In our country, there are both good and bad elements. For example, in the fields of culture, art, and education, we have only just begun to address some of the negative aspects. We cannot simply reject the intellectuals left over from old China; otherwise, we would have no intellectuals at all—no professors, no teachers, no journalists, no artists. These people adhere to their own beliefs and do not trust ours. I would call such individuals “bad.” They idolize the dead and foreigners—foreigners who are, after all, long since deceased—and revere the classical works of Western nations, while looking down upon their own culture and constantly feeling that it is inferior. This serves as a valuable lesson; I hope you will avoid making the same mistake. Of course, we should accept our historical legacy, but we must do so critically. Consider how Marx criticized classical economics yet retained its sound principles, thereby giving birth to Marxist political economy; how he rejected utopian socialism while preserving its constructive ideas to forge scientific socialism; and how he examined classical philosophy, extracting its valuable insights to develop dialectical materialism. We too ought to follow this approach: when engaging with the classical heritage, we should embrace what is beneficial and critically examine what is flawed.

Once a person becomes estranged from the masses, the outcome can only be disastrous. The vast majority always consists of the working people, whereas exploiters and oppressors form an infinitesimal minority. Another important point is that human beings are capable of change under certain conditions. Marx himself was once an idealist; later, his thinking evolved. At first, he adhered to a metaphysical worldview, but eventually he studied dialectics—albeit idealist dialectics. Even Engels and Lenin underwent similar transformations, as did we ourselves. I never received a formal university education; I began my career as an elementary school teacher. For reasons unknown, I found myself thrust into the revolutionary struggle, likely because imperialism taught us through violence, oppression, and exploitation. You specialize in the humanities, while my background lies more in military affairs, having spent decades engaged in warfare against Chiang Kai-shek, Japanese fascism, and the United States. Back then, none of us truly understood the nature of these struggles. Now, revisionism has resurfaced to undermine us. It would have been far better if Khrushchev had remained in power longer to serve as a negative example! Instead, here we are, taking up the mantle.

Today, U.S.-Japanese reactionaries are shaping Japanese education. The situation is much the same across all nations. Without vigorous struggle, it is impossible to truly educate and transform people.

(Responding to Kayel’s question) Unite and defeat imperialism and the reactionary forces of every country. That has been my life’s work.

(Responding to Pudenna) The United States claims to be a welfare state, but let us ask: who really benefits from this welfare? Is it not monopolistic capital? This class buys off certain strikebreakers and sponsors the right-wing factions of social democratic parties. Some communist parties are equally reprehensible: they heed the social democrats’ advice, denouncing us as inadequate. They are pro-imperialist and pro-reactionary, traitors to their own working classes. Our country has seen such figures emerge—communists turning against other communists—which is hardly surprising. Our very first communist leader became a Trotskyist agent. Throughout history, the Communist Party has consistently faced a dynamic process of recruitment and defection. Wasn’t Yoshio Shiga one of those who defected? It is hardly remarkable. In fact, these individuals can sometimes play a useful role—as negative examples. During one period, we had fifty thousand members; following a wave of white terror, only ten thousand remained. Some were executed, others capitulated, and still others abandoned the cause, leaving us a small, marginalized group. Often, the correct position is held by a minority. In Darwin’s time, for instance, only one person believed in evolution. Darwin was an eminent intellectual, yet he did not study biology at a university; rather, he traveled extensively. The seeds of truth often begin as a minority view. In the early days of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels were virtually alone; the rest followed Proudhon, Bakunin, and others. Therefore, do not fear isolation. As long as you stand on the right side, you need only be one among many.

Imperialism, revisionism, and the reactionary forces of every nation can indeed be overthrown. This realization itself dispels superstition. Their foundations are hollow, for they have severed ties with the masses. Both we and you possess direct experience to confirm this: they are eminently surmountable. We scarcely anticipated that Khrushchev would fall so swiftly.