(When discussing industrial issues and the need to establish “trusts”)

The current administrative approach to managing the economy is unsatisfactory and must be changed. For example, why are so many people employed in enterprises? People need to eat and consume resources; they are not like Sun Wukong, who can swallow iron sand and excrete iron droppings. Employing such a large workforce violates economic principles.

Produced goods must be purchased according to contract. The commercial sector claims that changes in the plan have led to non-purchase—yet who altered the plan? If it was the state, then the state should be responsible for purchasing them. In any case, these goods should not be allowed to pile up in factories.

(When discussing the reasons for poor enterprise management)

In the People’s Liberation Army, a single order can be transmitted directly to every level and implemented effectively. It is often said that the PLA’s success stems from the leadership of the Communist Party. But the economy is also under the Party’s leadership—so why has it become fragmented? Why do enterprises engage in profit-sharing disputes, compete for materials, and experience interpersonal conflicts that remain unresolved for years? Why can’t commerce operate through economic channels? Why must institutions be organized along administrative lines instead? We should break down provincial, prefectural, and county boundaries and conduct business strictly along economic lines. Enterprises should function like the military: with clear, unimpeded command chains. Party committees should oversee ideology, politics, dispute resolution, personnel matters, and oversight functions.

(When discussing specialization and collaboration, as well as the relationship between main and auxiliary equipment)

The contradiction between main and auxiliary equipment represents the unity of opposites. When capitalists run a factory, the capitalist owners who manage it are always a small minority, while the workers who perform the labor constitute the vast majority. This tension between the few and the many likewise embodies the unity of opposites.

(When emphasizing the importance of recognizing role models and preventing leaders from stifling talent)

There is no shortage of high-ranking officials enjoying generous salaries while clinging rigidly to their positions. For instance, some ministry reports claim to have numerous model workers, exemplary figures, and outstanding individuals, yet these talents have remained undiscovered for years. Isn’t this precisely because bureaucratic inertia has suppressed them? In fact, there are still many such hidden talents waiting to be brought to light. To change this situation, we must focus on real people and real achievements.

(When discussing how newspapers should carry out publicity)

The Wenhui Daily and Guangming Daily are relatively well-run, featuring both commentary and articles on scientific research, philosophy, and historical studies. The People’s Daily, by contrast, tends to be more straightforward—it undertakes tasks that other papers do not. Reporting international news only a few times per week would suffice. Instead, we should highlight fresh developments and stories about living individuals and events. A dedicated page could be devoted to promoting the study of the PLA and the Ministry of Petroleum. We should write “living” philosophy rather than “dead” philosophy. Currently, many articles rely excessively on quotations, which can be irritating to read; reducing their frequency would be beneficial. I myself rarely cite Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin in my writings. What we need is dynamic, practical philosophy. Many ordinary workers possess a deep understanding of philosophical principles. Recently, the PLA discovered an article written by a cook who explained that he had initially used 1.2 kilograms of coal per meal, but after careful investigation and analysis of the objective laws governing fuel consumption, he managed to reduce this amount to just 300 grams per meal.

(When discussing the experience of the Ministry of Petroleum)

In the days of feudal emperors, one could still argue one’s case based on reason. The PLA adheres to a principle: whoever holds the truth should be followed—whether that person is a cook or a squad leader. Truth is not determined by rank or position.

(While talking with Japanese counterparts about attitudes toward anti-American sentiment among monopoly capital)

(1) Japanese monopoly capital is currently undergoing significant changes. Eight major industrial trusts—including Nippon Steel, Fuji Steel, and Tokai Fisheries—are now vigorously opposing U.S. influence. Previously, only the textile industry engaged in such opposition; now, even major monopolists have joined the movement. This development presents a new challenge for the Japanese Communist Party. In the past, its stance was overly rigid; it must avoid dogmatism. Drawing on France’s experience, I pointed out that when de Gaulle seized the banner of national independence and anti-Americanism, the French Communist Party welcomed Eisenhower and mourned Kennedy. As a result, de Gaulle came to power and remained secure. Similarly, Sukarno, though a big capitalist himself, successfully championed both anti-Americanism and national independence, enabling him to stay in office. Meanwhile, the Indonesian Communist Party failed to grasp this opportunity. After Hitler came to power, he abolished the Treaty of Versailles, reclaimed lost territories, and raised the flag of national independence. However, German Communist Party leader Thälmann remained silent, leading to the party’s downfall. Japan’s monopoly bourgeoisie operates with two fronts: one against America and another against communism. You should seek to ease pressure on the former front. Since Japanese monopoly capitalists are now openly calling for the withdrawal of U.S. military bases and an end to American control, you should support these demands. At present, national contradictions in Japan outweigh class tensions. Therefore, we should form a united front with monopoly capitalists on the issue of anti-Americanism. We have previously formed such a united front with China’s Four Big Families (domestic monopoly capitalists). While this strategy may temporarily pacify workers, we must also consider their psychology: if capitalists oppose U.S. control, it means jobs will be preserved, and workers are likely to approve. Our experience with Chiang Kai-shek illustrates this point. During Japan’s invasion of China, national conflict became the principal contradiction. We adopted a dual approach toward Chiang: combining unity with struggle, using struggle to advance unity. Even during three major anti-communist campaigns, each time he retreated, we continued to collaborate. Without such cooperation, how could our forces have grown so rapidly and massively—from 25,000 to 1.2 million members? Had Japan not surrendered, this policy would have had to continue. It was precisely during those periods of relative calm that we were able to expand our ranks. We must seize such opportunities to strengthen ourselves!

