mao) of sixty-four communist and workers' parties' (edited

Digital ArchiveInternational History Declassified

digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org

November 18, 1957Mao Zedong, 'Speech at a Meeting of the Representativesof Sixty-four Communist and Workers' Parties' (Edited by

Mao)

Citation:“Mao Zedong, 'Speech at a Meeting of the Representatives of Sixty-four Communist and Workers'Parties' (Edited by Mao),” November 18, 1957, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive,Mao Zedong wenji (Collected Writings of Mao Zedong), vol. 7 (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1999),321-335. English translation from Michael Schoenhals, "Mao Zedong: Speeches at the 1957 ‘MoscowConference’," Journal of Communist Studies 2, no. 2 (1986): 109-126.https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/121559

Summary:During a speech at the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties of 1957 , Mao Zedongproclaims that "the east wind prevailing over the west wind." This version of the speech was edited byMao for publication.

Credits:This document was made possible with support from the MacArthur Foundation.

Original Language:Chinese

Contents:English TranslationChinese TranscriptionScan of Original Document

http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org

https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/121559

Comrades:

I will say a few words. Please allow me to remain seated while speaking. I suffered astroke some years ago, and though my condition has improved these two years, I still find it a littledifficult to stand while speaking.

I should like to discuss two questions: the [present international] situation and [our] unity.

It is my opinion that the international situation has now reached a new turning point. Thereare two winds in the world today, the east wind and the west wind. There is a Chinese saying,‘Either the east wind prevails over the west wind or the west wind prevails over the east wind’. It ischaracteristic of the situation today, I believe, that the east wind is prevailing over the west wind.That is to say, the forces of socialism are overwhelmingly superior to forces of imperialism.

The October Revolution, 40 years ago, was a turning-point in the history of mankind. Sohow come we now have yet another turning-point? Well, we have. For a while, for a year or two,Hitler had the upper hand. At the time, he not only occupied half of Europe but also invaded theSoviet Union, causing it to surrender a large territory. It is clear that he temporarily had the upperhand then. But the battle of Stalingrad was a turning-point, and from then on Hitler went downhill,while the Soviet Union pushed its way with irresistible force all the way to Berlin. Wasn't it aturning-point? In my opinion, the battle of Stalingrad was the turning-point of the entire SecondWorld War.

Last year, and in the preceding years, the West was very ferocious. They took advantageof some problems within our camp - in particular the Hungarian incident - to discredit us. Butthough many dark clouds appeared in our skies, the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries weresuppressed. During the Suez crisis, the warning issued by the Soviet Union also served to preventa war of occupation. The aim of the West in trying to discredit us was in my view mainly to give thevarious communist parties ‘a bad time’. In this they did succeed up to a point. For example, thatshameless traitor of communism the American Fast, deserted the party. Other communist partiessaw people desert them as well, to the delight of the imperialists. I think we should be happy too,since what is so bad about a few traitors pulling out?

This year, 1957, the situation is very different. Our skies are all bright but those of the Westare darkened by cloud. We are very optimistic, but how about them? They are in a state of anxiety.After the launching of the two sputniks, they have not been able to go to sleep. Never before haveover 60 communist parties convened a meeting on this major scale here in Moscow.

Within the communist parties, and in particular among the people of our various countries,there are still many who believe that the United States is something extraordinary. They have allthat steel, and all those aeroplanes and cannons! We have less than they do! InnumerableWestern newspapers and radio stations, such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, alllaud them to the skies and create a false image which has duped a considerable number of people.We must expose this fraud will present ten pieces of evidence as an answer to the followingquestion: are they stronger or are we stronger? Is the east wind prevailing over the west wind, or isthe west wind prevailing over the east wind?

Number one: When they fought Hitler, how much steel did Roosevelt and Churchill have?They had about 70 million tons. But even so, they were helpless and unable to bring Hitler to hisknees. In the end they had to come up with a solution and so they chose to set off on a journey.They went all the way to Yalta, to ask Stalin for help. How much steel did Stalin have at the time?

Before the war, he had had about 18 million tons, but after losing so much territory, hissteel production, so comrade Khrushchev has told me, was reduced by half and only nine milliontons remained. Men with 70 million tons of steel were asking a man with nine million tons of steel tohelp them. And what were the conditions? That the territory east of the Elbe river be regarded as

the attack sector of the Red Army. This is to say, they reluctantly decided to cede this large territoryand face the possibility of it all becoming socialist. This fact is very convincing and demonstratesthat material might is not the only thing that counts. People and systems are of primary importance.At Yalta, the fight against Japan was also discussed: once more it was the

Americans who were unable to defeat the Japanese and had to ask for communist help.Manchuria and a part of Korea were designated attack sectors of the Red Army, and it was decidedthat Japan would have to return half of Sakhalin and all of the Kurile Islands. Once more they hadto make concessions against their will in order to defeat their own kind - the Japanese imperialists.

