March 6, 1975
Speech by Comrade Geng Biao of the CCP CC International Liaison Department at the Symposium on National Tourism Work
This document was made possible with support from Henry Luce Foundation
[封面页]
机 （75） 10
·绝密· 旅材5
中共中央联络部长耿飚同志在全国旅游工作座谈会上的讲话 （记录稿）
一九七五年三月六日上午
[正文]
·绝密· 旅材5
中共中央联络部长耿飚同志在全国旅游工作座谈会上的讲话 （记录稿）
一九七五年三月六日上午
讲的问题：一、国际形势；二、国际共运问题
讲几个实质性的问题。
（一）时代问题。要研究国际形势，必须从时代谈起。在我党十大政治报告中提到，我们重申我们所处的时代是帝国主义和无产阶级革命的时代。看形势首先要有正确的基本立场，否则就会出偏向或错误。列宁逝世后，虽然国际形势发生了很大变化，但时代的基本特征没有变，也没有过时。列宁对帝国主义的本质和特征的分析，帝国主义之间的矛盾和世界其他各种基本矛盾的分析，无产阶级革命策略和战略分析，现在仍然是正确的。这个问题我们和苏修有争论，也是我们和修正主义争论的根本问题。苏修否认列宁主义的革命原理。我们认为无产阶级政党的基本任务，就是根据各国具体情况，通过无产阶级革命逐步建立无产阶级专政。各国具体情况，革命阶段和特点不同，战略上也不同，但基本原理是一样的。现代修正主义的头子苏修不承认现在是列宁所说的时代，他们说过时了。我国超级间谍林彪也说列宁主义过时了。看形势，看世界大事，首先要把时代弄清楚。
（二）国际形势的特点是天下大乱。乱在什么地方呢？首先是矛盾激化，各种矛盾都激化起来了。严重的经济危机发生在帝国主义和资本主义世界，经济危机必然带来严重的政治危机。主要表现在生产下降，失业人口增加，通货膨胀，物价高涨，而且很厉害。我们社会主义中国就没有这种感觉。资本主义国家物价随时上涨，工人生活越来越困难。资本主义世界的黄金不断继续上涨，还有预算赤字增加，没有来源就印票子，这就更加通货膨胀。过去少数国家发生经济危机可以转嫁，现在都危机，无法转嫁。日本卖掉全部的钢及仓库的生丝布匹也解决不了问题。列宁说：“资本主义越发展原料越缺乏。”日本自己没有什么原料，但战后工业发展速度较快，靠什么？靠别人的原料，靠别人的廉价石油，靠别人的市场推销产品。我们不靠这个，原料靠自己，市场也靠自己，所以物价稳定，不受经济危机的影响。日本和我们建交时，田中吹牛说日本是经济大国，我们叫他经济动物。他到处吹他有180亿美元，但是经济动荡，石油涨价，不到两年就完了，写了一篇日本列岛改造论，但列岛并没有改造。美国尼克松下台福特上台，是不是因为水门事件？田中辞职是否由于《文艺春秋》公布了田中私人财产？这些不是私人事件，是帝国主义统治阶级内部各种矛盾激化到无法解决，只好换马，但换马也解决不了问题。意大利在第二次世界大战后，总理换了三十六个，有的几乎不到一年，甚至八个月就换一次。还有一个罢工潮流，这种经济斗争必然反映到政治上来，经济斗争是政治斗争的一部分，政治上的罢工就是经济危机引起的。意大利是资本主义世界罢工最多的国家，一罢工就是几十万人。帝国主义和资本家要掠夺原料和市场，就到处引起反对，不要以为美国很强大，他们缺乏原料，他们需要进口的主要原料有66种。苏修要进口的东西比美国多得多，所以现在世界上到处打贸易战。帝国主义和资本主义各国之间都在搞投机倒把，苏修更是如此。他们都在争夺原料争夺市场。所以，毛主席说他们的形势是“无可奈何花落去”。
天下大乱是好事不是坏事，是乱了敌人不是乱了人民自己。对革命人民是好事，在乱的当中锻炼了革命人民，毛主席描绘革命形势说：“山雨欲来风满楼。”列宁也说过“帝国主义是无产阶级社会主义革命的前夜”，所以对革命人民来说是形势一片大好，天下大乱就叫它乱去吧，越乱越好。
（三）美帝和苏修是当代的国际最大的剥削者和压迫者，是新的世界大战的策源地。为什么他们是新的世界大战的策源地？就是要打仗，只有他们两家打，不是别人打，两霸打起来就是世界大战。列宁说：帝国主义一个特点就是几个大国都想争夺霸权，目前他们的争夺越来越激烈，这个问题有些人看不到，说美苏以勾结为主，这是不对的。我们的看法勾结是暂时的表面的，争夺是长期的根本的。如何看待帝国主义和社会帝国主义的争夺，这个问题是列宁和考茨基争论的一个问题。考茨基认为：帝国主义发展到超帝国主义阶段，几个帝国主义勾结起来，就不会打仗了，也就是说形势缓和了，列宁反对，认为帝国主义是资本主义最高阶段，帝国主义之间矛盾是不可调合的，只要存在帝国主义，就有战争的危险。所以，看形势必须用列宁的立场和观点去观察，帝国主义存在，两霸弄在一起必然要斗争，这种斗争必然是从渐变到突变，正如磨破衣服一样，衣服破了看见了那是突变，但在破以前早就磨破了那是渐变，到了帝国主义打起仗来那一天就是突变，政治不解决问题了，就诉诸武力，毛主席说：“战争是政治的继续。”矛盾到激化一定程度，必然导致战争，使用武力，好比两个人有意见先闷在心里谁也不讲，后来公开化就骂起来，骂不行就动手打架，两个人就发展打群架，由用手打到用石头、木棒，发展到武器，原子弹，这就是世界大战，一家打败了再组织新的大战，帝国主义存在大战不是打一次就完了，第一次、第二次、第三次，帝国主义不打倒总是有战争的。
（四）战争的因素在迅速增长，革命形势也在迅速发展。帝国主义争夺的花样是可以变换的，而且可以变换很多，但骨子里总是以争夺为主的，他们的争夺不是在一个地方可以看到，而且在世界各地都可以看到，到处都在争夺，外事部门要指定一个同志把参考消息资料仔细地看一看，把问题积累起来分分类，就会看的很清楚，当然不一定那么正确，甚至还有谣言，可以去粗取精，举个例子，美苏两霸高级会谈三年搞了四次。第一次1972年尼克松到莫斯科，会谈后尼克松跑到波兰访问，苏修派葛罗米柯去西德访问，干什么？无非是互相挖墙角[sic]，波兰是苏修的走狗。西德是美国的同伙。第二次会谈勃列日涅夫到美国去谈，谈判不久，发生了中东事件。一打苏准备出兵，美见苏要出兵就下命令三年戒备，双方剑拔弩张的形势，到了要打的样子，搞的很紧，还有什么缓和。第三次会谈又是尼克松到莫斯科，谈判不到两个星期，发生了塞浦路斯事件。苏修两面三刀从中挑拨是非，想混水摸鱼钻进去，首先挑拨土耳其，以后又支持希腊，搞两面派。土耳其和苏联有百年世仇，现在塞浦路斯事件还没完，两家谁都想弄到自己手里。塞浦路斯是地中海不沉的航空母舰，地中海战略地位很重要，在苏伊士运河附近靠近以色列，是战略要地。第四次会谈时福特上台后到海参崴，会谈前双方都在扩军，苏修叫喊扩军，美帝国主义也说他要增加军备，要更新装备，在飞机上装备发射洲际导弹，拼命制造这种飞机，双方都想争夺优势，名义上达成十年发展核协定，规定你苏联可以制造多少，我美国可以制造多少，这叫什么协定呀！实际上你想多搞一点，我也想多搞一点，双方都要扩张核优势，根本谈不上什么限制，美国说这次谈的不好，让苏联占了优势了，美国吃亏了，美内部分两派，基辛格一派主张同苏搞缓和，国防部长施莱辛格另一派主张加强实力，把装备搞好，保持海陆空优势，对付苏联，现在看来施莱辛格似乎占点优势，美苏争夺的重点在欧洲，包括中东和地中海，它是欧洲的侧翼，不能看成两回事，谁想争霸非占欧洲不可，我们说苏声东击西，把他真东西揭出来，把他骨子里阴谋揭露。看问题要看本质，如果看现象就错了就像我们站在地球上看太阳一样，像是太阳围绕地球转，实际是地球围绕太阳转，这才是实质，固然苏联在中苏边境有100万军队，但才占苏军队的四分之一，四分之三在欧洲方面，而且在亚洲的这100万军队装备并不好，最好的装备放欧洲。从交通看欧洲是最方便，西北也不是富余地区，他们这边只有一条铁路，打起仗来粮食都不行，所以不能看表面上摆出要打我们的样子，苏修天天骂我们很凶，实际上背地搞鬼，骂我们让美国看，要美国人相信，打仗是要打中国，并不搞你们那个西方，但美国不上这个当，这是帝国主义利益所决定的。欧洲比较富、油水多，中国油水也不少，但这块骨头很硬，啃不动。越南3000万人口，物质条件并不富余，美国拿了50万军队，还打不了。中国八亿人口，又经过25年的社会主义建设能抵抗多少军队，我们有军队，还有民兵，主席提倡一不怕苦，二不怕死，敌人来了我们不怕，一百万算什么，仔细研究一百万军队摆在那里首先对付美国，其次日本，也是对付中国的，主要是两霸在争夺，虽然如此，我们对苏不能放松警惕，要严格执行毛主席“深挖洞，广积粮，不称霸”的指示。我们对付苏修也是对付美帝的，城乡都在挖，还在继续。苏修使馆问我们挖这干什么？是对付谁的，我们说是对付你们的，美国也问是对付谁的，我们说是对付苏修也是对付你们的，你们一起来，我们都对付，我们的深挖洞不是进攻的，而是防御的。从科学上讲，既不能挖到莫斯科，也不能挖到华盛顿。苏修造谣说我们要打仗，赫鲁晓夫骂我们是好斗的公鸡，主席说：我们承认，我们党1921年成立以来到27年蒋介石逼着我们上山打游击，逼着我们斗，到1949年革命成功，我们斗了22年了，不该斗吗？完全该斗，斗得好，斗出个伟大的事业来。西方有些国家，特别是欧洲把苏联这股祸水引到中国来，但推不动，毛主席，周总理和中央其他领导同志和欧洲人讲，你们要小心北极熊要吃你们，你们不能麻痹呀。过去不太相信，现在也逐步信了，他们和平观念很重，国防力量靠美国，为什么我们要和他们讲这个事呢？苏修到处喊和平，缓和，美国讲一代人的和平。把真实东西掩盖起来，这是搞阴谋，是鬼话不要相信。列宁讲过：“在市场上谁叫得最凶，发誓的最厉害，往往把最坏的东西推销给别人。”喊和平就是要干坏事，不要相信他们的话，要有清醒的头脑。世界大战我看要打的，现在不是打不打的问题，而是什么时候打的问题。当然我不是说马上打或一两年打起来，三国演义上诸葛亮一算就知道，那是胡说八道，借东风是季节，要看形势，仗是要打的打起来没有什么可怕，没有什么了不起。第一次世界大战后出了苏联，第二次世界大战后出了东欧那么多国家那时叫社会主义，现在是修了，我们中国也是第二次世界大战后不久吗。如果第三次世界大战一打，就是毛主席所说的战争引起革命，会出现更多的社会主义国家。要打谁和谁打，只有苏美两家打，两家谁先动手，看起来苏联先动手的可能性大，美国霸占那么多地方，到处有弱点，苏侵占地方少，想多霸占先动手可能性大一些，这是一般的理论估计。苏修也在讲美国要准备发动战争，他们到处搞军事基地，干什么？苏修在地中海在印度洋都在搞，美国国会去年通过了30-40亿美元作为加强海空军的建设，将汽车公司改为制造坦克。在欧洲去年增加一个旅，今年又增加两个旅，在印度搞军事基地接收英国军事基地。美国的基辛格苏联葛罗米柯到处跑，像热锅的蚂蚁一样，基辛格的办公室在中东，基辛格跑完了中东接着又去。葛知基要去中东，首先赶到他前面去埃及，基也访埃，以后又跑到日内瓦，葛还跟到日内瓦去见他一面，为什么那么跑，毛主席说：黄昏时候燕子忙吗！资产阶级认为世界大战打起来，就是打核战争，就要毁灭人类，那是吓虎[sic]人。过去美帝吓虎[sic]人吓的很多，以后说没什么可怕，在大街上迂[sic]到用报纸盖上就可以避免，一个美国人写一本书叫“明天的战争”中说原子弹没有什么用处，用处不大，打日本时两个原子弹一个在广岛，一个在长崎。现在有原子弹的国家多了，现在就复杂了，打还是打常规战争，如果说打核战争毁灭人类，我看不一定，可能打核战争，也可能打常规战争。帝国主义发动战争占领土地和人口，美苏是最高的剥削者和压迫者，如果把人类搞掉了，他还剥削谁和压迫谁呢？美国为什么不把原子弹丢到东京，大阪地方去？！
（接下页）
第三世界已成为反霸的主力军，所谓主力军举几个例子研究一下。73年不结盟国家会议，74年4月联大特别会议、中东战争使用石油武器、海洋法会议、人口、粮食会议都是反霸斗争，促进第三世界的团结，一次一次的表明他第三世界的反霸斗争力量。第三世界受剥削压迫比较深、比较重，人口是世界最多的，面积是广的，资源是世界最丰富的。美苏两霸都要靠他的原料，剥削第三世界，第三世界还要维护民族独立。中美上海公报写了国家要独立、民族要独立、人民要革命已成为不可抗拒的历史潮流，第三世界的斗争更加证明了这一点。
