At the enlarged working conference in 1962, I once said: "The struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism has not yet been decided; it is quite possible that revisionism will win and we will lose. By reminding everyone that we may lose, we help to heighten their vigilance against revisionism and aid in preventing and combating revisionism." In reality, the struggle between the two classes and the two lines within the Communist Party has always existed, and no one can deny it. As materialists, we certainly should not deny it. Since this congress, the manifestations of the struggle between the two lines and the two classes within our Party have included: "left" in form but right in essence versus opposing "left" in form but right in essence, opposing the existence of class struggle versus emphasizing its existence, eclecticism versus giving prominence to proletarian politics, and so on. These have already been discussed in earlier appropriate documents.

Today, your esteemed country has come with a military delegation to learn about our country's Great Cultural Revolution, and I would first like to share my views on this issue.

Our country's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution should be dated from the winter of 1965, when Comrade Yao Wenyuan published his critique of *Hai Rui Dismissed from Office*. At that time, in certain departments and certain places in this country, revisionism had seized control. It was truly a case of water being unable to be splashed in and a needle unable to be inserted. I then suggested that Comrade Jiang Qing organize an article to criticize *Hai Rui Dismissed from Office*, but even in this red city, nothing could be done, and there was no choice but to go to Shanghai to organize it. Finally, the article was written. I read it three times and considered it basically acceptable, and I asked Comrade Jiang Qing to take it back and publish it. I suggested letting some leading comrades of the Central Committee also read it, but Comrade Jiang Qing suggested: "It would be good to publish the article just like this. In my view, there is no need to let Comrades Enlai and Kangsheng read it." (Comrade Lin Biao interjected: Some people say that Comrade Mao Zedong practices pulling in one faction and striking another. Now, all the leading comrades of the Central Committee who enjoy prestige among the revolutionary masses were given the inside story of the Great Cultural Revolution by Chairman Mao in advance, so they did not make mistakes. In my view, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is rather like an exam without an exam: whoever can closely follow Mao Zedong Thought is the proletarian revolutionary faction. That is why I always say that when you understand Mao Zedong Thought, you must carry it out; when you temporarily do not understand it, you must also carry it out.) After Comrade Yao Wenyuan's article was published, most newspapers across the country carried it, but Beijing and Hunan simply refused to publish it. Later, I suggested publishing it as a pamphlet, but that too met with resistance and could not be done.

Comrade Yao Wenyuan's article was only the signal for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. That is why, at the Central Committee, I specially presided over the formulation of the May 16 Notice. Because the enemy is extremely sensitive: here there was a signal, and there they took action. Of course, we also had to take action. This notice already clearly raised the question of the line, and also raised the issue of the two lines. At the time, the majority disagreed with my views. For a time, I was left alone, and they said my views were outdated. I had no choice but to take my views to the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee for discussion. Only through debate did I obtain the agreement of slightly more than half. At that time, many people still did not go along: Li Jingquan did not go along, and Liu Lantao did not go along. Comrade Boda went to talk to them, and they said: "We don't go along in Beijing; when we go back, we still won't go along." In the end, I could only let practice carry out further examination.

