TALK ON METHODS OF SOLIDARITY
(August 1964)
On the question of solidarity, I wish to say something about the problem of method. I have said that in dealing with comrades, whoever they may
be, if they are not antagonists or saboteurs, then we must take the attitude
of solidarity toward them and adopt the method of dialectics, instead of resorting to some metaphysical method. What is the dialectical method? It
means we must analyze everything. We must recognize that one will commit
errors. We cannot negate everything if one should commit errors Lenin said
there is no person who does not commit errors. I have committed errors myself.
These errors have been very useful to me and have educated me. A Chinese adage
states that everyone needs someone to support him. A good person needs three
buddies. A fence needs three stakes for support. There is another Chinese
adage which states that although the lotus is pretty, it must be supported
by green leaves. Though your lotus may be good, it must be supported by green
leaves. Though my lotus may be bad, it all the more needs the support of
green leaves. There is still another adage in China: Three poor cobblers
could combine their wisdom to become a Chuko Liang. This is in keeping with
the slogan of our Comrade XX — collective leadership. One Chuko Liang alone
will always be incomplete, and will always have some defects. You see that
there have been four drafts of the statement by our X X, and the revisions of
its text have not yet been completed. I think that the idea of regarding oneself as being as wise and omnipotent as god is rather improper. Consequently,
in dealing with errant comrades, what kind of attitude should we take? We
should be analytical and adopt a dialectical method instead of a metaphysical
method. Our party has at one time become bogged down with metaphysics —
dogmatism, and has gradually learned some dialectics. The basic concept of
dialectics is the unity of opposites. Recognizing this viewpoint, how should
we deal with errant comrades? First, in dealing with a comrade who has erred,
we must struggle against him in order to thoroughly extirpate his wrong ideology.
Second, we should proceed with good intention to help him rectify his errors
so that he will have a way out.

It will be different in dealing with people like Trotsky. Ch'en Tu-hsiu
Chang Kuo-t'ao, and Kao Kang for whom it would be impossible for us to take
the attitude of helping them because they are incurable. People like Hitler,
the Czars, and Chiang Kai-shek are also incurable. We could only overthrow
them, because insofar as we are concerned, they would be absolutely incompatible with us. In this context, they have no duality of character, and
are one and the same. Eventually, this would apply also to imperialism and
capitalism which finally must be replaced by socialism. This is also true
of ideology. Speaking from strategic objective, we must use dialectical
materialism to replace idealism, and atheism to replace theism. But it would
be different tactically speaking. There should be compromises. Did we not
compromise with the Americans at the 38th parallel in Korea? Did we not compromise with France in Vietnam?
At every tactical stage, one must be adept in struggling and also in
compromising. Let me now return to the relationship between comrades. I
suggest that there should be negotiations whenever misunderstanding arises
among comrades. Some people seem to believe that after admission into the Communist Party, people would become sages, and there would be no differences or
misunderstandings among them and that they no longer need to be analyzed.
This is to say that a piece of steel must be neat and uniform, and that further
negotiations are not needed. They seem to believe that after one becomes a
member of the Communist Party, one has to be a 100 percent Marxist. The fact
is that there are diverse types of Marxists: some being perfect Marxists,
others being 90 percent Marxists, 80 percent Marxists, 70 percent Marxists,
60 percent Marxists, 50 percent Marxists, and some may be only 10 or 20 percent Marxists. Can we not negotiate with two or more persons in a room? Can
we not proceed from the desire for solidarity and apply the spirit of helping
others to conduct negotiations? This does not mean negotiation with imperialism (although
*
 in regard to imperialists it is also necessary to negotiate with
them). It is intra-party negotiation. Let me give an example. Did we not
negotiate with these 42 nations and with some 60 parties? These were in fact
negotiations, this is to say that where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are
not impaired, we will accept views that are generally acceptable and abandon
some of the views that we can give up. Thus, we will have two hands. In
dealing with errant comrades, one hand will struggle against them, while the
other hand will solidify with them. The aim of struggle is to uphold the
principles of Marxism, which is a matter of principle, and this is only one
hand. The other hand deals with solidarity whose purpose is to leave some
leeway for others. When we talk about compromises with them we are talking
about flexibility. Both principle and flexibility are the same as a Marxist
principle, which is a unity of opposites.
No matter what kind of world it is, and in a class society especially,
there are many contradictions. It is possible to find contradictions in socialism. I think this is not the proper way to approach the problem. It is not
whether we can find contradictions, the world is full of contradictions.

The world is full of contradictions. There is no place without contradictions;
and there is no one who can't be analyzed. If we believe that there is someone who can't be analyzed, we are believing in metaphysics. You can see that
in atoms there is the unity of contradictions; there is the unity of opposites
between atoms and electrons; there are neutrons and antineutrons in neutrons
[sic]. In short, unity of opposites exists everywhere. With regard to the
concept of unity of opposites and with regard to dialectics, it is necessary
to carry out extensive propaganda. It is my view that dialectics should be
taken out of the realm of the philosophers and placed among the broad masses
of people. I suggest that this problem should be discussed at the meetings
of the party’s Political Bureau and at Central Committee meetings; it should
also be discussed at the meetings of local party committees at all levels.
In fact, the secretary of the branch headquarters of our party is versed in
dialectics, and when he prepares to make a report at the branch party meeting,
he will often jot down two points in his notebook: first, the good points,
and second, the shortcomings. This is to divide one into two, which is a
common phenomenon, and is also dialectics.