第三世界各国情况不同，这是很复杂的一面，多数国家领导是资产阶级代理人，他们之间有矛盾，有不团结的现象，但要看总的趋势。这个趋势是必然的。他们反帝反霸反殖是比较一致的。第二世界有两重性：一方面有欺负和剥削第三世界国家的一面，有一些国家不同程度不同形式的对第三世界实行殖民主义，另一面也不同程度受两霸的控制威胁和欺负，与两霸有矛盾，想摆脱控制、想独立。如日本和欧洲一些国家。另一方面想摆脱美国的控制，美国在西欧有军队，也有矛盾，美国说：军队驻在你那个地方，要负担军队费用，西欧说，要我们出钱不干，他说美国是“自由世界”的领袖，你为保护我们让我们出钱不干，与西欧有矛盾。列宁说：资产阶级想到的就是钱，在钱的问题上和美国有矛盾，美国有一段发脾气，我把军队统统撤回来，引起美国政府内部的矛盾。苏修与东欧也有矛盾，一个要控制、剥削、压迫，如果不听话，他就出兵搞颠覆、就占领，如捷克被占领、蒙古被占领，离心倾向在加强，东欧国家没石油靠苏修进口，苏修石油涨价一倍半卖给小修，东欧国家受不了就靠西欧。有几个政治笑话，捷克胡萨克跑到莫斯科做了一件大衣，因为天冷要长一点，尺码从头量到脚跟都很长，回国时一到机场，他妻子问他为什么这么短，随员告诉说，在莫斯科量衣服是跪着量的，这是个政治笑话，但有他的代表性。保加利亚在苏联买了一辆小汽车，没有方向盘，一问莫斯科你不给方向盘不行，莫斯科说：你这个人不懂我这个汽车是电子控制的，你坐上去他就会走，是由莫斯科控制的，你自己不要掌握，我给你掌握。匈牙利有人在互相谈话，一个问世界上那[sic]个国家最大，有的说是苏联，有的说是美国，有的说是中国，他说不对，只有匈牙利最大，因为苏军20年前就开始从匈牙利撤退，可是到现在还没有出境，你看匈牙利有多大啊！这些笑话是有代表性的，说明他们对苏修的控制、颠覆很不满意。现在两霸都是我们的主要敌人，都是要打倒的对象，这一点不能动摇，但我们有政策、方针，我们的方针是，团结第三世界，争取第三世界，反对美苏两霸。这是我们的战略方针，我们说我们是第三世界，并不是把我们降到民族主义国家水平，是为了更方便工作，更好地团结第三世界，目的是反对两霸。只靠一个中国就能打倒两霸吗？有的说：三个世界划法不合理，第一世界划美帝、苏修划的太少了，应该多划一点，如果这样，那就不是孤立少数了，是打击一片了，这不是马列主义观点。有的说应把第二世界和第一世界划在一起，第二世界是社会主义国家，两个国家中国和阿尔巴尼亚，这也不对，那就是自己孤立自己。有的说划分三个世界是按经济上划分的，这种说法也不对，没有搞阶级划分，穷朋友、富朋友、左中右、压迫者、被压迫者都有，也有的是资产阶级代理人。不能公开讲，中国在第三世界是反对两霸需要，这是内部讲，不能公开讲，内部讲便于掌握便于我们做好工作，有些国家是资产阶级代理人也不能讲，要反对两霸，就要争取团结百分之九十五。帝国主义是我们打倒的对象，资产阶级也是我们打倒的对象，但有先有后，吃饭要一口一口的吃，不能一碗饭一口全吃下去。要有轻重缓急，摆在面前的还是美苏两霸，两霸中集中打击苏修。和敌人斗争要利用矛盾，争取多数，孤立少数各个击破。列宁说：“战胜强大的敌人，要利用敌人的一切裂缝，那怕是很小的裂缝。”实际上敌人不是铁板一块，我们的工作要见缝插针，见缝扎棒就不能一气插进去，要根据各种情况，把敌人营垒内的一切裂痕收集起来，作为反对当前主要敌人用，美苏有矛盾是客观存在的。美主动要与我和解，尼克松来华，说明他孤立中国政策破产了并不是对我国有什么好感，因为他和苏修争夺中有矛盾受到压力，想利用中苏矛盾，和中国和解是把中国作为他手中的王牌来压苏修。我们同意尼克松来华并不是对美国有什么好感，更不是想从他那里捞点什么东西。有这种想法是错误的，我们不是依靠一个帝国主义又反对另一个帝国主义，更不是想捞东西。而是利用矛盾打击苏修，削弱美帝。美帝也利用我们和苏修的矛盾，对付苏修，他们想利用我们利用不上，我们可以利用他。毛主席教导我们：“我们对外工作要着眼于人民，依靠人民，寄希望于人民，而不是依靠这些当权派”。有些人不理解我们不和智利断交，为什么和西班牙建交，有些马列主义政党和组织经常和我们说这些问题，如果我们和他们断交，他就要和国民党建交。我们的代表团，我们的刊物就没法进去了，没法和他们的人民接触，情况也不知道，苏修搞什么名堂我们也不知道。有些个别自称马列主义者对我们同西班牙建交，也反对，我们问他们是不是西班牙与国民党建交要比我们建交好，他说不是的，不是为什么反对，他说不出理由。如果不和土耳其建交，我们的飞机就不能飞到阿尔巴尼亚，去阿尔巴尼亚要经过伊朗、土耳其、保加利亚、南斯拉夫、罗马尼亚、才到阿尔巴尼亚。有的人想问题天真的很，有些事不理解这不怪人家，我们过去没有执政时，对世界大事就不像今天了解认识得那样清楚，长征以前了解的更差了。有的马列党和组织对这一点不大了解。美国有个好莱坞制片厂，二十多年制48部影片骂我们中国好战杀人，极权主义，没有自由都是这个内容，尼克松一来，回去一放电影，好莱坞的影片就吃不开了。现在苏修每月骂我们有几十篇文章，报纸、广播加起来，平均每月有300多次，说我们贩卖毒品鸦片每年赚150亿美元，我们全国一年贸易总额还不到100亿美元。完全造谣！泰国、缅甸交界的地方是蒋匪帮搞的，苏修恶毒的很，到处骂我们，有些人受影响是因为天天都是听他的。美帝、苏修的一些具体情况讲的不多，大家看参考消息可以知道，有人问苏修受不受经济危机的影响，苏联是社会帝国主义，同样受经济危机的影响。去年公布粮食产量超过19000万吨，若按24000万人口计算，每人平均800多公斤，数量很大，吃不完。但为什么还到处抢购粮食呢？进了3000万吨粮，平均每人250公斤，这说明粮食根本解决不了，所谓的社会主义，他没有在农业上投资，先搞重工业，然后才是农业、轻工业。我们是农轻重。他的粮食计算法不对，粮食含水分15%。我们是去掉沙子、泥巴土，晒干才入库，苏联是按收割机后边那个斗子去量，每个斗子算两吨，里边有沙土有泥巴，有30-35%的水分，按这样把这部分除掉，他的粮食产量不到12000万吨。他的钢年产13500万吨，我就不相信，看他没那么多，是吹牛。两亿人口这么多钢用得了吗？如果困难不多，石油为什么加价那么多。石油按协议是不能涨价的，但现在不行了，带来很多不利因素，东欧小修就向西方贸易了，小修对苏贸易也要涨价，政治上对苏也不满，离心倾向严重，这是由于没办法才涨价的。开一系列的经济会议、经济合作、经济一体化，过去说不涨价，现在也没办法了。
二、 国际共运和兄弟党关系
当前，国际共运形势很好，马列主义广泛传播，修正主义受到深刻地批判，以苏修为头子的修正主义集团之间矛盾重重，分崩离析，各国的马列主义政党和组织不断发展和壮大，他们在国际，国内的斗争中，特别在反修斗争中，受到很大的锻炼和考验。找我们的也比较多了，他们正在学会把马列主义普遍真理同本国革命实践相结合，不断总结经验，初步形成一条正确的马列主义路线。总的看，各国马列主义政党和组织的力量还是比较小的，但他们有广阔的前途，这是革命事业的希望所在。毛主席说：“星星之火，可以燎原”。我们的党，开始也很小，第一次代表大会在上海开的，才12名代表，代表70多名党员。现在发展很大，已超过2800万人了。总是从无到有，从小到大，从弱到强，发展起来的。当然，有的马列主义政党和组织发展较快，亚洲的缅甸党发展就很快，他们1968年开始建立根据地，打游击，现在有两万多平方公里面积，人口超过五十多万，搞了五个县的地方政府，还有地方武装和正规军。最近打了一仗，消灭奈温军队两个营，打死敌人99师副师长。柬埔寨打的也很好，敌人号称二十万，实际能打仗的七、八万人，解放武装力量超过了敌人。仗打的很厉害，现在逼近金边，交通断绝，美被迫空运。最近又袭击波成东机场，切断湄公河。敌人对他们搞了三次围剿，没有搞掉他们，相反还发展了。还有马来西亚、菲律宾、泰国，马列主义组织都在发展。特别是拉美发展的很好。总的形势是好的。
当前，国际共运的主要危险仍然是修正主义。修正主义头子苏修野心很大，到处想扩张。但力量不足，战线太长。我们称他是可怜的扩张主义者。要打仗又没有本事，勉强的很，可怜的很。我们同苏修的原则斗争是要斗到底的。毛主席说，要斗一万年，柯西金来时，说太长了。毛主席说，看你的面子，那就减一千年。罗共领导同志来时和毛主席说，还可以再减少一点吗！毛主席说：好，再减一千年，但不能再减了。也就是说我们同苏修的斗争还有八千年。苏修也准备和我们长期斗下去，说我们和最反动的帝国主义搞在一起，破坏社会主义阵营，要同我们做不调和的斗争，那就斗吧！在国际共运中，首先是集中力量打击苏修。对修正主义观点要深刻地批判，反复批。目前，要着重揭露苏修打着社会主义招牌，搞颠覆，搞侵略。要利用小修和苏修的矛盾，瓦解他们，孤立苏修。豺狼挡道，安问狐狸？这就是我们的方针。苏修对此非常恼火，苏修骂我们的文章，不完全在苏发表，有的文章在蒙、捷、保等小修那里发表，目的是想把我们引到和小修的矛盾上来。我们不上它的当，我们要对准主要敌人，对准苏修。如果搞小修，就把修正主义头子放在一边，他就轻松了。批了苏修，也批了小修，不分散力量。蒙古小修在旁边整天骂我们，为什么不整他一下呢？不值得，他无非是一条走狗，叫几声是必然的，不理他，他是奉命来的。苏修从73年起想开黑会反对我们，反对人民。搞了二年多，也没开成。后来又想分片开，欧洲一片，亚洲一片，也没搞成，在欧洲地区筹备会开了三次，也没开成，小修也反对开。即使开起来也没什么了不起的，只能暴露苏修的反动本质。开也是骂我们一通，不开也是骂我们，世界上的真正马列主义不会被骂倒的。蒋介石骂我们五十多年，我们越骂越发展。列宁在世时，也是被骂，也是越骂越发展。
我们坚决支持世界马列主义党和组织的斗争，支持人民的斗争。毛主席教导我们：外交服从革命，不是革命服从外交。利用敌人矛盾，集中力量，打击主要敌人。在不同时期和某些国家达成某些协议，但我们不要求这些国家的马列主义党和组织的斗争服从我们的外交。中央领导同志讲：为了利用矛盾，为着我们通过外交落脚点落在人民身上，我们同意尼克松来访，我们就要欢迎他，但是他也欢迎那就成问题了。又如法国总统蓬皮杜到中国来，因为有外交关系，我们就要欢迎，但是法国的马列主义政党也和我们一起欢迎，那就垮台了。我们不要求他们和我们一样，要按照他们自己的情况，按马列主义的基本原理同本国的具体情况相结合，反对自己的主要敌人，这不是一回事，党的问题是党的问题，政府是另外的问题。我们与缅甸有外交关系，奈温来我们还得欢迎，但缅甸共产党搞武装斗争，我们坚决支持，但也不能因为我们支持缅共，我们就同缅政府断交。除非他们主动提出来与我们断交，我们也只好断。这是双方的吗？！起码他们的情况我们能多知道一点，我们并不要求兄弟党服从我们的斗争策略和政策。对我们自己要防止大国沙文主义，对兄弟党要坚持：大党、小党一律平等，独立自主，互相尊重，不干涉人家的内部事务的原则。苏修总是以他为核心，各国革命主要依靠各国人民自己。毛主席经常教导我们，也经常同兄弟党说，要坚持马列主义普遍真理与本国具体情况相结合，各国马列主义党的方针、政策、策略，只能靠自己用马列主义原理结合本国实际情况来制定。你马列主义党再正确，但人家情况不了解，而去指挥人家是非常危险的。过去苏修总是指挥我们，我们没有听他的。外因是通过内因起作用的吗！你指挥人家，就说明人家不行啊！我们党总结过去这方面的教训，吃过亏。过去搬苏联的东西，不管好不好，都搬过来，教条主义非吃亏不行。
关于他们在前进道路上发生这样那样的问题，我们要相信他们通过革命实践，总结经验教训，一定会得出正确的结论。我们要鼓励他们总结经验。马克思及时总结了巴黎公社失败的经验，列宁总结1909年的经验为什么没有成功。毛主席在第三[sic]次国内革命战争时期总结井岗山斗争的经验，写了《红色政权为什么能够存在》，《星星之火，可以燎原》，长征后及时总结了长征前江西那么多根据地为什么丢掉呀！写了《中国革命战争和战略问题》。我们鼓励兄弟党不断总结经验，每总结一次，就前进一步，不断总结，不断前进。我们支持兄弟党，政治上支持是主要的，经济上援助是次要的。同兄弟党合作我们主张搞双边关系。几个党一齐召开国际会议，什么世界性会议，我们不赞成这个，没有什么好处。有的人主张搞这个，首先是苏修主张搞这个，美其名曰什么在一起交换情况，共同制定国际政策、共同行动纲领，不可能嘛！国家情况不同，有什么共同的行动纲领？双边关系比较自由，也不强加于人。有些马列主义党出不来呀！他正在搞武装斗争，你要开会，请人家，不来不好，搞不好，叫人家抓住要杀头。我们党开“九大”、“十大”都没有请兄弟党来参加，兄弟党开大会我们也不去，我们开会，主要是解决自己的问题，我们作报告，人家不同意怎么办？人家请我们去参加会，听到不对的东西，不能不说，一说话就不同意人家的，就吵架，人家是主人，我们是客人，跑到人家那里吵架也不好。毛主席决定，我们不搞多边活动。还有些国家出现几个马列主义党和组织，如意大利各种革命组织和团体三十多个，自称马列主义的就有十六、七个，谁是真、假马列主义？很难辩[sic]别。对这种情况，我们应该普遍接触，在普遍接触的基础上重点帮助，在接触的过程中促进他们团结起来。否则，他们都自称马列主义，老子天下第一，互相打内战，都搞唯我正确，别人不是马列主义，唯独他是马列主义，别人都是错误的，把主要敌人丢在一边。日本是如此，好多国家是如此，我们要劝他们求同存异，不要互相骂，主要是骂本国的统治阶级，要揭露他们。自己互相骂，骂的差不多了，也就垮的差不多了。这样的方法不能解决问题，只有失败，要谈清楚这个道理。比利时过去两个党，我们都接触过，去年合并起来，这很好。巴西、多米尼加两个党现在也都合并了，很好嘛！