After the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee, the focus was on criticizing the bourgeois reactionary line in the three months of October, November, and December 1966. This openly brought the contradictions within the Party into the open. Here, I take the opportunity to raise a question: how should we regard the vast number of workers and peasants and Party and League cadres who were deceived in the course of criticizing the reactionary line? I have always held that the broad masses of workers, peasants, and soldiers are good, that the overwhelming majority of Party and League members are good, and that they have been the main force in every stage of the proletarian revolution. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is no exception. The broad masses of workers and peasants are concrete laborers, so naturally they understand less about the upper levels. Moreover, the vast backbone members of the Party and League are boundlessly devoted to the Party and to Party cadres in their hearts, while the "capitalist-roaders in power" all waved red flags to oppose the red flag. Therefore, they were deceived and, for quite some time, could not turn around. Here, there are historical factors. If they were deceived, let it pass once they have corrected themselves! As the movement develops in depth, they have again become the main force. The "January Storm" was launched by the workers, and subsequently, the workers and peasants across the country rose up. This is the law of revolutionary development; it was so for the democratic revolution, and it is so for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The "May Fourth" Movement was launched by intellectuals, fully demonstrating that intellectuals have foresight and are the first to awaken. But the thoroughgoing revolution of the Northern Expedition and the Long March type had to rely on the masters of the era as the main force to be completed—by the workers, peasants, and soldiers. In reality, workers, peasants, and soldiers are simply workers and peasants, because soldiers are merely workers and peasants in uniform. The criticism of the bourgeois reactionary line was launched by intellectuals and by the vast numbers of young students. But the seizure of power in the "January Storm" and the thoroughgoing revolution had to rely on the masters of the era—the broad masses of workers, peasants, and soldiers—as the main force to be completed. Intellectuals, as ever, are quick to sense changes, but limited by instinct, they lack thoroughgoing revolutionary character and are often opportunistic.

In terms of policy and strategy, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution can be roughly divided into four stages: from the publication of Comrade Yao Wenyuan's article to the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee, this can be counted as the first stage, mainly the stage of mobilization. From the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee to the "January Storm" counts as the second stage. The third stage was marked by the articles *Patriotism or National Treason?* and *The Crux of "Self-Cultivation" Is Betraying the Dictatorship of the Proletariat*. After that can be counted as the fourth stage. Both the third and fourth stages involve the seizure of power. The fourth stage is seizing power over ideology from the revisionists and the bourgeoisie. So this is the decisive, critical stage in the struggle between the two classes, the two roads, and the two lines; it is the main theme, the principal subject. Originally, after the "January Storm," the Central Committee repeatedly urged attention to the matter of great alliance, but without success. Later, it was discovered that this subjective wish did not conform to the objective law of development of the class struggle. Because every class and every political force would still tenaciously assert itself. Bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas surged forth without any hindrance, thus sabotaging the great alliance. A great alliance cannot be cobbled together. If it is forcibly pieced together, it will still fall apart. Therefore, the Central Committee's present attitude is only to promote it, not to cobble it together any more. The method of pulling up seedlings to help them grow will not work. This law of the class struggle does not change according to anyone's subjective will. On this issue, there are many examples to illustrate the point. Take the workers' congresses, Red Guard congresses, and peasants' congresses in the city of XX. Apart from the peasants' congress, where fighting was relatively limited, the workers' congresses and Red Guard congresses fought fiercely among themselves. It seems that the Revolutionary Committee of XX city will also have to be reorganized.

Originally, there was the intention to cultivate some successors among the intellectuals, but now it appears far from ideal. As I see it, the world outlook of intellectuals, including young intellectuals still in school, from within the Party to outside the Party, is basically still bourgeois. Because for more than a decade since Liberation, the cultural and educational circles were controlled by the revisionists, bourgeois thinking has melted into their very blood. Therefore, revolutionary intellectuals must remold their world outlook well at this critical stage in the struggle between the two classes, the two roads, and the two lines; otherwise, they will go over to the opposite side of the revolution. Here, let me ask everyone a question: What do you say is the objective of the Great Cultural Revolution? (Someone on the spot answered: It is to struggle against the capitalist-roaders in power within the Party.) Struggling against capitalist-roaders in power is the main task, but absolutely not the objective. The objective is to resolve the problem of world outlook, to dig out the roots of revisionism.

