it. There are two sides: light and darkness. Comrades who have made mistakes understood this by last June, and now understand it more deeply. There are also many "wait-and-see factions" and "settle-accounts-after-autumn factions"—no need to fear them either. Explain more reasoning, persuade them earnestly, and lay out the international and domestic situation for education.

III. Eliminating the Four Pests

Let’s talk about eliminating the four pests. Is eliminating the four pests good? I am very interested. *Reference News* says that Indians are also interested and want to eliminate the four pests. They have monkeys as one pest—they eat a lot of grain, but no one dares to beat them because they are considered gods.

We do not raise slogans like "cadres decide everything" or "technology decides everything," nor do we say "Soviets plus electrification equals communism." If we don't raise this slogan, does it mean we won’t electrify? We will electrify just the same, and electrify even more intensively. The first two slogans were Stalin's formulations and are one-sided. "Technology decides everything"—what about politics? "Cadres decide everything"—what about the masses? Here there is a lack of dialectics. Stalin sometimes understood dialectics, sometimes did not. I made this point at the Moscow conference.

Our slogans—more, faster, better, more economical—I think our slogans are somewhat more brilliant. They ought to be more brilliant. Because the teacher produces students, and students should surpass the teacher; the blue comes from the indigo but is bluer than indigo. The latecomers surpass the forerunners. I think our communism may arrive ahead of schedule. He says "cadres decide everything"—do we want cadres? He says "technology decides everything"—do we want technology? He says "Soviets plus electrification"—we want communism. I think our communism can arrive ahead of schedule. The Soviet Union’s original base in 1913 was 4 million tons of steel. That was two years after the 1911 Revolution. During the October Revolution, there were 4 million workers. Not counting the three years of civil war from 1917 to 1920, if we count from 1921 to 1940, and up to June 1941, that’s 20 years plus half a year, and they reached 18 million tons of steel. The German-Soviet war began in June 1941, and with just that amount of steel, they defeated Hitler. In 20 and a half years, the Soviet Union increased its base by 14 million tons of steel. We do not need that much time; we have the Soviet Union’s help, a population of 600 million, and 40 years of Soviet experience. Learn from them, but adopt what is right and reject what is wrong. Tens of millions of tons of steel do not interest me greatly. In 1962, we aim for 30 million tons—some say 35 million tons, others say 40 million tons. Eight years plus five years makes 13 years. Our original base was not 4 million tons but only 900,000 tons. That steel was mainly produced by the Japanese. Next was Chairman Chiang. Chiang Kai-shek was truly not brilliant; in 20 years, plus the base from Zhang Zhidong of the Qing Dynasty, he only managed 40,000 tons. It is truly unreasonable that Chiang did not perish. The Soviet Union went from 4 million tons of steel and increased by 14 million tons in 20 years. In 13 years, we will increase not by 14 million tons but by 30 million tons. So it is said that human effort is the decisive factor. Six hundred million people plus Soviet experience. Several simultaneous developments, the mass line, genuine democratic centralism. Lenin spoke very well about party-mass relations; Stalin could not speak on this aspect. Lenin said that no matter how high an official is, he must appear as an ordinary laborer. Thirteen years, 30 million tons—maybe it will be exceeded; the figures need not be rushed. In short, it will be greatly exceeded. Why? Six hundred million people, the mass line, appearing as ordinary laborers. We have developed Lenin's democratic centralism. Everyone dares to think, dares to speak, dares to act. Even the backward strata have been mobilized. Those among the well-to-do middle peasants, poor peasants, and workers who were backward have also risen.

In doing things, there must be both intensity and rest. Being constantly intense is not good. There should be both intensity and relaxation; being too tight won't do either. In Hebei and Henan, there is a big push to run schools that are both red and expert—this is very good. But everyone gets too tired. During class, some doze off, and the teachers are also tired. Yet they dare not doze off and force themselves to stay awake. Being too tired won't work; there must be a few days of rest. We must have tension and relaxation. "Tension without relaxation—even King Wen and King Wu could not do it; relaxation without tension—even King Wen and King Wu would not do it." King Wen and King Wu were sages, weren’t they? Even they could not do it—can we?