至于过去跟着苏修骂过我们的党，只要承认错误，愿改前非，愿和我们来往，还是可以考虑。如西班牙党的卡利略，过去骂过我们，后来表示承认错误，要和我们接触，我们欢迎。中央让我们和他们说，指出我们和他们有分歧，现在还有分歧，在什么地方，你要考虑，必须改变。但是，并不是今天谈了，两党就正式发生关系，还要看今后实际表现，而不是只看自我表白。回去后，他们在行动上并没有什么改变，我们就不理他。他去朝鲜有十万人欢迎他，他要我们邀请他，我们没理他。过去骂我们又不认错，就没来往，就没有接触的基础。看一个党和组织是不是真正的马列主义，主要的标准，看他是否把马列主义的普遍真理与本国具体情况相结合，还要看本国人民是否承认，不能认为外国党承认了，你就是马列主义的。有人认为现在只要中国、阿尔巴尼亚承认了，就是马列主义的党，我们告诉他，那不行，靠不住。如过去日修头子冈野进原来是在延安培养的，回去后变修了，我们也就不承认他了。比利时的党变了，也不承认了，阿尔巴尼亚也不承认了。阿尔巴尼亚承认的，我们不一定就得承认。有一些党我们承认了，阿尔巴尼亚也不承认。国与国的作法不完全一样，我们同朝鲜党也有类似的情况，也有不大一样的地方。
现在苏修有一动向值得注意，强调搞联合行动，什么左翼联盟，什么团结一切反帝力量等口号，目的是议会道路。在智利搞议会道路失败了，他不死心，现在意大利、西班牙、拉美秘鲁、阿根廷这些地方搞类似智利一样的议会道路，把六七个党凑在一起，在议会上求得多数代表，搞个阿连德出来。搞成不容易，即便搞起来，带来的结果也是法西斯的。意大利党派人数相当多，有一百六十万人，几个党联合起来在议会可能得到席位，如果搞成了，是智利类型。但还有很多法西斯组织，名目很多，如“意大利社会行动”，“新秩序”、“黑色秩序”、“黑色政权”、“民主先锋”、“青年意大利”、“天主教同盟党”、“黑色社会党”、“青年阵线”，“莫索里尼行动队”等等，掌握在这些组织中的武器可以武装两万一千人，如果修党搞成了，那么这些法西斯党不搞你？非搞你不行。议会道路是不行的。革命要一步一步的走，要扎扎实实，苏联十月革命成功，是经过列宁、斯大林亲自领导，搞了几十年才成功的。中国革命在毛主席的领导下，从1921年起，花了六年时间搞武装斗争，上井岗山，打游击。又花了二十八[sic]年的时间，搞武装斗争，到1949年才取得政权，不是那么容易。当然，也有古巴的影响。古巴既不是莫斯科类型的，也不是中国类型的。他象“沙家浜”里边胡传魁那样十几个人，七、八条枪搞起来的，带有很大偶然性，或是军事投机。拉美几个国家受他的影响，搞什么游击中心，格瓦拉带着几十个人跑到玻利维亚，也不讲什么道理，不讲政策，结果头也丢了。阿拉伯国家的游击队，经常劫持飞机，不得人心，那不行，革命不能这样搞，脱离人民，脱离群众，搞不起来。搞到最后要失败。革命只有扎扎实实，在人民中间扎根，要扎的很深，才能搞起来。
要给兄弟党介绍经验，我们党开始时力量很小。
关于武装斗争问题，我们要对兄弟党提出意见，建议：① 首先要鼓励他们，我们党三十年前也不大，星星之火，可以燎原，使他们感到有发展前途。告诉他们，我们经过二十多年才成功的，鼓励他们，如果搞的好，可能不用那么多的时间。另一方面，也要告诉他们，道路也是很长的；
② 告诉他们，打仗没有什么了不起的，可以边打边学。有的总是要派军队干部来学习，要告诉他们，用不着。毛主席在1964年7月2日同哥伦比亚党的领导人谈话说：打仗本来我们一点不懂，但打起来就会了。教会我们打仗的是蒋介石、帝国主义。他们是我们的反面教员，他们所教的在马列主义书本上是学不到的。我们的人当时连子弹都不会装，放第一枪，把眼闭上，第二枪不知子弹打到那[sic]里去了，第三枪就知道方向了，是可以学会的，鼓励他们不要把自己看的太轻了。
③ 鼓励他们选择敌人的弱点打，避开和正规军强大的敌人作战，硬拼的打法是不行的，要绕到敌人的后边，主力的后边去打。
④ 鼓励他们搞武装斗争时要结合别的形式的斗争。没有的[sic]别的形式的斗争配合，武装斗争就孤立了，最后也要失败。
⑤ 告诉他们，决定战争胜负的是人，而不是武器，要注意掌握人，但也要注意到武器，很多马列主义政党都要进行武装斗争，要看条件，条件成熟的先搞，不成熟的后搞。武装斗争是最后形式，但不是起码的形式。开始就搞最高形式，搞武装斗争是不成的，要有个准备阶段。武装斗争必须有农民参加，靠几个城市不行，要讲清楚这个道理。这是国际共运的几个问题。
以上是今天座谈的几点。
有几点要求：① 今天我讲的这些，都是带有方针战略性的问题，大部分是没有公开的，所以记录的要为自己记，不要给别人记，丢了就等于公开给了敌人。② 拿回去不要到处传，你们领导掌握就行了。 ③ 更不要公开贴大字报出去，要懂得党的纪律。
[Cover Page]
·Top Secret· Tourism Material 5
Speech by the Director of the CCP Central Committee International Liaison Department Comrade Geng Biao at the Symposium on National Tourism Work (Transcript)
-1975 March 6th Morning
[Text]
·Top Secret· Tourism Material 5
Speech by the Director of the CCP Central Committee International Liaison Department Comrade Geng Biao at the Symposium on National Tourism Work (Transcript)
-1975 March 6th Morning
The issues talked about: 1. International situation; 2. the issue of the International Communist Movement
- International situation
(I will) talk about several substantial issues.
(1) The issue of the epoch: To study the international situation, we must start from the epoch. In the political report of our party’s 10th National Congress, we reemphasized that the epoch we live in is an epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution. When examining the situation, firstly we must establish a correct basic position. Otherwise, it will deviate (from the correct line) or make mistakes. Although the international situation has changed greatly after Lenin’s passing, the essential characteristics of the epoch have not changed and are not out of date. Lenin’s analysis of the nature and characteristics of imperialism, analysis of the conflicts among imperialists and other basic contradictions in the world, and analysis of the tactics and strategies of the proletarian revolution are still relevant today. This issue is debated among us and revisionist powers including the Soviet Union. . The Soviet revisionists deny the origins of revolution in Leninism. We believe the basic task of the proletarian party, is dependent on each country’s concrete situation; the dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved gradually through proletarian revolution. Each country’s concrete conditions, phases of revolution and characteristics are different. The strategies are also different, but the fundamental principles are same. The head of modern revisionism, the Soviet revisionists deny that the present time is the epoch that Lenin spoke of. They say it is out of date. Our country’s superspy Lin Biao also said Leninism was out of date. To examine the situation and major world events, we must first make the issue of the epoch clear.
(2) The characteristic of the international situation is chaos under heaven. Where is the chaos? The first problem is the intensification of conflicts. All kinds of conflicts are intensified. Serious economic crises happen in the imperialist and capitalist world. Economic crisis inevitably causes serious political crisis. The main phenomenon are declining production, growing unemployment, inflation and high prices; they are very severe. Our socialist China does not have such problems. In capitalist countries, prices are rising at any time; workers’ lives are more and more difficult. The price of gold in the capitalist world is continuously rising; the budget deficit is also increasing. With no money source, they print banknotes, and inflation becomes more severe. In the past, economic crises only occurred in a few countries and it was transferable (to other countries), now all countries are in crises, and debt is non-transferable. Japan has sold all its steel and raw silk and cloth, but is unable to solve the problem. Lenin said: “as capitalism develops, raw materials become increasingly scarce.” Japan itself does not have many raw materials