The Central Committee has repeatedly stressed that the masses must educate themselves and liberate themselves. Because world outlook cannot be imposed by force. Likewise, the remolding of ideology must involve external causes operating through internal causes, with internal causes being primary. If world outlook is not remolded, how can the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution be called a victory? If world outlook is not remolded, this Great Cultural Revolution has thrown up two thousand capitalist-roaders in power; next time, it may throw up four thousand. The cost of this Great Cultural Revolution is very great. Although the problem of the struggle between the two classes and the two roads cannot be resolved by one, two, three, or four Great Cultural Revolutions, yet after this Great Cultural Revolution, we must at least consolidate things for ten years. Within a century, at most we may have to conduct it two or three times. Therefore, we must focus our attention on digging out the roots of revisionism, so as to enhance at all times our ability to prevent and combat revisionism. Here, let me ask you another question: What do you say is meant by capitalist-roaders in power? (The crowd was silent.) So-called capitalist-roaders in power are simply those people in power who have taken the capitalist road! That is to say, during the period of the democratic revolution, these people actively took part in opposing the three great mountains; but after nationwide Liberation, when it came to opposing the bourgeoisie, they no longer quite agreed. When it came to overthrowing the local tyrants and distributing the land, they actively agreed and participated; but after nationwide Liberation, when the countryside was to carry out collectivization, they no longer quite agreed. They do not take the socialist road, and they are in power—so can't they be called capitalist-roaders in power? This can be considered a case of "veteran cadres encountering new problems"! This is all called "veteran cadres encountering new problems." But those with a proletarian world outlook firmly take the socialist road. Those with a bourgeois world outlook want to take the capitalist road. This is what is meant by the bourgeoisie wanting to remold the world according to the bourgeois world outlook and the proletariat wanting to remold the world according to the proletarian world outlook. When some people commit errors of orientation and line during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, they also say it is a case of "veteran cadres encountering new problems." But since they have committed errors, this shows that the bourgeois world outlook of these veteran cadres has not yet been thoroughly remolded. In the future, veteran cadres will encounter even more new problems. If they want to ensure that they firmly take the socialist road, they must undergo a thoroughgoing proletarian revolutionization in their thinking. Let me ask everyone: How do you say one should concretely move from socialism to communism? This is a major matter for the country and for the world.

I say that the revolutionary young fighters have a very strong revolutionary spirit. This is very good. But you cannot come to power now. If you came to power today, you would be driven off the stage tomorrow. But this remark was let slip from his own words by a vice premier. That was very wrong. With regard to the revolutionary young fighters, it is a matter of cultivation. One must not use such words to pour cold water on them when they have made certain mistakes. Some say that elections are very good and democratic. In my view, elections are a civilized term; I just do not recognize that there are genuine elections. I was elected by the Beijing district as a people's deputy. How many in Beijing truly understand me? I hold that Zhou Enlai's serving as premier was simply an appointment by the Central Committee. Some also say that China is ardently peace-loving; I do not think it quite reaches the level of ardent love. I think the Chinese people are still combative.

In dealing with cadres, one must first establish the conviction that more than 95 percent are good or relatively good. One cannot depart from this class viewpoint! Revolutionary leading cadres and those who want to be revolutionary must be protected, and protected with full justification; they must be liberated from their mistakes. Even those who have taken the capitalist road, if after long-term education they correct their mistakes, should still be allowed to join the revolution. Genuinely bad people are not many—at most 5 percent among the masses, one or two percent within the Party and League. The diehard capitalist-roaders in power are only a small handful. But this small handful of capitalist-roaders in power within the Party must be struck down as our main target, because their influence and the poison they spread are far-reaching and tremendous. Therefore, they are also the main task of our Great Cultural Revolution. The bad people among the masses are, at most, only 5 percent, but they are scattered and without strength. If, reckoning on 5 percent of 350 million, they were to form an army and oppose us in an organized way, that would indeed be a question worthy of our consideration. But they are scattered in various places and lack strength; therefore, they cannot be the main target of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Yet we must heighten our vigilance, especially at critical stages of the struggle, and be all the more on guard against bad elements exploiting loopholes. Thus, the great alliance should have two preconditions: one is to break down selfishness and foster devotion to the public; the other is that it must go through struggle. A great alliance that does not go through struggle cannot be effective.

The fourth stage of this Great Cultural Revolution is the critical stage in the struggle between the two classes, the two roads, and the two lines. Therefore, a relatively long period has been arranged for mass criticism. The Central Cultural Revolution Group is still discussing it. Some believe the end of this year would be appropriate; others hold that May of next year would be appropriate. But the timing must still be subject to the laws of the class struggle.