There is tension, there is relaxation; there is unity, there is struggle. Only unity without struggle won't do. Struggle is for the sake of unity. Combine large, medium, and small; balance tension with relaxation; combine democracy with centralism—it’s the same everywhere. We must struggle against the wait-and-see faction and the settle-accounts-after-autumn faction. But the purpose is unity, not to deny them revolution. Ah Q’s greatest grievance was being denied the right to revolution. It is no good to only criticize without helping people reform. One must struggle and help; one must have good intentions. Without good intentions, harboring ill will is no good—it is nothing but "overthrow you and I'll take over." The more people, the better. One more person is good, one fewer is not; it is better to have more people. We must mobilize all positive factors.

Dialectics ought to develop in China; elsewhere we won’t mind, but China is under our care. Our approach is relatively more in line with dialectics, relatively more in line with Lenin. Not quite so in line with Stalin. Stalin said that in socialist society, the relations of production fully conform to the development of the productive forces, denying contradictions. Before he died, he wrote an article negating himself, saying that full conformity is not without contradictions; if mishandled, they could develop into antagonistic contradictions. It cannot be said that Stalin had no dialectics—he had some, to a certain degree, with blind faith and one-sidedness. Yet he also used his methods to build socialism, defeat the enemy, achieve 50 million tons of steel—this year maybe reaching 55 million tons—and send three satellites into space. That is one method. Can we find another method? Both are building socialism, both are Marxism-Leninism. For example, in economic struggle, we adopt Lenin’s approach, not Stalin’s. In *Problems of Socialist Economy*, Stalin says that post-revolution policy was a peaceful policy from top to bottom; Stalin did not engage in class struggle from bottom to top. In Eastern Europe and North Korea, they carried out peaceful land reform without struggling against landlords or opposing the right. It was only top-down toward capitalists—no struggle. We have the top-down approach but also added the bottom-up class struggle of rooting and linking. During the "Five Antis" we struggled against the bourgeoisie. Now in construction, we launch mass movements, with some top-down elements such as government orders, directives, rules, and regulations. But the bulk must be done by the masses themselves, opposing the viewpoint of bestowing favors. Peaceful land reform, the methods of Eastern Europe and North Korea—we do not want the concept of bestowing favors in peaceful land reform. Without class struggle, without struggling against landlords or capitalists, the line is wrong and leaves endless harm.

Why is our construction speed faster than the Soviet Union’s? In 40 years they reached 50 million tons of steel; we may only need 15 years—starting from this year, possibly another 7 years. Wang ×× proposed 40 million tons by 1962. It is very possible to reach over 50 million tons by 1963. Whether it will be so is something for everyone to consider. When discussing the ten major relationships, I said: Can we go faster than the Soviet Union? Because our conditions are different—600 million people, the road the Soviet Union has traveled, Soviet technical assistance—we should develop somewhat faster than the Soviet Union. We develop the tradition of the October Revolution, Lenin’s mass line, and rely on the masses. In the countryside, we rely on the poor peasants, though he did not have this phrase.

Yesterday a comrade said that following a certain person will never lead you astray. That "certain person" means me. This statement needs to be amended: follow and not follow. A person has both right and wrong aspects. If right, follow; if wrong, do not follow. Do not blindly follow. We follow Marx, we follow Lenin. Some things we follow Stalin. Truth is in whoever holds it—we follow them, even if they are dung carriers or street sweepers. As long as they hold the truth, we follow. In cooperativization, we followed the poor and lower-middle peasants; "more, faster, better, more economical" emerged because it appeared among the masses—factories, villages, shops, schools, the military... seek out the advanced. Wherever the good is, wherever the truth lies, follow there. Don’t just follow so-and-so. Blindly following a certain person is very dangerous; we must think independently.