Number two: the Chinese revolution. In 1949, when we had trounced the Guomindang,they turned to Truman and cried for help, saying: Dear master, please send some soldiers! Trumansaid: I cannot send you even a single one! Then the Guomindang said: Is it possible for you to saya few words then, such as ‘Should the Communists cross the Yangzi, the United States will nolonger be able to stand by and remain indifferent’. Truman said: There is no way I can say that! TheCommunists are very formidable. So Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kai-shek] had no choice but to run off.Now he is in Taiwan.

Number three: the Korean war. When it began, one US division had 800 cannons, whilethe three divisions of the Chinese Volunteer Army possessed only a little over 50 cannons. But assoon as the fighting started, it was like chasing ducks, and in just a few weeks the American troopshad been chased hundreds of kilometres, from the Yalu river to the south of the 38th Parallel. Laterthe Americans concentrated their forces and waged a counter-offensive. We and comrade Kim IISung withdrew to the 38th Parallel, where we ended up locked in a stalemate and dug in. Theentire Korean war lasted for almost three years. The US aircraft were like wasps, while we did nothave even a single plane at the front. Both sides agreed to hold peace talks, but where? Theysuggested a Danish boat; we suggested Kaesong, part of our territory, and they agreed. But sincethis meant arriving and leaving the meetings each day under a white flag, they soon felt veryembarrassed, and suggested changing to another place, right on the front line, called Panmunjom.We said OK. But after a year of talks, the Americans still wouldn't put their signature on anything,and kept procrastinating. Finally, in 1953, we broke through the 38th Parallel along a sector of 20kilometres, which frightened the Americans so much they signed right away. For all their strength,all their steel, the Americans could not do otherwise. This war .vas actually fought by threecountries, Korea, China and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union supplied the arms. But on theenemy side, there were 16 countries.

Number four: the war in Vietnam. The French were so severely beaten by Ho Chi-Minhthey were shitting their pants. There are people here to prove it; comrade Ho Chi-Minh is hereamong us. The French did not want to go on, but the Americans insisted. They had more steel. Buteven the Americans were only able to supply weapons and keep up the tension. They did not sendany soldiers. Hence the Geneva conference, where more than half of Vietnam became theDemocratic Republic of Vietnam.

Number five: the Suez incident. Two of the imperialists waged an attack and fought for afew days. Then the Soviet Union spoke up and they withdrew. Of course, there was also a secondfactor, namely, that the entire world spoke up and opposed the Anglo-French occupation.

Number six: Syria. The Americans had already planned an attack when the Soviet Unionnot only spoke up but appointed a general by the name of Rokossovsky. These two things madethem decide not to fight. But this affair is not over yet, and we must remain vigilant. There may stillbe trouble, but so far there has not yet been any fighting.

Number seven: the Soviet Union has launched two sputniks. How much steel did theyhave when they managed to do that? Fifty-one million tons. But aren't the United States supposedto be formidable? Then why haven't they been able to launch even a pellet, what with their hundredmillion tons of steel, their boasting and their Vanguard project. Why, they should change the name

of the Vanguard project to the Trail Behind project!

From these seven events, I think we can draw the following conclusion: we have left theWest behind. Close behind or far behind? In my view – and perhaps I am somewhat of anadventurist - I'd say they have been left behind for good. Before the Soviet Union had launched thesputniks the socialist states were already overwhelmingly superior to the imperialist countries interms of popular support and populousness. Now, with the launching of the Soviet sputniks, we areoverwhelmingly superior in the most important field of science and technology as well. People saythat the United States will be able to catch up with us and that they too will be able to launchsputniks. This is true. Comrade Khrushchev said in his report that the United States is able tolaunch sputniks. But at the moment they are still debating about whether they need one, two oreven five years to catch up with the Soviet Union. I don't care whether it's one, two or five years;they are still behind. Presumably our Soviet comrades, and you, comrade Khrushchev, sleep onlyat night and not during the day. It won't be as though the Soviet people will be sleeping day andnight during that time, will it? The Americans may think they will catch up with the Soviet Union inone, two or five years, but by then the Soviet Union will be even further ahead.

