The study of class struggle should be elevated to a theory and widely propagated, so as to transform the working class from a scattered group into an organized one, and from a passive class into a conscious class. Workers live and labor under exploitation and oppression every day; they are so preoccupied with merely earning a living that they cannot spontaneously develop Marxist ideas. Marx himself was not a worker, yet he discerned the direction of historical development. Through meticulous analysis and research, he transformed bourgeois philosophy into proletarian philosophy and bourgeois political economy into proletarian political economy, thereby educating the working class. In reality, workers do not have the time or capacity to read extensive tomes; only the more advanced among them may read somewhat more. Class struggle has existed for thousands of years, and even the bourgeoisie acknowledge its existence. It was only Marx and Engels who first theorized and systematized it. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, socialism builds upon capitalism. As for myself, I first studied under the landlord class—six years devoted to Confucianism—and then spent seven years studying the capitalist system, totaling thirteen years. At that time, in my twenties, I knew nothing about Marx. It was only after the October Revolution in Russia that I came to know Marx and began to study his works.

(1964)
We must rely on the vast majority—the poor and lower-middle peasants—organize them, and determine whether we stand with the ninety-five percent of the population or with the remaining five percent. The exploiters number but one, two, three, four, or five. Based on a population of 700 million, five percent amounts to 35 million people who exploit the other 665 million. This fundamental calculation reveals which side we truly support. Regardless of Khrushchev’s claim that we belong to the petty-bourgeois camp, the fact remains that he is a revisionist who aligns himself with that five percent, whereas we stand with the working class and the poor and lower-middle peasants. I endorse the convening of provincial conferences of representatives of the poor and lower-middle peasants. Trade unions exist at all levels, but there is no equivalent peasant association, nor does the Communist Party represent this sector. Women have their own federation, and young people have their youth league; therefore, provinces ought likewise to hold conferences of representatives from among the poor and lower-middle peasants.
Such conferences should also include active elements from the middle-peasant ranks, so that these farmers feel they have a stake in the process. This is precisely how Hunan Province has conducted its meetings.
Throughout our lives, we can never forget the poor and lower-middle peasants; sometimes a simple reminder suffices. By contrast, the children of cadres tend to lose sight of this connection. Among us, even some former secretaries of the regional party committees have forgotten their roots, now enjoying comfortable lives. Those engaged in planning work must likewise keep the broad masses—the poor and lower-middle peasants—in mind. These groups possess the authority to influence not only the middle peasants but also landlords and rich peasants.
Revisionism differs fundamentally from our approach. We base ourselves on the majority within the working and peasant classes. Even if eight to fifteen percent of workers happen to be ill-intentioned, they still constitute a minority, and such cases require careful analysis. In rural areas, the poor and lower-middle peasants account for roughly seventy percent of the population. They are capable of leading the middle peasants forward and of transforming landlords and rich peasants.