Everything can be divided. For example, it was once believed that atoms were indivisible; but as science advanced, we came to understand that atoms consist of a nucleus and electrons, and that electrons can even be harnessed to generate electricity. Later still, we discovered that the nucleus itself can be further split, revealing an intricate internal structure composed of numerous components. As for electrons, are they divisible? In theory, they are—though in practice our knowledge of the subatomic realm remains quite limited, and scientists have yet to succeed in splitting them. Nevertheless, Lenin had already pointed out in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism that electrons are indeed divisible. I may not be an expert in this field, but I trust this principle.

Science is boundless. Both the infinitely vast cosmos and the infinitesimally small realm of particles offer endless avenues for exploration and discovery. …

Every society, whether today or in the future, is inherently dualistic; it is always propelled forward by contradictions. At present, class struggle drives social progress. Our socialist system has been in place for fourteen years now, yet it is still class conflict that keeps our society moving ahead. What, then, will drive social development decades or even centuries hence, once socialism has been fully established and we have entered a communist society? It will be the struggle between the advanced elements and the backward ones. Even ten thousand years from now, there will remain the tension between the progressive and the reactionary, between right and wrong. One cannot imagine a society where everyone is entirely correct and free from error. If there were no errors, how could there be any correctness?

Society is complex. According to Marxism and the law of unity of opposites, even a million or ten million years from now, it will continue to be divided into opposing forces, with right and wrong coexisting. The very structure of society advances through hundreds or thousands of distinct stages. I simply do not believe that after a million years every human being will have attained such a high level of civilization, virtue, and moral perfection—to the point of becoming a saint—without any affirmation or negation whatsoever.

Moreover, the transition from one stage to another invariably occurs through struggle. …

In China, there are still those who seek to maintain the status quo; there are those who openly oppose us; others outwardly appear non-oppositional while secretly undermining the socialist system; and still others pay lip service to socialist transformation while harboring deep dissatisfaction. Such elements will persist into the future as well. Transforming society and transforming people are tasks that can never truly be completed. A society will always be bifurcated, containing both positive and negative aspects. If our generation were to accomplish every conceivable transformation, what would the next generation do? Suppose, ten thousand years hence, social transformation were to reach perfect completion, and every individual had become like Marx, Engels, or Lenin—what, then, would those living ten millennia later undertake? Even then, quantitative changes would give rise to qualitative leaps; social revolutions would continue to occur. I refuse to accept the notion that, once communism is achieved, society’s economic order will remain eternally unchanged, and that all human beings will forever remain identical. Of course, no one is discussing this issue at present, but I remain unconvinced.

In reality, society is always complex; any unified whole can be divided, at least into two opposing parts.

Today, U.S. imperialism has taken the place of British, Japanese, French, and other imperialist powers. In Thailand, Laos, and South Vietnam, it has replaced France; in South Korea and Taiwan, it has supplanted Japan. It seeks to extend its influence everywhere, and we must oppose it. Some criticize us for supposedly dividing people along racial lines. If that were truly the case, why did we not join forces with Chiang Kai-shek? Why do you not support the rulers of the United States? And why does Comrade ××× harbor a particular aversion to British imperialism? After all, nations are defined by class, not by skin color.

…

Every society, every phenomenon, is inherently dualistic. Not only are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat opposed to one another, but the proletariat itself is also divided: there are communists, and there are social democrats; there are revisionists, and their absence would be undesirable. This is not artificial—it is natural.

All things are dualistic, and so too must the international communist movement inevitably be divided. It has always been thus, ever since the time of Marx.

Even you and we are, in fact, divided. Did you not just mention that your side once held the view that the socialist camp and the communist movement should know only unity, never strife? That line of thought is idealistic and metaphysical; it represents a flawed aspect of your thinking. However, the sounder element in your approach predominates, for you genuinely serve the people. Your party has very few full-time cadres; most of your leaders earn their living through manual labor, which helps to curb bureaucratism. We, for our part, are working to address this very problem. Here, bureaucratic tendencies run deep! We ought to show Comrade Wilcox our documents on the urban Five-Anti Campaign, so he can see just how damaging bureaucracy can be. The Five-Anti Campaign targets bureaucracy, dispersion, extravagance and waste, corruption and theft, and speculation and profiteering. These materials should be translated into foreign languages and sent back to you, so that all members of your Central Committee can take note.

Chinese society is inherently dualistic; no one can claim that it is undivided. It is incorrect to speak only of its bright side while ignoring its darker aspects, or to emphasize only what is right while dismissing what is wrong. Nor is it valid to assert that it embodies solely Marxist–Leninist principles while denying the existence of revisionism, or to insist that it is wholly upright and incorruptible while overlooking instances of embezzlement and theft. To do otherwise would be to distort the truth.

When briefing foreign comrades, limiting oneself to positive accounts while omitting the negative is improper and does not reflect a genuinely Marxist–Leninist stance. …

Under Lenin and Stalin, we were in a phase of affirmation; today, we find ourselves in a phase of negation. Yet the dialectical process moves toward the negation of the negation, and revisionism will likewise reverse course—this is inevitable. The broad masses of Soviet citizens, including Party members and cadres, stand firmly opposed to revisionism; however, such a shift requires time—perhaps ten years, eight years, or even longer.

I begin by reflecting on the benefits and assistance provided by revisionism to our cause, drawing parallels with the advantages we derived from past erroneous policies and opportunist lines, as well as from the embargoes, severed economic ties, and large-scale offensives imposed upon us by external enemies—imperialism and Chiang Kai-shek. This perspective has yet to be fully appreciated within Marxist circles. Many tend to view the enemy’s oppression, killings, underground operations, and the shrinking of Party organizations as purely detrimental. They regard the rampant global offensive mounted by imperialism as an unmitigated evil. Japan once invaded China, occupying roughly half the country. Some representatives of the Japanese bourgeoisie now come to us and apologize, saying, “We deeply regret our past aggression against you.” But I reply: “No—had it not been for your invasion and occupation of half of China, we could never have achieved victory. It was precisely your aggression that galvanized the entire Chinese people to rise up in resistance against you. Because Japan occupied so much of our territory, the Chinese nation united as one.”

Thus, Japan’s aggression against China possessed a dual nature: it had both deleterious and salutary consequences. On the one hand, it entailed the slaughter of Chinese civilians, the destruction of villages, and the plunder of resources. On the other, it served to awaken and unite the Chinese people; otherwise, we would never have been able to establish a 1.2-million-strong army, a liberated zone encompassing 100 million inhabitants, nor would we have been able to resolve pressing issues of food, clothing, and shelter. Nor could we have addressed our military needs. Our firearms were supplied by the Japanese, and later by the Americans. The primary source of our armaments was the United States; secondarily, we relied on Chiang Kai-shek’s arsenals, though our own domestic production facilities remained scarce. It was only by 1949 that our arms industry began to develop, employing 100,000 workers to manufacture small-caliber guns—rifles and machine guns—as well as ammunition and artillery shells. Initially, our arsenal consisted merely of rifles and rudimentary weaponry; we lacked aircraft, tanks, heavy artillery, and substantial foreign aid. Nonetheless, we managed to defeat an adversary equipped with aircraft, tanks, heavy artillery, and copious American assistance.