Comrades, let me say something about China's domestic affairs. This year we haveproduced 5.2 million tons of steel. In another five years, we can produce 10 to 15 million tons ofsteel. In another five years, we can produce 20 to 25 million tons of steel and in yet another fiveyears we can produce 35 to 40 million tons of steel. Of course, perhaps I am only bragging andmaybe at the next session of this international conference you will accuse me of having beensubjectivistic. But these assertions of mine are really well founded: we have many Soviet adviserswho help us and the Chinese people are willing to exert themselves. Although today China is amajor country politically and as far as the size of her population is concerned, economically she isstill a small country. But our people are willing to exert themselves and work enthusiastically to turnChina into a truly major country. Khrushchev has told us that the Soviet Union can overtake theUnited States in 15 years. I can also tell you that in 15 years, we may have caught up with orovertaken Great Britain. Because, after talking twice to comrades Pollitt and Gollan and askingthem about the situation in their country, I found out that at present Great Britain produces anannual 20 million tons of steel and in another 15 years she may accomplish an annual 30 milliontons of steel. Well, what about China? In another 15 years we may have achieved 40 million tons.Would that not amount to overtaking Great Britain? Therefore, in 15 years, within our camp, theSoviet Union will have overtaken the United States and China will have overtaken Great Britain.

What it all boils down to is that we must strive for 15 years of peace. Then, after that, wewill be invincible. Nobody will dare to fight us. There will be everlasting peace on earth.

At present another situation has to be taken into account, namely, that the war maniacsmay drop atomic and hydrogen bombs everywhere. They drop them and we act after their fashion;thus there will be chaos and lives will be lost. The question has to be considered for the worst. ThePolitburo of our party has held several sessions to discuss this question. If fighting breaks out now,China has only hand-grenades and not atomic bombs - which the Soviet Union has, though. Let usimagine, how many people will die if war should break out? Out of the world's population of 2,700million, one-third – or if more, half - may be lost. It is they and not we who want to fight; when afight starts, atomic and hydrogen bombs may be dropped. I debated this question with a foreignstatesman. He believed that if an atomic war was fought, the whole of mankind would beannihilated. I said that if the worst came to the worst and half of mankind died, the other half wouldremain while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would becomesocialist; in a number of years there would be 2,700 million people again and

definitely more. We Chinese have not yet completed our construction and we desirepeace. However, if imperialism insists on fighting a war we will have no alternative but to make upour minds and fight to the finish before going ahead with our construction. If every day you areafraid of war and war eventually comes, what will you do then? First, I have said that the east windpre vails over the west wind and that war will not break out, and now I have added these

explanations about the situation in case war should break out. In this way both possibilities havebeen taken into account.

I said ten pieces of evidence and just now I mentioned seven. Here are three more:

The eighth is the withdrawal of the United States from large territories in Asia and Africa.

The ninth is the Dutch withdrawal from Indonesia.

The tenth is the withdrawal of France from Syria, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia, and theirhopeless situation in Algeria.

Who are the stronger ones, the backward countries or the advanced countries? India orGreat Britain? Indonesia or Holland? Algeria or France? In my view, all imperialists are like the sunat six o'clock in the afternoon and we are like the sun at six o'clock in the morning. Hence a turning-point has been reached, that is to say the Western countries have been left behind

and we now clearly have the upper hand. It is definitely not the west wind that prevails overthe east wind, so weak is the west wind. It is definitely the east wind that prevails over the westwind, because we are the stronger ones.

The decisive factor is not the amount of steel, but rather first of all the desire of the people.Throughout history, this has always been the case. Throughout history, the weak have alwaysdefeated the strong and people without guns have always defeated the fully armed. Once upon atime the Bolsheviks did not have a single gun. The Soviet comrades told me that at the time of theFebruary revolution they had only 40,000 party members. At the time of the October Revolutionthey still only had 2.4 million party members. On page one of the first chapter of the History of theCPSU (Bolsheviks), Short Course there is an example of dialectics which describes a developmentfrom a tiny group to an entire country and how the CPSU, from being at first only a small group of afew dozens of scattered people, became the leaders of the entire country. Soviet comrades, whenyou revise the History of the CPSU, I hope you will not delete these lies. It was the same in China.At first we were just a small communist group consisting of a few dozens of scattered people andnow we too are the leaders of our entire country, a party leading 640 million people. Our smallgroup of a few dozen communists has now developed into a big party with 12 million members. Iaddress these words m particular to the comrades from the communist parties of the capitalistcountries, because they are still having a hard time. Some parties are very small and some haveseen party members withdraw in droves. My view is that this is nothing strange. Perhaps it is evena good thing. Our road is tortuous and resembles an ascending spiral.