Our comrades often fail to understand the issue of the ten fingers. When something goes wrong, they forget about the ten fingers. Contradictions within the working people. When working people make mistakes, it is always a matter of nine fingers versus one finger. The same applies when our comrades make mistakes. I am not saying this, but comrades Gu Dacun, Li Shinong, ×××, Chen Zaili, Li Feng, and Wu Zhipu made excellent speeches. Why didn't the speeches from Anhui mention Li Shinong? And Zhejiang spoke too little about Sha Wenhan. We should offer our treasures for everyone to see and learn from. Why not speak up? For these people, it is not a matter of nine fingers versus one finger. Sha Wenhan has ten black fingers, and so does Chen Zaili—all ten fingers are black... Li Shinong has nine black fingers, with only one finger clean. Now we are talking about those who wavered amidst the storms. For these comrades, it is a matter of nine fingers versus one finger. Now it has become clear again. They are different from those people. We must unite with all these individuals. We must protect these cadres. We must resolutely protect activists at all levels. Although they have made mistakes, they are active. They fear large-scale airing of views and large-character posters. They fear losing face. By resolutely protecting them, they will step down gracefully. Their mistakes are only one-tenth of the whole. During the rectification campaign, we must resolutely protect these cadres. The documents of the Qingdao meeting already addressed the issue of protecting cadres. It was also discussed before: contradictions within the working people are generally a relationship of nine fingers to one finger, with individual exceptions. Among the middle-of-the-roaders in the bourgeoisie, the centrists have five fingers (five fingers for capitalism, five fingers for socialism). The center-left has six to seven good fingers, while the center-right has six to seven black fingers. Bourgeois intellectuals cannot wash their minds clean at once. It takes several reversals. The bourgeoisie may still relapse—not on a large scale, but small relapses are possible... The proletariat may also face storms. In the face of a force-12 typhoon, some of our comrades may still waver. But with the experience gained last year, the entire Party has been tempered once, and we can now sit steady in the fishing boat despite the rising winds and waves. Last year, when the winds were so fierce, our boat did not capsize. Some said the editorial "Why Is This?" was published a bit early, but it was not. If it had been delayed, some leftists might have rotted away too. In fact, after December last year, more than 100,000 rightists were uncovered among elementary school teachers, accounting for one-third of the national total of 300,000 rightists. They were still launching wild attacks. You think that once Zhang Bojun and Luo Longji were labeled rightists, they couldn't attack anymore? They still attack. As long as the temperature is right, reaching 37 or 38 degrees Celsius, those things will still come out.

Never forget the nine fingers and one finger. The anti-rash advance in 1956 was precisely a failure to remember this issue. If we do not look at problems from an essential perspective, we must draw lessons from this.

IV. Preparing for the Final Calamity

Now let us talk a bit about the dark side. We must prepare for great calamities and disasters. When the land is scorched for a thousand miles, it is nothing more than severe drought or massive flooding. We must also prepare for a major war. What if war maniacs drop atomic bombs? Let them drop them! As long as war profiteers exist, this remains a possibility. We must also prepare for the possibility that the Party, if poorly managed, could split. If we manage well, it will not split. If we manage poorly, it may split in two. With the current approach, it likely will not split, right? But under certain circumstances, one cannot say a split is impossible. Didn't the Soviet Union split? I discussed with ×× the fact that we have differences. I talked about the issues concerning Stalin and peaceful transition. Some of our actions, like the large-scale airing of views and large-character posters, you may not necessarily agree with. You may have opinions, but these are all matters of nine fingers versus one finger. In Moscow, I held talks with ××××, ×××, and ×××××, with ××× participating. We spoke alone and brought up all these issues. On the issue of peaceful transition, we did not discuss it in public; we kept some of our magic weapons in reserve. But in private talks, everything was discussed. We talked about Stalin being in debt to us. We were full of grievances. If we vented these grievances, the imperialists would take great interest. What grievances? Two accounts: first, the Wang Ming line; second, forbidding us to make revolution. The Wang Ming line was actually the Stalin line. This was also the case with the second Wang Ming line during the War of Resistance. Afterward, we were forbidden to make revolution or to fight a civil war. At the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt urged Chiang Kai-shek, and Stalin urged me, saying that if we fought a civil war, our nation faced the danger of destruction. That was an exaggeration. How could we be destroyed so easily? It’s not that simple. Even if an atomic war were fought, if half of us died, three hundred million people would still remain. At the meeting on the 12th, I said that our grievances have lessened. Some things I won’t discuss.

