The material you wrote raises the question of how to transition to socialism, stating agreement with the views of the Chinese comrades on this issue.

This is a major issue.

There are two questions here: one is a question of strategy, the other a question of tactics.

As a question of strategy, from a long-term perspective, it is inconceivable that the bourgeois regime can be eliminated by peaceful means.

How could the bourgeoisie allow the working class to use peaceful means to overthrow the bourgeois regime, eliminate classes, and build socialism and communism! From a tactical standpoint, it can first be said that the proletariat is willing to seize power by peaceful means, demonstrating that we are not bellicose.

But if the bourgeoisie uses violence, the proletariat will be compelled to use violence.

Do not spread illusions; do not disarm yourselves spiritually.

Without spiritual preparation, it is impossible to educate the people, and the proletariat itself will have no revolutionary drive.

Even by peaceful means, struggle is necessary.

In fact, the vast majority of daily revolutionary work is carried out through peaceful means.

But as revolutionaries, while carrying out daily work through peaceful means, we must also think about what to do when the moment of revolution arrives. This question should not be discussed every day.

Only raise this question at critical moments, and raise two points—there must be two points: first, the proletariat is willing to seize power by peaceful means; second, if the bourgeoisie uses violence, the proletariat will be compelled to use violence as well.

Marxists know that class struggle cannot be finally resolved without war.

This has been the case since ancient times.

Knowing this, why raise the issue of peaceful means? Because the broad masses of the people are not yet awakened, and the bourgeoisie exploits this to intimidate the masses, saying that the Communist Party only talks about violence and war.

For a period after February 1917, Lenin pointed out that there was a possibility of seizing power by peaceful means in Russia.

At that time, two regimes coexisted in Russia, and based on certain unique conditions then, Lenin envisioned the Bolsheviks [1] seizing power by gaining a majority in the Soviets.

Later, by July, this was no longer possible, as the bourgeois government used armed force to suppress the revolutionary movement of the masses. Consequently, Lenin and the Bolsheviks decided on the policy of preparing for armed insurrection and seizing power by violence.

Before the October Revolution, Lenin made it very clear to the entire Party, writing many articles explaining that the revolution must establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and that it could not be done without violence.

He vigorously opposed the Menshevik [2] argument of carrying out revolution through parliamentary struggle.

We discussed this issue with Pollitt [3] of the British Communist Party in 1955, and he did not agree with our views.

He wanted to revise the works of the Chinese comrades and delete two paragraphs from the English edition of my Selected Works that discuss the necessity of violence in revolution. [4]

We did not agree with his opinion, but in the end, he still cut out those two paragraphs.

The November 1957 Moscow Meeting Declaration [5] again raised this issue, also putting forward two points: the proletariat is willing to seize power by peaceful means; but if the bourgeoisie uses violence, the proletariat will be compelled to use violence as well.

This is a matter of principle.

The French Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party both raise two points on this issue; the Japanese Communist Party and the Indonesian Communist Party also raise two points; the majority of parties raise two points.

Clarifying these two points can put the bourgeoisie in a passive position.

We are not advocating armed force; we are merely saying that we will use armed force only if you use it.

But when discussing the issue theoretically, we must make this point clear and thorough.

The state is an organ of violence, whether it is a slave-owning state, a feudal state, or a capitalist state—all are organs of violence.

The socialist state under the dictatorship of the proletariat is no exception.

Without violence, how can it be called a state?

Some people also cite China’s policy of peacefully transforming capitalist industry and commerce as an example of peaceful transition. In fact, we went through decades of war, overthrew the Kuomintang government, established a powerful people’s regime led by the proletariat, and developed an army of several million. Only then did the possibility of peaceful transformation arise.

Revolution uses both the means of war and the means of peace—it walks on two legs.

In reality, a great deal of work is carried out through peaceful means in daily activities; the time of war is not long, but the final resolution of the issue still depends on war.

Without walking on two legs, it is impossible to seize power.

In 1945, we also made great efforts to strive for domestic peace and participated in the Political Consultative Conference convened by the Kuomintang.

At the same time, we prepared the other side, developed our armed forces, and had a year of preparation.

After the fighting broke out in the summer of 1946, we did not say that peace was absolutely out of the question.

In the spring of 1949, the Kuomintang proposed "peace."

At that time, they only held the area south of the Yangtze River; their main forces north of the Yangtze had already been wiped out.

The United States urged them to negotiate in order to preserve the south of the Yangtze and prepare forces to fight us again.

We said, send a delegation to Beijing to talk.