Let me say something about paper tigers. When Jiang Jieshi started his offensive againstus in 1946, many of our comrades and the people of the country were much concerned aboutwhether we could win the war. I myself was concerned. But we were confident of one thing. At thattime an American correspondent, Anna Louise Strong, came to Yan' an. She is the woman authorwho lived in the Soviet Union for 20, 30 years and who was kicked out by Stalin but laterrehabilitated by comrade Khrushchev. I discussed many questions with her, including Jiang Jieshi,Hitler, Japan, the United States and the atom bomb. I said all allegedly powerful reactionaries aremerely paper tigers. The reason is that they are divorced from the people. Look! Wasn't Hitler apaper tiger? Wasn't he overthrown? I also said that the tsar of Russia was a paper tiger, as werethe emperor of China and Japanese imperialism, and see, they were all overthrown. USimperialism has not yet been overthrown and it has the atom bomb, but I believe it too is a papertiger and will be overthrown. Jiang Jieshi was very powerful, for he had a regular army of more thanfour million. We were then in Yan'an. What was the population of Yan'an? Seven thousand. Howmany troops did we have? We had 900,000 guerillas, all isolated by Jiang Jieshi in scores of baseareas. But we said that Jiang Jieshi was only a paper tiger and that we could certainly defeat him.We have developed a concept over a long period for the struggle against the enemy, namely,strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously. In

other words, with regard to the whole we must despise the enemy, but with regard to each specificproblem we must take him seriously. If we do not despise him with regard to the whole, we shallcommit opportunist errors. Marx and Engels were but two individuals, and yet in those early daysthey already declared that capitalism would be overthrown throughout the world. But with regard tospecific problems and specific enemies, if we do not take them seriously, we shall commitadventurist errors. In war, battles can only be fought one by one and the enemy forces can bedestroyed only one part at a time. Factories can be built only one by one. Peasants can plough theland only plot by plot. The same is even true of eating a meal. Strategically, we take the eating of alight meal lightly, we are sure we can manage it. But when it comes to the actual eating, it must bedone mouthful by mouthful: you cannot swallow an entire banquet at one gulp. This is called thepiecemeal solution and is known in military writings as destroying the enemy forces one by one.

I have finished talking about the first question. Now I would like to address the secondquestion and say a few words about unity.

I am very glad, very happy, that our meeting has been so united. This meeting hasreflected a trend: that of the increasing vigour of the proletariat and peoples of the entire world andof the east wind prevailing over the west wind. We have many defects and have committed manyerrors, but our achievements are what counts. Year after year we have scored remarkableachievements. All this can be seen in the vigour of this meeting of more than 60 communist parties.We have all agreed that we must have a head. That head is the Soviet Union and the CPSU.There is a Chinese saying which goes, ‘A snake without a head cannot proceed’. Look: eachperson here has a head, and every party of every country also has its head. There are collectiveheads and individual heads. Central committees and politburos are collectives, and first secretariesare individuals. We must have both, otherwise there will be anarchy.

Gomulka's speech yesterday made me happy. He said that to admit that the Soviet Unionis our head is to admit the truth, and not something manmade, but the product of historicaldevelopment. But in his country, there are still some people who for the time being balk a bit at thatdescription, and who prefer using such expressions as 'the first and mightiest socialist power'. Inhis country, there exists this kind of a contradiction: the progressive elements have not yet beenable to reconcile themselves with a substantial number of people. They still have to work at it. Ibelieve comrade Gomulka is a good person. Comrade Khrushchev has indicated to me twice thatcomrade Gomulka can be trusted. I hope that we - Poland, the Soviet Union, China and all othercountries - can become completely united and that we can gradually improve our relations.

I am also glad the Yugoslav comrades signed the second declaration. The fact that theysigned the Peace Manifesto of the 60-odd parties, what does it signify? It signifies unity. They didnot sign the 12-country declaration, and therefore of the 13 countries one is missing. They say theywould have found it difficult, and I figure this is also acceptable. We cannot coerce people, and ifYugoslavia is unwilling to sign then let us leave it at that. In another couple of years, I think they willbe able to sign a different declaration.

With regard to the question of unity I'd like to say something about approaches. I think ourattitude should be one of unity towards every comrade, no matter who, provided he is not a hostileelement or a saboteur. We should adopt a dialectical, not a metaphysical, approach towards him.What is meant by a dialectical approach? It means being analytical about everything,acknowledging that human beings all make mistakes and not negating a person completely justbecause he has made mistakes. Lenin once said that there is not a single person in the world whodoes not make mistakes. I have made many mistakes and these mistakes have been verybeneficial to me and taught me a lesson. Everyone needs support. An able fellow needs the help ofthree other people, a fence needs the support of three stakes. These are Chinese proverbs. Stillanother Chinese proverb says with all its beauty the lotus needs the green of its leaves to set it off.You, comrade Khrushchev, even though you are a beautiful lotus, you too need the leaves to setyou off. I, Mao Zedong, while not a beautiful lotus, also need leaves to set me off. Still anotherChinese proverb says three cobblers with their wits combined equal Zhuge Liang, the master mind.