On war and peace: the possibility of peace is greater than the possibility of war. The chances of striving for peace are now greater than before. The strength of the socialist camp is greater than before, and the possibility of peace is greater than before World War II. The Soviet Union is powerful. National independence movements serve as our strong allies. Western countries are unstable. The working class does not want war. A portion of the bourgeoisie also does not want war. Even the Americans do not want war. The possibility of peace is greater than that of war, but the possibility of war still exists. We must prepare for madmen. If the imperialists, in order to escape economic crisis, were to start an atomic war now, the duration of the war might shorten—it wouldn’t take four years, just three would be enough. We must prepare. What if a war really breaks out? We need to talk about this issue. If they want to fight, then we will fight. We’ll wipe out the imperialists completely and then rebuild. After that, there will be no more world wars. Since a world war is possible, we must prepare and cannot afford to sleep. Even if war breaks out, don’t be alarmed. Fighting a war simply means people die. We’ve seen deaths in war before. The elimination of half the population has occurred several times in Chinese history. During the reign of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, the population was 50 million. By the Three Kingdoms, the Jin Dynasty, and the Southern and Northern Dynasties, only about 10 million remained. Wars lasted for decades, continuing intermittently for centuries—the Three Kingdoms, the Jin, the Southern and Northern Dynasties, the Song, Qi, Liang, and Chen. The population at the beginning of the Tang Dynasty was 20 million. Later, by the time of Emperor Xuanzong of Tang, it reached 50 million again. Then An Lushan rebelled, and China split into the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms. For one or two hundred years, it was not until the Song Dynasty that unity was restored, leaving only about 10 million people again. I explained this reasoning to ×××. I said modern weapons are not as formidable as Guan Yu’s great blade. He didn’t believe me. The death tolls in the two world wars were not that large. The first war caused 10 million deaths, the second 20 million. Yet we alone died in the tens of millions. Think about how destructive those great blades were. For atomic warfare, we have no experience now and don’t know how many would die. The best-case scenario would be half remaining. The second-best would be one-third remaining. With a few billion people remaining out of over two billion, a few five-year plans would lead to rapid development, in exchange for the total extinction of capitalism and the achievement of permanent peace. This is not a bad thing.

If the Party were to split, there would be chaos for a while. If someone disregards the overall situation—like how ××× and Gao Gang disregarded the overall situation—the Party will split. That person will turn to his own opposite, leading to imbalance. Of course, balance can eventually be restored. When imbalance reaches its opposite, balance returns. You must pay attention to this. Central Committee members, in particular, must pay attention to the overall situation. Whoever disregards the overall situation will stumble. ×××× wouldn’t let ×××× make revolution. He doesn’t read Chinese novels; he hasn’t read *The True Story of Ah Q*. Have you read *The True Story of Ah Q*? It’s a great book. Those who haven’t should read it. Gao Gang wouldn’t allow certain individual comrades on the Central Committee to have individual shortcomings; he wouldn’t allow revolution. ×××× and others described a defect of one finger as ten fingers. They sought to split the Party and ended up lifting a rock only to drop it on their own feet. Those who disregard the overall situation and split the Party—what good results have they ever achieved? What benefit did Luo Zhanglong and Zhang Guotao gain from splitting? One should not split. Engaging in splitting is wrong. Only one kind of split is permissible. When the German Social Democratic Party during the Second International voted for the imperialist war, Lenin then broke with them. Before that, Lenin had struggles with them but did not break. We must engage in legal struggle to win over the majority, not create splits or disregard the overall situation. Li Feng from Shandong, Gu Dacun from Guangdong, Feng Baiju (who is somewhat better than Gu and has made progress)... Gu Dacun, Li Shinong, and Sha Wenhan were engaging in splitting. Chen Zaili in Guangxi was the same. Feng Baiju was slightly better. They stood on a mistaken stance—the stance of the landlord and bourgeois classes. A group of cadres in Xinjiang is also engaging in splitting. Instead of uniting the various nationalities, they want to split away. Some people in Xilan are also stirring up trouble. They seek to split, not to cooperate. Those who engage in splitting will all fail.

We must mobilize the strength of 600 million people. Even among the rightists, we must do work to divide them. Have you held meetings for rightists? Ensure that among ten rightists, seven reform themselves. After ten or eight years, once they have reformed well, they can stand on our side and have the rightist label removed. If three or five years later they turn bad again, we can put the label back on them.