but, since the war, has experienced a relatively high speed of economic development. What does (Japan) depend on? It depends on others’ raw materials, depends on others’ cheap oil and depends on others’ markets to sell its products. We do not depend on these. We depend on our own raw materials and our own market, so we have a stable price that is not influenced by economic crises. When Japan established diplomatic relations with us, Tanaka boasted that Japan was a big economic power, but we called it an economic animal. He boasted everywhere that Japan had 18 billion dollars, however its economy was in turmoil and oil price at an increase; within two years it was done for. He wrote A Plan for Remodelling the Japanese Archipelago, but the Japanese Archipelago was not remodelled. In the United States, Nixon stepped down and Ford came to power. Is this because of the Watergate Scandal? Tanaka resigned. Is it because Bungeishunjū[1]disclosed Tanaka’s assets? These are not private affairs. The various conflicts inside the imperialist ruling class intensified too seriously to be solved. Their only option was to change leaders. However, this cannot solve the problem. Since the Second World War, Italy has changed 36 prime ministers. Some serving for less than one year or even8 months. Another issue is trending industrial action. This economic struggle will inevitably be reflected in politics. Economic struggle is a part of political struggle. Political strikes are caused by economic crises. Italy is the country with the most strikes in the capitalist world. As long as there is a strike, it will have hundreds of thousands of people. Imperialism and capitalists want to plunder raw materials and markets; they cause opposition everywhere. Do not think the United States is very powerful. They lack raw materials. There are 66 main kinds of raw materials they need to import. The goods the Soviet revisionists need to import are much more than the Americans. Because of this, there are trade wars all over the world. All imperialist and capitalist countries engage in speculation and profiteering, especially the Soviet revisionists. They are all struggling for raw materials and struggling for the market. Therefore, Chairman Mao said their situations were “nothing can be done when flowers are falling away (wukenaihe hua luo qu).” [2]
Chaos under heaven is a good thing not a bad thing. It causes trouble for our enemies not us. It is good for the revolutionary people. In the chaos, the revolutionary people are fortified. Chairman Mao depicted the revolution as “the rising wind forebodes the coming storm.” (shanyu yulai feng man lou)[3]. Lenin also said “imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat”. Thus, for the revolutionary people, the situation is very good. As it is chaos under heaven, just let it go. The more chaos the better.
(3) The American imperialists and the Soviet revisionists are the biggest exploiters and suppressors in the modern world. (They) are the new hotbeds of a new world war. Why are they the hotbeds of a new world war? Because they want to fight; only they will fight not others. If the two hegemons fight, there will be a world war. Lenin said: “an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between several great powers in the struggle for hegemony”. At present, their struggle is more and more intense. Those that claim the Americans and the Soviets mainly collude with each other are wrong. Our point of view is that collusion is temporary and superficial; the struggle is long-term and fundamental. How to view the struggle between imperialism and social imperialism is an issue that Lenin and Kautsky argued about. Kautsky believed that if imperialism developed to the stage of hyper imperialism, several imperialist countries would collude with each other, and there would be no fighting. Thus meaning, the situation would ease up. Lenin objected, contending that imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism and that conflict among imperialists could not be reconciled. As long as imperialism existed, there would be a risk of war. So, to examine the situation, we must use Lenin’s stance and point of view. (As long as) imperialism exists, the two hegemons will inevitably engage in conflict. The struggle will be a gradual change to a sudden change. Just like the wearing out of clothes, if the clothes have holes that can be seen, it is the sudden change. But, before the appearance of holes, they have already been worn out; this is the gradual change. The day in which imperialists go to war is the sudden change. Politics does not solve their problems, so they resort to force. Chairman Mao said: “War is the continuation of politics.” When the conflict intensifies to a certain degree, the result is war and the use of force. A good example is the escalation of conflict between two people in a disagreement: First, they will keep their feelings bottled up inside, then they will rant in public; without resolve, they will resort to fist fighting. The conflict between two will evolve into a group scuffle and escalate from the fighting with fists to stones and sticks, then weapons and atomic bombs. This is world war. When one side is defeated, a new world war will begin. Imperialist wars cannot be finished by one fight. There will be the first, second, and third. If imperialism does not fall, there will always be wars.
