Intervention at the Anti-Revisionism Conference
(September 4, 1964)

Is it better to lure the snake out so we can strike, or let it hide in its hole? (We agreed that Suslov’s report should be published; when it wasn’t, it was brought up after our Eight Commentaries were released.)

Since 1956, whenever the Soviet Union criticized Stalin, we would respond with our First and Second Commentaries, thereby taking away their initiative.

It wasn’t just us who were named—Eastern European countries were also singled out. (For example, the Soviets criticized Romania for pursuing self-reliance, and Romania retorted using our own criticisms of the Soviet Union.) This wasn’t an internal matter; it was being conducted openly on the radio. The primary locus of the struggle over control and counter-control was not China, but rather the Eastern European nations.

(Romania had already prepared to sever economic ties with the Soviet Union. Unable to produce weapons on its own, they requested that Chinese officials visit Romania. Even without delivering any speeches, such a visit could carry considerable weight; simply shaking hands upon arrival would be meaningful.)

We need to prepare for two scenarios: one of rupture, and another of stalling. Should a crisis erupt, it would hardly come as a surprise. After all, the general trend of world affairs is that prolonged unity eventually gives way to division, and extended division ultimately leads to reunification. (Referring to Sino-Soviet relations.)

The Nanchang Uprising was a momentous event, yet only a handful of leaders remained afterward. Subsequently, it grew into an army of 300,000. Similarly, during the Long March, only a small contingent survived, which later expanded significantly. A mountain does not need to be high to be revered. (Take, for instance, an old Brazilian party with 40,000 members that recently split off to form a new party of 6,000. Which group do you think is more reliable—the original 40,000 or the new 6,000?)

It is precisely because of the existence of revisionism that Leninism can truly endure! If we fail to remain vigilant, revisionism is bound to emerge. Even if we stay alert, it may or may not appear. We should always be prepared for its potential emergence, though it might never actually materialize.