(August 1964)
On the issue of unity, I’d like to discuss a methodological point. I maintain that with regard to our comrades—regardless of who they are—as long as they are not enemies or saboteurs, we should adopt a unifying attitude toward them. We must use a dialectical approach rather than a metaphysical one. What does a dialectical approach mean? It means analyzing everything, acknowledging that people inevitably make mistakes, and not dismissing someone entirely simply because they have erred. Lenin once said that there is not a single person who has never made a mistake. I myself have made mistakes, and these mistakes were highly beneficial; they taught me valuable lessons. Everyone needs support. As the Chinese saying goes, “A brave man needs three helpers,” and “A fence needs three stakes.” There is another Chinese proverb: “Though the lotus flower be beautiful, it still requires green leaves to enhance its beauty.” Even if my lotus flower is not particularly beautiful, it still needs those green leaves for support. Another Chinese saying states, “Three cobblers with their wits combined equal Zhuge Liang.” This aligns with our comrade’s slogan of collective leadership: a single Zhuge Liang will always be incomplete and flawed. Look at our declaration—the first, second, third, and fourth drafts—and even now, the textual revisions have yet to be finalized. To claim omniscience and omnipotence, to consider oneself akin to God, is an inappropriate mindset. Therefore, how should we treat comrades who have made mistakes? We ought to analyze their situation dialectically, rather than employing a metaphysical stance. Our Party has previously fallen into metaphysics and dogmatism, but gradually began to learn dialectics. The fundamental principle of dialectics lies in the unity of opposites. Once this principle is acknowledged, what should be done about comrades who have erred? First, we must engage in struggle to thoroughly eradicate erroneous ideas. Second, we need to assist them—motivated by good intentions—to correct their mistakes and provide them with a path forward.


However, our approach must differ when dealing with individuals such as Trotsky, or China’s Chen Duxiu, Zhang Guotao, and Gao Gang. With such people, offering assistance is futile, as they are beyond redemption. Similarly, figures like Hitler, the Tsar, and Chiang Kai-shek were all irredeemable and could only be overthrown, since they represented absolute antagonism toward us. In this sense, they possessed only a single nature, lacking any duality. The same holds true for imperialist and capitalist systems: ultimately, they are destined to be replaced by socialism. The same applies to ideology—dialectical materialism should supplant idealism, and atheism should replace theism. This represents our strategic objective. Yet, at the tactical level, compromise becomes necessary. Did we not compromise with the Americans along the 38th parallel in Korea? And did we not reach a compromise with France in Vietnam? At each tactical stage, we must skillfully balance struggle with compromise. Returning now to relations among comrades, I propose that any rifts between comrades should be resolved through open negotiation. Some seem to believe that upon joining the Communist Party, everyone becomes a saint—free from disagreement or misunderstanding, incapable of being analyzed—essentially forming a monolithic, uniform bloc, rendering negotiation unnecessary. They appear to think that once one joins the Party, one must adhere to Marxism in its entirety. In reality, however, there exist various shades of Marxist thought: some may be 100 percent Marxist, others 90 percent, 80 percent, 70 percent, 60 percent, or even 50 percent. Still others might hold only 10 or 20 percent Marxist views. Might we then convene in a room with two or several comrades and engage in open negotiations, driven by a desire for unity and a spirit of mutual assistance? Of course, this would not be negotiations with imperialists (though negotiations with imperialists are also necessary); rather, these would be internal communist-party discussions. To offer another example, aren’t our forty-two countries engaged in open negotiations? Aren’t the sixty-odd parties likewise conducting open talks? Indeed, they are—meaning that, without compromising the principles of Marxism-Leninism, they accept opinions universally agreeable while relinquishing certain positions they can afford to let go. In this way, we effectively employ both hands: with one hand, we struggle against erring comrades; with the other, we seek reconciliation with them. The purpose of struggle is to uphold Marxist principles—that is, principledness. The other hand embodies flexibility, aiming to provide a way out and engage in compromise. The unity of principledness and flexibility constitutes a Marxist-Leninist principle, representing precisely the unity of opposites.


Regardless of the world—especially within class societies—conflict is ever-present. The notion that socialism either discovers or fails to discover conflict is misguided. Rather, conflict permeates every aspect of society; there is no place devoid of contradiction, nor any individual beyond analysis. To deny the possibility of analyzing a person is itself metaphysical thinking. Consider the atom: it embodies the unity of opposites, comprising a nucleus and electrons. Within the nucleus itself exist neutrons and antineutrons. In short, the unity of opposites is ubiquitous. Therefore, extensive propaganda regarding the concept of the unity of opposites and dialectics is essential. I advocate that dialectics move beyond the confines of philosophical circles and reach the broader masses. I suggest discussing this matter at national Politburo meetings and Central Committee sessions, as well as at all levels of local party committees. In fact, many branch secretaries already intuitively grasp dialectical principles. When preparing reports for branch meetings, they often jot down two points in small notebooks: first, the strengths; second, the weaknesses—dividing issues into two sides. This commonplace practice is, in essence, an application of dialectics.


Ode to the Magnolia Blossom—Reflecting on Past Experiences in Changsha
(Autumn 1964)
Forty or fifty years have passed,
The stormy, gloomy days shall never return.
Clouds swiftly drift before my eyes,
Stretching endlessly across the vast sky.
No need for boastful words:
After calamity, heroes merely wish for peace.
Gazing around at sea and sky,
All I see is smoke along the road I’ve traveled.