(4) The factors of war are growing rapidly. Revolution is developing rapidly as well. Imperialist struggle has many varieties and is ever changing. But their inside is dominated by struggle. Their struggle can be seen not only in one place but can be seen everywhere in the world. There are struggles everywhere. The foreign affairs department should appoint a comrade to read the materials from the Cankao Xiaoxi (Reference News) carefully, collecting the questions and categorizing them; then they will see (the situation) clearly. Of course, the (information) is not necessarily correct, there are even rumours. However, we can get rid of the dross and select the essential. For example, the two hegemons, the Americans and the Soviets, held four summits within 3 years. In 1972, Nixon went to Moscow to have the first summit. After the talks, Nixon visited Poland, and the Soviet revisionists sent Gromyko to visit West Germany. What for? Nothing more than to undermine the other (wa qiangjiao / dig at the corner of sb.’s wall). Poland is the Soviet revisionists’ running dog, and West Germany is the US’ collaborator. Brezhnev went to the United States to have the second talk. Shortly after the summits, the Middle East incident took place. As soon as fighting started, the Soviet Union prepared to send troops to join the war. The US saw that the Soviets would send troops, so it ordered a three-year alert. The two sides were at the swords’ points and nearly went to war; the situation was very tense. (haiyou shenme huanhe / what more (could be done) to ease tensions)? For the third summit, Nixon visited Moscow again. Less than two weeks after talks took place, the Cyprus incident broke out. The Soviet revisionists were double-dealing, fomenting trouble and fishing in troubled waters. They were being two-faced; first they enticed Turkey, then they supported Greece. Turkey and the Soviet Union have a hundred years of mutual hostility. The Cyprus event has not reached a conclusion; both sides want to control it. Cyprus is an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. Cyprus’ positioning on the Mediterranean holds strategic significance; it is near the Suez Canal and Israel. It is a strategic location. The fourth summit was held in Vladivostok after Ford’s inauguration. Both sides were actively expanding their armed forces before the summit. The Soviet revisionists cried out for enlarging military forces. The American imperialists also said they would increase arms, renew equipment, equip aircrafts with intercontinental missiles and produce this kind of aircraft by any means necessary. Both sides were contending for the most advantageous outcome. . They reached a ten-year nuclear development agreement in name; in reality they just said: you Soviets produce however many (weapons) and we Americans will produce however many (weapons). What kind of agreement is this! In fact, you wanted to make more (weapons), and I wanted to as well. Both sides just wanted to enlarge their nuclear advantage, which was far from a limitation (of arms). The United States said this summit was not satisfactory because it allowed the Soviet Union full advantage, while the US suffered. In the internal circles of the US, there are two factions. The faction led by Kissinger contends for détente with the Soviet Union, while the faction led by Secretary of Defence Schlesinger contends to counter Soviet (aggression) by enhancing strength, making good (military) equipment and maintaining naval, army, and air force advantage. Now it seems as though Schlesinger has somewhat of the advantage. The focus of the US-Soviet competition is Europe as well as the Middle East and the Mediterranean, which are flanks of Europe and cannot be viewed as different parts. Whomever wants to be the hegemony must hold Europe. We claim that the Soviet Union threatens the east and strikes the west. (We should) unveil the truth; expose the conspiracy located deep within. When looking at an issue, one must view its nature. If we just see the phenomenon, it is wrong. It is as if we stand on the earth to look at the sun. It seems as though the sun travels around the earth, but in fact, it is the earth that travels around the sun. This is the essence (of the issue). . It is true that the Soviet Union has one million troops near the Sino-Soviet border, but it is only 1/4 of the Soviet army. The other 3/4 is in Europe. Besides, the equipment of these one million troops in Asia is not good. The best equipment is in Europe. Europe has the most convenient transportation. Northwest is not a rich region[4]. The Soviets only have one railway there, and the food cannot (be provided in time) if a war breaks out. Therefore, we should not just believe that they want to attack us. The Soviet revisionists lambaste us furiously every day. In actuality, they play tricks behind our back. They scold us for the US to see. They want to convince the Americans that they want to fight against China, not the west. But the United States is not fooled. This is decided by the interests of the imperialists. Europe is richer and more profitable. China’s benefits are also not few, but this bone is too hard to bite. Vietnam has a 30 million population and its material conditions are not rich. The United States uses 500,000 troops and still cannot win. China has an 800 million population and 25-year socialist construction. Imagine how many troops we could resist? We have troops and also militia. Chairman (Mao) advocates we fear neither hardship nor death. We do not fear the enemy’s coming. One million (Soviet troops) is nothing. Think about it carefully, the one-million troops there will confront the United States first, then Japan. Although they will cope with China as well, the main (situation) is the two hegemons’ struggle. Even so, we cannot relax our vigilance against the Soviets. We must strictly follow Chairman Mao’s instructions: “dig deep shelters, store up grain reserves, and don’t claim (global) hegemony (shen wa dong, guang ji liang, bu cheng ba).” We are coping with both the Soviet revisionists and the American imperialists. Both the city and the countryside are digging (the shelters), and it will go on. The Soviet revisionist embassy asked why we dug them and whom we would cope with. We said, we would cope with you. The Americans also asked whom would we cope with, and we said we would cope with the Soviet revisionists and also you. If you came together, we would cope with the both of you. Our deep shelter digging is not offensive, but defensive. Scientifically speaking, we can dig neither to Moscow, nor to Washington. The Soviet revisionists concocted rumours that we would fight. Khrushchev attacked us, saying we are like fighting cocks. Chairman Mao said: “We admit it. Our party was established in 1921, and in 1927 Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kai-shek] forced us to start guerrilla warfare in the mountain and forced us to fight. When the revolution succeeded in 1949, we had already fought for 22 years. Should we not fight? We should absolutely fight. ; Fight well; fight a great cause out. Some western countries, especially Europe, (want to) extend the troubles of the Soviet Union to China, but this does not work. Chairman Mao, Premier Zhou and other comrade leaders in the central committee told the Europeans, you should be careful; the polar bear will eat you.; you should not be unwary. (They) did not quite believe us in the past, now they believe gradually. They are very serious about peace; their national defences are reliant on the United States. Why do we tell them this? The Soviet revisionists shout for peace and détente everywhere. The United States speaks of modern-day peace. They conceal the truth. It is a conspiracy and nonsense; don’t believe them. Lenin said: “In the market-place, the vendor that shouts loudest and promises the most is the one with the shoddiest goods for sale.” They shout for peace when committing evil deeds. You must keep a clear head and not believe their words. In my opinion, there will be a world war. Now the question is not whether to fight, but when to fight. Of course, I do not mean (the war) will be fought immediately or within one or two years. In Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguo Yanyi), Zhuge Liang knew (when to fight) by a simple calculation, which is nonsense. His “borrowing the east wind” depended on the season. We should observe the situation. There will be war, but it is nothing to be afraid of; it is not a big deal. After the First World War, the Soviet Union was established. After the Second World War, there were many Eastern European countries established. They were called socialists at that time but now are revisionists. Our China was also founded shortly after the Second World War. If there were a Third World War, it would be Chairman Mao’s prediction of war causing revolution. More socialist countries would emerge. Who to fight and with whom? Only the Soviets and Americans will fight. Which one will fight first? It is more likely that the Soviet Union will be the first to fight. The United States has occupied many places, so it has weakness everywhere. The Soviet Union has occupied few places. Theory predicts that the one who want to occupy territory will instigate the conflict. . The Soviet revisionists also say the United States is preparing for war. They are building military bases everywhere. For what purpose? The Soviet Revisionists (are building) military bases in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. The United States Congress last year passed a budget allowing 3 to 4 billion dollars to be used toward Navy and Air Force construction. They also changed car companies into tank- manufacturers. They increased one brigade in Europe last year, and they increased another two brigades this year. They established military bases in India and received British military bases. Kissinger and Gromyko go everywhere, just like ants on a hot pot (sic). Kissinger’s office is in the Middle East, and after he finished his work, he went to the Middle East again. Gromyko knew Kissinger would go to the Middle East so he visited Egypt before Kissinger. Then, Kissinger also visited Egypt. Afterward, Kissinger went to Geneva, and Gromyko followed him to Geneva and met him there. Why are they so busy? Chairman Mao said: “The swallows are busy in the dusk (huanghun shihou yanzi mang)[5].” The bourgeoisie thinks once a world war breaks out, there will be a nuclear war that will destroy humanity. That’s just bluster. In the past, the American imperialists blustered a lot, then they said it was not scary. If you encountered (a nuclear explosion) on the street, you can avoid being hurt by covering yourself with newspapers. An American wrote a book called “Tomorrow’s War”, saying the atomic bomb was not very useful. When attacking Japan with atomic bombs, one was used in Hiroshima and another in Nagasaki. Now, there are many countries with atomic bombs and the situation is more complex. If there is a war, (in general) it will be a conventional war. (Some) say a nuclear war will destroy humanity (so there will not be a nuclear war). I think that is not necessarily the case. Nuclear war is possible, and conventional war is also possible. The imperialists wage war in order to occupy lands and populations. The United States and the Soviet Union are the biggest exploiters and oppressors. If they destroy mankind, whom will they exploit and oppress? Why did the United States not drop atomic bombs on Tokyo and Osaka?!