(2) Why did revisionism emerge in the Soviet Union? This is a question of broad significance, occupying the minds of many. To answer it, we must employ class analysis. This framework has been in place since the time of Stalin. The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the constitution itself emphasize the unity of workers, peasants, and intellectuals, without acknowledging divisions beyond these groups—namely, the existence of capitalist elements and untransformed intellectuals. Nor do they address the emergence of a new bourgeois stratum, including high-income elites and worker bureaucrats. The problem does not lie solely with Khrushchev; rather, it resides in the underlying conditions that foster the growth of capitalism. Simply denouncing Khrushchev is insufficient; even if one is removed, others will inevitably take his place. Revisionism did not arise exclusively in the Soviet Union—rather, it appeared in over a dozen European countries. What does this signify? It points to the rise of a worker-bureaucratic elite. I would argue that the broad, impoverished masses of the working class give rise to Marxism-Leninism, whereas a small fraction of privileged workers produce revisionist tendencies.

(When discussing the avoidance of armed force in resolving territorial disputes)

The Taiwan Strait presents a dual nature. It is an internal matter in which no external party should interfere. We maintain two options: peaceful liberation or military liberation. Regardless of which path is chosen, it remains an internal affair, off-limits to outside intervention. Our readiness to resort to force does not imply a predetermined course.

(When discussing the Soviet Union’s invitation for Yugoslavia to attend COMECON meetings as an observer)

I intend to attend the COMECON meeting alongside Yugoslavia. The political landscape has shifted: Khrushchev’s authority no longer holds sway. Since Yugoslavia is participating, I will attend as well. Going forward, COMECON should evolve into a platform for resisting Soviet control. Just as NATO member states, led by France, oppose U.S. dominance, Eastern European countries are likewise resisting Soviet hegemony and are actively developing alternative mechanisms. …Khrushchev’s grip is weakening… We must recognize this changing reality.

(When introducing exemplary figures from among the working class)

Great leaders often come from humble backgrounds. Ninety percent of our military district commanders have risen from the ranks, hailing from modest origins. Nevertheless, a certain proportion of intellectuals is also necessary. Throughout history, many capable rulers have emerged from commoner backgrounds. Liu Bang of the Han Dynasty stands out as one of the most remarkable among feudal emperors. When Liu Jing advised him not to establish the capital in Luoyang but in Chang’an, Liu Bang immediately relocated there. During the Honggou Agreement, Xiang Yu withdrew, and Liu Bang contemplated resting in Chang’an. Yet when Zhang Liang urged an attack regardless of the terms, Liu Bang promptly heeded his counsel and advanced eastward. When Han Xin requested to be made King of Qi, Liu Bang initially refused, but upon a nudge from Zhang Liang, he quickly reversed course, declaring, “Damn it! If we’re going to appoint a king, let it be the true King of Qi—why settle for a false one?” By contrast, Xiang Yu made three critical errors: at the Hongmen Banquet, he disregarded Fan Zeng’s advice despite commanding 400,000 troops to Liu Bang’s mere 100,000; later, he took the Honggou Accord too seriously and established his capital in Xuzhou (then known as Pengcheng). Among the Northern and Southern Dynasties—Song, Qi, Liang, and Chen—and the Five Dynasties—Liang, Tang, Jin, Han, and Zhou—there were numerous leaders from humble backgrounds. Of course, there were also distinguished figures from scholarly families, such as Emperor Taizong of Tang. At the central level, very few leaders have attended university; historically, completing higher education often meant entering officialdom and abandoning revolutionary aspirations. Today, however, we have many new exemplary figures worthy of promotion.