The delegation came, an agreement was reached, and then the agreement was sent to Nanjing for signing, but they refused to sign.

This was very good; the responsibility for rejecting peace rested entirely on them.

The day they refused, the next day we crossed the Yangtze River—an army of one million crossed the Yangtze in a single night. By September, the mainland of the country was basically liberated, and on October 1, the People’s Republic of China was established.

Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan.

We still did not abandon peaceful means; we put forward the slogan of peacefully liberating Taiwan and advocated formal negotiations with them.

But they were afraid of negotiations, and the United States was even more afraid of Chiang Kai-shek negotiating with us.

Under these circumstances, the slogan of peace became very useful.

Now, in some capitalist countries, the struggle is usually bloodless, but when things undergo a qualitative change, blood will be shed.

After a long period of quantitative change, qualitative change will develop.

Without such qualitative change, the old superstructure cannot be changed.

The superstructure mainly refers to the state apparatus, including the political power, the army, the police, the courts, and so on, as well as ideological elements.

The superstructure protects the economic base.

Therefore, the main parts of the superstructure, such as the state apparatus, must first be seized by violence and smashed.

As for the ideological superstructure, it cannot be resolved by armed force but must undergo long-term transformation.

The superstructure is built on the economic base and serves to protect it. When the economic base loses its protection, we can change the relations of production, that is, the old ownership system, and so on.

Of course, this also requires struggle, but it does not necessarily require war.

Now, let me discuss my views on the international situation.

International tension is created by imperialism, but it has turned into its opposite.

A part or a large part of the tension makes them feel that it is disadvantageous to them—disadvantageous to their goal of preserving capitalism and eliminating socialism.

Dulles’ [6] set of tactics is disadvantageous to this goal they seek to achieve; they want to get out of this very narrow path.

If tension were advantageous to their goal of preserving capitalism and eliminating socialism, it would be unimaginable that they would change.

It seems they realize this disadvantage and want to make some changes, and they are also afraid of war.

As everyone knows, the two world wars were disadvantageous to them, and a third world war would be even more disadvantageous to them.

For a country like the United States, war would be extremely disadvantageous to it.

Relaxation of tension is beneficial to the people of both socialist and capitalist countries; this is the result of the struggles of the socialist countries, the fraternal parties of all countries, and the forces for world peace.

Another ten years of peace would be very good; it would be excellent if China and the Soviet Union could carry out several more five-year plans.

But we must also see the other side: in order to maintain the arms industry and seize foreign interests, imperialism needs a certain degree of tension.

For example, after Khrushchev’s visit to the United States [7], the United States established rocket bases in some countries and made a great uproar at the United Nations over the Tibet issue. This shows that they still want to create tension.

Therefore, we must remain vigilant.

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

Notes

[1] Bolsheviks refers to the Bolshevik Party, the predecessor of the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union, formally established in 1912.

[2] Mensheviks was an opportunist faction formed within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903, opposing the Bolsheviks.

[3] Pollitt (1890–1960) was then Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

[4] On March 29, 1954, Pollitt wrote to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, proposing that when translating the second volume of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, they intended to delete the first two paragraphs of the article "Problems of War and Strategy" from the English translation. In those two paragraphs, Mao Zedong stated: "The central task and the highest form of revolution is to seize political power by armed force, to settle issues by war. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, in China and abroad, without exception." "But in the application of this principle by proletarian parties under various conditions, the manifestations differ based on differing conditions." On August 23 of the same year, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China replied to Pollitt, clearly stating: We cannot agree to the proposal to delete the first two paragraphs of "Problems of War and Strategy" from the English translation of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, "because the principles Comrade Mao Zedong stated in that document are universal truths of Marxism-Leninism and do not require any revision due to changes in the international situation. Moreover, the Selected Works of Mao Zedong have already been published in Russian and other foreign-language editions without any such modifications."

[5] Refers to the Declaration of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties of Socialist Countries (commonly known as the Moscow Declaration), adopted at the meeting of representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties of socialist countries held in Moscow from November 14 to 16, 1957. The declaration summarized the experience of the international communist movement, set forth the tasks of the struggle of communist parties in various countries for peace and socialism, stipulated the norms governing relations between socialist countries and parties, and called on communist parties in all countries to creatively apply Marxism-Leninism.

[6] Dulles, see Note [5] on page 24 of this volume.

[7] From September 15 to 27, 1959, Nikita Khrushchev, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, visited the United States and held talks with Eisenhower at the U.S. presidential retreat, Camp David, on issues including Germany, Berlin, disarmament, nuclear testing, and bilateral relations.