(See the next page)
The Third World has become the main force against the hegemony. Let me give several examples to prove why it is the main force. In 1973, there was a non-aligned countries conference. The April 1974 Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly, the Middle East war, where oil was used as a weapon, the Conference on the Law of the Sea[6], population conference[7], and food conference[8] were all struggles against hegemonies.. This promoted the gradual unity of the Third World, and proved the power of the Third World against hegemony again and again. The Third World suffers relatively high due to exploitation and oppression. It has the largest population, vast area, and the world’s richest resources. Both the American and the Soviet hegemons depend on its raw materials. They exploit the Third World; the Third World needs to defend national independence. The Shanghai Communiqué of China and the US said that “countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution--this has become the irresistible trend of history.” The struggle of the Third World further proves this point.
Different countries in the Third World have different situations, which is a very complicated aspect. Most countries are agents of the bourgeoisie. There are conflicts and disunity among them. But we need to look at the inevitable general trend. They have similar stances on anti-imperialism, anti-hegemony and anti-colonialism. The Second World has duality. On one hand, it oppresses and exploits the Third World countries; some of them conduct colonialism in the Third World to different degrees and in different forms. On the other hand, third world countries are controlled, threatened and oppressed by the two hegemons to different degrees. Similar to Japan and some European countries, they have conflicts with the two hegemons and want to be free of their control and become independent. Additionally, they want to get rid of American control. The United States has military forces within Western Europe and also has conflicts with it. The US says: “My military forces are stationed in your area; you should cover the expenses.” Western Europe says: “we will not pay.” They say the United States is the leader of the “free world”. The US (should) protect them, but if it wants them to pay, they won’t. The US has conflicts with Western Europe. Lenin said: “the bourgeoisie only thinks of money.” (Western Europe) has conflicts with the US pertaining to money. The US was angry for a period of time, claiming it would withdraw all US troops; this caused conflict within the US government. The Soviet Revisionists also have conflicts but with Eastern Europe. They want to control, exploit, and oppress (Eastern Europe). If (the Eastern European countries) do not listen to it, it will send troops to subvert and occupy these countries. For example, Czechoslovakia and Mongolia were occupied. Their sense of alienation was enhanced. The Eastern European countries don’t have oil; they depend on Soviet revisionist imports. The Soviet revisionists double the price of oil and sell it to the small revisionists. Eastern Europe finds this intolerable so turns to Western Europe. There are several political jokes. Czechoslovakian Husák had his coat made in Moscow. It was cold so the coat was made longer. The size was very long when measuring. When he arrived back at the airport in Czechoslovakia, his wife asked why the coat was so short. His assistant said it was because in Moscow people kneel down to get measured. It is a political joke but is representative. Bulgaria bought a car from the Soviet Union, which had no steering wheel. Bulgaria asked Moscow to give it the steering wheel. Moscow said: “You don’t understand. This car is electronically controlled. It goes automatically once you sit in it. It is controlled by Moscow. There is no need for you to control it, I will control it for you.” People in Hungary were chatting; a man asked which country was the largest in the world. Some said the Soviet Union; some said the United States, and some said China. The man said none of them were correct. The largest country was Hungary. This is because the Soviet troops began to withdraw from Hungary 20 years ago, however they still haven’t left the country. See how large Hungary is! These jokes are representative of their dissatisfaction with Soviet control and subversion. Currently, both hegemons are our main enemies; we must strike down both targets. This point can’t be shaken. But, we have policies and guidelines. Our guideline is unity with the Third World, winning over the Third World, and opposing the two hegemons, the United States and the Soviet Union. This is our strategic guideline. We say we are a Third World country; this is not to degrade us to the level of a nationalist country. It promotes more efficient working conditions and unity with the Third World; the aim of which, is to oppose the two hegemons. How can China alone defeat the two hegemons? Some claim the division of the three worlds is unreasonable. The First World only has the American imperialists and the Soviet revisionists, which is too little; more countries should be included. But if we do this, they will not be striking an isolated minority but one unified majority. This is not Marxist-Leninist. Some said the First World and the Second World should be combined and that the Second World should be the socialist countries: the two countries China and Albania. This is also not correct. This would isolate ourselves. Some say the division of the three worlds is according to the economy. This is not correct either. (The division) is not based on class. (The Third World includes) poor friends, rich friends, the left, the middle, the right, the oppressors, the oppressed; some are even agents of the bourgeoisie. It is for the need of opposing the two hegemons that China is included in the Third World. This is for internal discussion; we mustn’t mention it in public. Talking about it internally will help us work more efficiently. Some countries are the agents of the bourgeoisie, but we mustn’t mention that either. If we want to oppose the two hegemons, we must gather support and unite 95 percent (of the Third World). We will defeat imperialism. We will also defeat the bourgeoisie. However, there are priorities that are more important than others. . Eat your meal bit by bit; do not eat everything in one mouthful. There are issues of greater and lesser urgency. The most important issue is the two hegemons, the Americans and the Soviets. Among the two hegemons, we should concentrate on striking the Soviet revisionists. We should take advantage of their conflicts when struggling with enemies. Win over the majority, isolate the minority, then crush them one by one. Lenin said: “To defeat mighty enemies, we should use all the cracks of our enemies, even very small cracks.” In fact, enemies are not a monolithic whole. When doing work, you should insert in a pin wherever there's a crack (jian feng cha zhen). You can’t insert in a stick in one go. We should consider different situations, collecting all the cracks in our enemy’s camp, in order to oppose our current main enemy. It is an objective fact that the United States and the Soviet Union are in conflict with each other. The US initiated reconciliation with us. Nixon visited China because his policy of isolating China had become bankrupt, not at all because he had a good feeling about China. He perceived pressure when contending with the Soviet revisionists. He wants to use the Sino-Soviet conflict; Chinese rapprochement is his trump card to overpower the Soviet revisionists. We allowed Nixon’s visit, not in the slightest due to positive feelings toward the US, let alone a want to derive benefits from it. It is wrong to have such a thought. We don’t rely on one imperialist country to oppose another, let alone derive benefits. We are taking advantage of their conflict to strike the Soviet revisionists while simultaneously undermining the American imperialists. The American imperialists also want to take advantage of our conflict with Soviet revisionists to cope with the Soviets. They are unable to use us. Rather, we can use them. Chairman Mao taught us: “Our foreign work should focus on the people, rely on the people, and pin hopes on the people, rather than rely on the ones in authority.” Some don’t understand why we don’t sever diplomatic relations with Chile and why we establish diplomatic relations with Spain. Some Marxist-Leninist governments and organizations often talk about these issues to us. If we severed relations with them, they would build relations with the Guomindang. Our delegations and our publications are not allowed in. We are unable to contact their people and do not understand the situation. We don’t know what the Soviet Revisionists do there either. Some self-proclaimed Marxists-Leninists also oppose our establishment of diplomatic relations with Spain. We ask them if it would be better if Spain built foreign relations with the Guomindang. They say no. If that is not the reason, then why do you oppose us? They are unable to give a reason. Without the establishment of diplomatic relations with Turkey, our planes would be unable to fly to Albania. One must pass through Iran, Turkey, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Romania, to finally reach Albania. Some people are very naïve when thinking about these issues. They don’t understand some matters, but we don’t blame them. In the past, when we were not in power, we didn’t understand world affairs as clearly as we do today. Before the Long March, our understanding was even worse. Some Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations don’t quite understand this point. There is a Hollywood Film Studio [sic] in America that produced 48 films within two decades that accused our China of being murderous, totalitarian, without freedom, and all such things. After Nixon’s visit was broadcasted, there was no market for these Hollywood films. Now, the Soviets published dozens of articles lambasting us every month, and if we count both newspapers and broadcasts, the number (of criticism) may exceed 300 times per month. They say that we earn 15 billion US dollars per year from selling Opium. Our total trade volume in one year is less than 10 billion US dollars. This is complete slander! It is Jiang Jieshi’s bandit group that (grow and sell opium in) the regions bordering Thailand and Burma. The Soviet revisionists are very vicious, vilifying us everywhere. Some people are impacted because they listen to them (the Soviets) every day. I didn’t talk much about the concrete situations of the American imperialists and the Soviet revisionists. You can read Cankao Xiaoxi (Reference News) to learn more. Someone asks whether the Soviet revisionists are affected by economic crises. The Soviet Union is social imperialist and is also affected by economic crises. Last year, its announced grain output exceeded 190 million tons. If we regard its population as 240 million, then grain per person was more than 800 kg. Such a large amount (of grain) would have been too great to finish. But why did they still rush to buy grain everywhere? (The Soviet Union) imports 30 million tons of grain averaging out to 250 kg per person. This proves that (the Soviet Union) can’t solve its food problem. (The Soviet Union) has so-called socialism, but it does not invest in agriculture. It gives priority to heavy industry, then agriculture and light industry. Our (priority order) is agriculture, light industry then heavy industry. (The Soviet) way of weighing grain is incorrect. The grain includes 15% water. We get rid of sand and mud and dry the grain in the sun before putting it in storage. The Soviet Union measures the grain tank’s capacity in the harvester. Each grain tank is weighted as two tons. However, since this measurement contains sand and mud, the measurement is 30%-35% exaggeration (of the real production). If (these contents) are excluded, (the Soviet) grain production was less than 120 million tons (last year). Its annual steel output is 135 million tons. I don’t believe it. (The Soviet Union) does not have that much (steel). They’re bragging. How could 200 million people use up so much steel? If (the Soviet Union’s) difficulties are not many, why do oil prices increase so much? According to the deal, oil prices can’t increase. But now (the deal) does not work; it brings too many disadvantages. The small revisionists in Eastern Europe turn to trade with the West. The small revisionists also raise their prices when trading with the Soviets. They are also unsatisfied toward the Soviets regarding politics. The centrifugal tendency is strong. They can’t do anything about it and have to raise the price. They have a series of economic conferences on economic cooperation and economic integration. In the past, they said they would not raise (oil) prices, but now, nothing can be done
- International communist movement and the relations with the fraternal parties
Currently, the international communist movement is going very well. Marxism-Leninism has widely spread. Revisionism has been deeply criticized. The revisionist bloc, headed by the Soviet revisionists, has many conflicts within and is falling apart. The Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations in each country are developing and growing. Their domestic struggles and international struggles, especially their struggles against revisionism have tested and strengthened them. There are more (parties and organizations) turning to us. They are learning to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with their own concrete practices of domestic revolution. They are constantly drawing lessons from experiences and are initially shaping a correct Marxist-Leninist line. In general, the Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations in each country are relatively weak, but they have a broad future. This is the hope of the revolution. Chairman Mao said: “A single spark can start a prairie fire (xingxing zhi huo, keyi liaoyuan).” Our party is also very small at the beginning. The first congress was held in Shanghai with only 12 representatives, who represented about 70 party members. Now our party is very big, with over 28 million members. All (parities) develop from zero to one, from small to big, from weak to strong. Of course, some Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations develop more rapidly. The party in Burma developed very fast. In 1968, they started building bases to engage in guerrilla warfare. Now they control more than twenty thousand square kilometers with more than five hundred thousand populations. They overthrew the governments of five counties and defeated local armed forces and regular armies. In a recent fight, they destroyed two battalions of Ne Win’s troops killing the deputy commander of the enemies’ 99th Division. (The Communist Party of) Cambodia also fights well. Their enemies claim to have 200,000 (soldiers). In reality, only seventy or eighty thousand of them are able to fight. The force of liberation exceeds the enemy. They fought the battles very fiercely. Now (the communists) are approaching Phnom Penh. Traffic has been cut off; the Americans were forced to use air transportation. Recently, they also attacked Pochentong airport and cut off (transportation on) the Mekong River. Their enemy launched three encirclements against them but failed to defeat them. On the contrary, they are able to develop further. In addition, the Marxist-Leninist organizations in Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand have also developed. Latin America is doing particularly well. In general, the situation is good.
Currently, revisionism is still the main danger to the international communist movement. The head of revisionism, the Soviet Union, is wildly ambitious and wants to expand its power everywhere. But it lacks power, and its battle front stretches too far. We call them poor expansionists. They want to fight, but they have no ability, are very incapable, and very poor. We will struggle against the Soviet revisionists to the end. Chairman Mao said: “We will struggle for ten thousand years.” When Kosygin came and said (ten thousand years) was too long, Chairman Mao said: “for your sake, we will subtract one thousand years.” The Romanian Communist Party’s comrade leaders came and said to Chairman Mao, can you take off even more time? Chairman Mao said, ok, we will subtract another one thousand years, but no more. This being said, we still have eight thousand years of struggle against the Soviet revisionists. The Soviet revisionists are also prepared to struggle against us for a long time. They say we collude with the most reactionary imperialist and damage the socialist camp. If they want to wage an irreconcilable struggle against us, then let’s struggle! In the international communist movement, the first thing is to concentrate on striking the Soviet revisionist. We should criticize the revisionist points of view deeply and repeatedly. At present, we should focus on exposing the Soviet revisionists’ sabotage and invasion in the name of socialism. We should use the conflicts between the small revisionists and the Soviet revisionists, disintegrating them and isolating the Soviet revisionists. When the wolf is in the way, why do you care about the fox (chailang dangdao, anwen huli)? This is our principle. The Soviet revisionists are very angry about this. Not all of the articles attacking us by the Soviet revisionists are published in the Soviet Union. Some of them are published in small revisionist countries like Mongolia, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. The aim is to lead us into conflict with the small revisionists. We are not fooled. We should focus on the main enemy, focus on the Soviet revisionists. If we struggle against the small revisionists, we will leave the head of revisionism to be at ease. We have criticized the Soviet revisionists, which means we have also criticized the small revisionists. Our power is not distracted. (Located) beside us is the small revisionist Mongolia who incessantly lambasts us; why don’t we teach it a lesson? It’s not worth it. Mongolia is merely a running dog; it is only natural for it to bark. Ignore it. It just follows the (Soviet) order. Since 1973, the Soviet revisionists have wanted to convene a dirty meeting against us and against the people.. It has been preparing for more than two years, however the meeting has still not been held. Later it wanted to hold meetings in Europe and Asia respectively but failed. In Europe, it held three preparatory meetings and also failed. The small revisionists also opposed these meeting. Even if the meeting is held, nothing will happen. It will only expose the reactionary nature of the Soviet revisionists. If they hold the meeting, they will curse us; if they don’t hold the meeting, they will still curse us. A true Marxist-Leninists will not be defeated by verbal abuse. Jiang Jieshi cursed at us for more than fifty years; the more he cursed, the stronger we became. When Lenin was alive, he was also verbally attacked. He also grew stronger the more he was cursed at.
We firmly support the struggles of the Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations in the world. We support the struggle of the people. Chairman Mao taught us: “Diplomacy obeys the revolution, rather than the revolution obeying diplomacy.” We should take advantage of the main conflicts of the enemies, concentrating our forces to strike the main enemy. In different time periods, we can reach certain agreements with certain countries, but we don’t require that the struggles of the Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations in these countries comply with our diplomacy. Comrade leaders in the central committee said that, in order to take advantage of the conflict and in order to use our diplomatic footing to benefit the people, we allowed Nixon’s visit; we should welcome him. However, if (other Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations) also welcome him, it will be problematic. When the French president Pompidou came to China, because we have diplomatic relations, we welcomed him. But if the French Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations also welcome him, they will fail. We don’t require them to be like us. They must act according to their own situations, combine the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and the specific conditions of their own countries, and oppose their own enemies. These are two separate issues; the party’s issue is the party’s, and the government is a whole other matter.. We have diplomatic relations with Burma. If Ne Win comes, we must welcome him. But the Burmese Communist Party conducts armed struggle, we also firmly support it. However, we can’t sever diplomatic relations with Burmese government just because we support the Burmese Communist Party. However, if they initiate severing relations with us, then we have no choice then to cut ties. It is an issue of both sides. The least we can do is to learn more about their situations. We don’t require the fraternal parties to comply with our struggle strategies and policies. In regards to ourselves, we should prevent our own Great Chauvinism. For the fraternal parties, we insist that the big parties and the small parties are all equal, independent, and respectful of each other, and that they do not intervene with others’ internal affairs. The Soviet revisionist always regards itself as the core. The revolution in each country must rely on its people. Chairman Mao often teaches us and fraternal parties to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete situations of their own countries. Each countries’ Marxist-Leninist parties’ guidelines, policies, and strategies can only be made by themselves and through the integration of Marxist-Leninist principles and their practical situations. No matter how correct your Marxism-Leninism is, if you don’t understand their situations, it will be very dangerous to command them. In the past, the Soviet revisionists always commanded us, but we didn’t listen to them. External causes work through internal causes. You command them, which implies they are incapable. Our party draws lessons from past experiences in this aspect, (because) we have suffered. In the past we copied the Soviet experience; no matter good or bad, we just copied everything. Dogmatism must suffer.
In regards to this or that problem that may arise along their respective journeys, we must believe, that through revolutionary practices and the drawing of lessons from experiences, they can certainly reach the right conclusion. We should encourage them to learn lessons from their experiences. Marx drew lessons from the failure of the Paris Commune in time. Lenin drew lessons from the experience of the year 1909 and why it did not succeed. Chairman Mao, in the period of the Third [sic] Domestic Revolutionary War,[9] drew lessons from the struggle experience in the Jinggang Mountains; he wrote Why is it that Red Political Power Can Exist in China? and A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire. After the Long March, he drew lessons in time, thinking of why we lost so many bases before the Long March; he wrote Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War. We encourage the fraternal parties to constantly learn from their experiences. Every new lesson will take you one step further. Draw lessons continually, and you will progress continually. We support our fraternal parties; political support is primary, and economic support is secondary. We maintain that we should keep a bilateral relationship when cooperating with the fraternal parties. We disapprove of several parties holding international conferences or something like a world conference. They are not beneficial. Some support them. First (to support these conferences) is the Soviet revisionist. They call it by the sweet-sounding name of exchanging information, jointly formulating international policies and jointly formulating a plan of action. This is impossible! Each country has different situations, how can they formulate a joint plan of action? Bilateralism is relatively flexible and doesn’t impose (decisions) on others. Some Marxist-Leninist parties are unable to leave (their countries)! They are currently conducting armed struggles. If you hold a meeting and invite them, (they will feel that) it is not good to reject (the invitation). Maybe they will be arrested and executed. We didn’t invite the fraternal parties to attend our 9th National Congress or 10th National Congress. We won’t go to the fraternal parties’ meetings either. The meetings we hold are to solve our own problems. What happens if they disagree with us when we are giving a report? If they invite us to attend a conference, we cannot keep silent on what is wrong. As soon as we speak, we will disagree with them and quarrel with them. They are the hosts and we are the guests. It’s not good to quarrel with them on their own turf. Chairman Mao decided that we won’t engage in multilateral activities. Some countries even have several Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations. For example, in Italy there are more than thirty revolutionary organizations and groups; sixteen or seventeen of them call themselves Marxists-Leninists. Who is a true Marxist-Leninist and who is not? It’s difficult to distinguish. For this situation, we should contact them extensively. On the basis of extensive contact, we should focus on assisting some of them. In the process of contact, we should promote them to unite. Otherwise, they will all call themselves Marxists-Leninists, regard themselves as the number one in the world, fight against each other, and claim they are the only correct one. (In their eyes) others are not Marxists-Leninists. Only they are (true Marxists-Leninists); everyone else is wrong. (These behaviours and thoughts) leave the main enemy aside. Japan is like this, and many other countries are like this. We should persuade them to seek common ground while preserving differences and to not attack each other. They should not scold each other; they should denounce and expose the ruling class in their own countries. When they denounce each other vehemently enough, they are very close to collapse. Such a method can’t solve problems; it will only lead to failure. They should understand this rationale. There were two parties in Belgium in which we contacted; last year they merged. This is very good. The parties in Brazil and Dominica also merged. Very good!
For the parties who followed the Soviet revisionists in reviling us, if they would like to admit their mistakes, rectify their errors, and form contact with us, we will consider (establishing good relations with them). For example, Carrillo of the Spanish (communist) party lambasted us in the past then, later on, admitted his mistakes. He wanted to establish contact with us and we welcomed him. The Central Committee asked us to tell them that we had disagreements with them; we still have disagreements now; they needed to think about where the disagreements were and change. However, it was not the case that we had a talk that day then built formal relations immediately. It was up to their actual performance, rather than their self-confession. After they went back, they did not change their actions, so we ignored them. He (Carrillo) visited North Korea and was welcomed by one hundred thousand people. He wanted us to invite him (to visit China again), but we ignored him. He lambasted us in the past and refused to admit his mistakes, so we stopped contact. We lacked the basis of contact. If you want to know whether a party or an organization is a true Marxist-Leninist, you should look at whether or not they integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with their country’s concrete situations, which is the main criterion. Also, it depends on whether or not their own people acknowledge them. Just because you are recognized by a foreign party does not make you Marxist-Leninist. Currently, some believe that as long as China and Albania acknowledge it, a party can be Marxist-Leninist. We tell them that’s wrong and unreliable. The head of Japanese revisionists Susumu Okano (usually known as Sanzō Nosaka) was trained in Yan’an;after he went back to Japan, he became a revisionist. Thus, we don’t acknowledge him either. The Belgium party changed, thus we don’t acknowledge it; Albania doesn’t acknowledge it either. The parties acknowledged by Albania are not necessarily acknowledged by us. Some parties acknowledged by us are not acknowledged by Albania as well. The ways of doing things are not completely the same in each country. We have a similar predicament with the North Korean party; we also have our differences.
Currently, the Soviet revisionists have a tendency that we need to pay attention to. They emphasize on joint action, such as left-wing alliances and slogans like unity with all anti-imperialist powers. Their aim is (to promote) the parliamentary path. The (Soviets’) parliamentary path failed in Chile. They won’t drop this idea; but want to promote Chile’s parliamentary road model in Italy, Spain, Peru, and Argentina: unite with six or seven parties, win the majority of votes in parliament and put another Allende in power. It’s difficult to succeed. Even if it works, the result will be fascism. The Italian (communist) party has a pretty large membership, about 1.6 million. It’s possible that several parties can unite to get seats in the parliament. If it is created, it will be Chile’s type. However, there are many fascist organizations, such as the Italian Social Movement (Movimento Sociale Italiano), New Order (Ordine Nuovo), Black Order (Ordine Nero),Black Regime*, Democratic Pioneer*, Young Italy (Giovane Italia), Catholic Union*, Black Society*, Youth Front (Fronte della Gioventù), Mussolini Action Team* and so on.[10] The weapons held by these parties could arm twenty-one thousand people. If the revisionists succeed (in the creation of a parliamentary system), will the fascist parties not make trouble for you? They definitely will. The parliamentary path won’t work. The revolution must go step by step and be practical. The success of the Soviet October Revolution was due to Lenin and Stalin’s leadership and took decades to succeed. Starting in 1921, the Chinese Revolution, under the leadership of Chairman Mao, took six years to conduct armed struggles and conduct guerilla warfare in the Jingang Mountains. l. Then we took another 28 [sic] years to engage in armed struggles; we didn’t actually come into power until 1949. It was not easy. Of course, there is Cuba’s influence (on the revolutions in other countries) to consider. (The type of revolution of) Cuba was neither like Moscow’s, nor like China’s. It was like Hu Chuankui in Shajiabang only with a few people and a few weapons. It was largely by accident or military speculation. Several countries in Latin America were influenced by Cuba and built such guerrilla centers. Guevara with his dozens of people went to Bolivia; having no reason and no policy, they lost their life in the end. Guerrillas in Arabic countries often hijack aircrafts, which is unpopular and wrong. The revolution can’t be done in this way. It won’t work to alienate the people and the mass; it will ultimately fail. The revolution should be down to earth and rooted within the people, rooted deeply. Only then will the revolution succeed.
We should introduce our experiences to the fraternal parties and (tell them) that our party started with little strength.
On the issue of armed struggles, we should raise our opinions to the fraternal parties. We suggest (1) We must first encourage them.. Our party was also not big thirty years ago. A single spark can start a prairie fire. Make them feel that they have potential. Tell them we succeeded only after more than 20 years (of struggles). Encourage them that if they do well, it probably won’t take them so long. On the other hand, we should tell them that the path will be very long.
(2) Tell them that fighting is not a big issue. They can learn while they fight. Some always ask to send military cadres to come here to study. We should tell them there is no need to do so. On July 2, 1964, Chairman Mao, said to the leader of the Colombia (Communist) Party that we understood nothing about fighting in the beginning, but we were able to (learn how to fight) by engaging in fighting. It was Jiang Jieshi and the imperialists who taught us how to fight. They were our teachers in the reverse sense. What they taught us can’t be learned from the Marxist-Leninist books. Our men couldn’t even load a gun at that time. When they fired the first shot, they closed their eyes. When they fired the second shot, they didn’t know where the bullet went. But they knew the direction by the third shot. (Fighting) can be learned. We should encourage them not to belittle themselves too much.
(3) Encourage them to choose the weakness of the enemy to attack, and avoid fighting against the powerful regular army. Reckless fighting won’t work. They should focus their force on attacking the enemy from behind.
(4) Encourage them to combine other types of struggle with the armed struggle. Without other types of struggle, the armed struggle is isolated. It will ultimately fail.
(5) Tell them it is the people who decide the outcome of the war, rather than the weapon. They should focus on winning over the people, but should also pay attention to the weapon. Many Marxist-Leninist parties are going to carry out armed struggles, which depend on their conditions. The one whose conditions are most mature can carry out (armed struggle) first, and the one whose conditions are not mature can do it later. Armed struggle is the final form (of struggle), but not the basic form. If you launch the final form, armed struggle, from the beginning, it won’t work. You need a preparation stage. Armed struggle must have peasants’ participation. It won’t succeed by only relying on several cities. We should make this point clear. These are the issues of the international communist movement.
These above points are what was talked about today.
There are several requirements: (1) what I said today are all issues of policy and strategy. Most of them have not been made public. So, take minutes for yourself, not for others. Losing the minutes is equivalent to disclosing it to our enemies. (2) After taking (the information) back, don’t spread it around. Only you the leaders can know it. (3) More importantly, you must not post a big-character poster for the public to see. You should know the party’s discipline.
[1] Bungeishunjū is a Japanese magazine.
[2] About “wukenaihe hua luo qu”: In the China and Soviet Union’s polemics, Mao Zedong used this quotation in his revision of the letter of 28 July 1964 to the Central Committee of the CPSU. See Jianguo Yilai Mao Zedong Wengao, vol 11 (Beijing:
Zhongyang Wenxian Chubanshe, 1992), p. 108. Mao meant China can’t do anything to save the Soviet unavoidable failure. Geng Biao wanted to say the imperialists and revisionists’ decline and failure were doomed, and nothing can be done to change.
[3] This sentence means before upheavals there are signs foreshadowing them. Mao used it to describe the international situation on 29 July 1973, in his meeting with the President of People's Republic of the Congo Marien Ngouabi. Mao said: “Don’t believe that the current world is peaceful. The situation now is ‘the rising wind forebodes the coming storm’ (shanyu yulai feng man lou). The storm has not come but the wind comes. And the wind is very strong!” See Mao Zedong Nianpu, (Beijing: Zhongyang Wenxian Chuban She, 2013), vol 6, p. 489.On 30 May 1974 in his meeting with physicist Tsung-Dao Lee, Mao said: “Let’s talk about the situation of the world. How do you think about it? My opinion is chaos under heaven. The storm will come. It is impossible if there will be no war. Because the social systems are different. Even they have the same social system, there will be a war as well. Because they are imperialists.” Mao Zedong Nianpu, vol 6, p. 538. In the talk with Lee, Mao further explained he believed a war would break out. Shanyu (storm or rain in the mountain) refers to the war. Geng Biao may wanted to say there would be a war among the imperialists and it would be the chance for revolution.
[4] It may refer to China’s northwest. Perhaps what Geng Biao wanted to say was the Soviet Central Asia, which borders China’s northwest.
[5] Mao Zedong used “huanghun shihou yanzi mang” in his meeting with the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago Eric Williams, on 6 November 1974. Mao said: “Now the earth is sick, so they talk about détente of the intensity, easing the international intensity and talk about peace. Now they are curing the earth. I’m suspicious of it. There are so many international conferences, and the US Secretary of State goes everywhere. It’s quite strange! The swallows are busy in the dusk (huanghun shihou yanzi mang) They fly low, and it’s going to rain!” Mao Zedong Nianpu, vol 6, p.556. The low-flying swallows is a sign of rain, therefore probably Mao wanted to say that a busy US State of Secretary is a sign of international intensity, perhaps a sign of war. Mao often used the metaphor swallow referring to Henry Kissinger. On 17 February 1973, Mao talked to Kissinger: “You did a god job, flying everywhere. Are you a swallow or a pigeon?” Mao Zedong Nianpu, vol 6, p. 468. On 21 October 1975, Mao said to Kissinger: “You are very busy, and it seems you can’t stop being busy. When the wind and rain are coming, the swallows are busy. Now the world is not peaceful, the wind and rain coming, so the swallow is busy. You may postpone the wind and rain but very difficult to stop it.” Mao Zedong Nianpu, vol 6, p. 616.
[6] The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was convened in 1973 in New York.
[7] It refers to The World Population Conference in 1974 in Bucharest.
[8] It refers to The World Food Conference in 1974 in Rome.
[9] The initial script was incorrect. It should be the Second Domestic Revolutionary War (Dierci Guonei Geming Zhanzheng), from 1927 to 1937. In this period, Mao wrote his three articles. The Third Domestic Revolutionary War (Disanci Guonei Geming Zhanzheng) was from 1945 to 1949.
[10] These names with “*”cannot be found. They are translated vertbatim from Chinese to English.
Geng Biao, one of China's leading foreign policy officials in the mid-1970s, discusses the international situation and the international communist movement.
Author(s):
Associated Places
Associated Topics
Document Information
Source
Rights
The History and Public Policy Program welcomes reuse of Digital Archive materials for research and educational purposes. Some documents may be subject to copyright, which is retained by the rights holders in accordance with US and international copyright laws. When possible, rights holders have been contacted for permission to reproduce their materials.
To enquire about this document's rights status or request permission for commercial use, please contact the History and Public Policy Program at HAPP@wilsoncenter.org.
Explore Related Resources
Less Revolution, More Realpolitik: China’s Foreign Policy in the Early and Middle 1970s
Zhou Yi analyzes a speech made by a senior Chinese official at an unexpected venue - a tourism conference - in March 1975 to decode broad shifts in Chinese foreign policy at the end of the Mao era.