This corresponds to comrade Khrushchev's slogan – collective leadership. Zhuge Liang by himselfcan never be perfect, he has his limitations. Look at this declaration of our 12 countries. We havegone through a first, second, third and fourth draft and have not yet finished polishing it. I think itwould be presumptuous for anyone to claim God-like omniscience and omnipotence. So whatattitude should we adopt towards a comrade who has made mistakes? We should be analyticaland adopt a dialectical, rather than a metaphysical approach. Our party once got bogged down inmetaphysics, in dogmatism, which totally destroyed anyone not to its liking. Later we repudiateddogmatism and came to learn a little more dialectics. The unit; of opposites is the fundamentalconcept of dialectics. In accordance with this concept, what should we do with a comrade who hasmade mistakes? We should first wage a struggle to rid him of his wrong ideas. Second, we shouldalso help him. Point one, struggle, and point two, help. We should proceed from good intentions tohelp him correct his mistakes so that he will have a way out.

However, dealing with persons of another type is different. Towards persons like Trotskyand like Chen Duxiu, Zhang Guotao and Gao Gang in China, it was impossible to adopt a helpfulattitude, for they were incorrigible. And there were individuals like Hitler, Jiang Jieshi and the tsar,who were likewise incorrigible and had to be overthrown because we and they were absolutelyexclusive of each other. In this sense, there is only one aspect of their nature, not two. In the finalanalysis, this is also true of the imperialist and capitalist systems, which are bound to be replacedin the end by the socialist system. The same applies to ideology, idealism will be replaced bymaterialism and theism by atheism. Here we are speaking of the strategic objective. But the case isdifferent with tactical stages, where compromises may be made. Didn't we compromise with theAmericans on the 38th Parallel in Korea? Wasn't there a compromise with the French in Vietnam?

At each tactical stage, it is necessary to be good at making compromises as well as wagingstruggles. Now let us return to the relations between comrades. I would suggest that talks be heldby comrades where there has been some misunderstanding between them. Some seem to thinkthat, once in the communist party, people all become saints with no differences ormisunderstandings, and that the party is not subject to analysis, that is to say, it is monolithic anduniform, hence there is no need for talks. It seems as if people have to be 100 per cent Marxistsonce they are in the party. Actually there are Marxists of all degrees, those who are 100 per cent,90, 80, 70, 60, or 50 per cent Marxist, and some who are only 10 or 20 per cent Marxist. Can't twoor more of us have talks together in a small room? Can't we proceed from the desire for unity andhold talks in the spirit of helping each other? Of course I'm referring to talks within the communistranks, and not to talks with the imperialists (though we do hold talks with them as well). Let me givean example. Aren't our 12 countries holding talks on the present occasion? Aren’t the more than 60parties holding talks too? As a matter of fact they are. In other words, provided that no damage isdone to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, we accept from others certain views that areacceptable and give up certain of our own views that can be given up. Thus we have two hands todeal with a comrade who has made mistakes, one hand to struggle with and the other to unite withhim. The aim of struggle is to uphold the principles of Marxism, which means being principled; thatis one hand. The other hand is to unite with him. The aim of unity is to provide him with a way out,to compromise with him, which means being flexible. The integration of principle with flexibility is aMarxist-Leninist principle, and it is a unity of opposites.

Any kind of world, and of course class society in particular, teems with contradictions.Some say that there are contradictions to be 'found' in socialist society, but I think this is a wrongway of putting things. The point is not that there are contradictions to be found, but that it teemswith contradictions. There is no place where contradictions do not exist, nor is there any personwho cannot be analysed. To think that he cannot is being metaphysical. You see an atom is acomplex of unities of opposites. There is a unity of the two opposites, the nucleus and theelectrons. In a nucleus there is again a unity of opposites, the protons and the neutrons. Speakingof the proton, there are protons and antiprotons, and as for the neutrons there are neutrons andantineutrons. In short, the unity of opposites is present everywhere. The concept of the unity ofopposites, dialectics, must be widely propagated. I say dialectics should be moved from the smallcircle of philosophers to the broad masse s of the people. I suggest that this question be discussed

at meetings of the politburos and at the plenary sessions of the central committees of the variousparties and also at meetings of their party committees at all levels. As a matter of fact, thesecretaries of our party branches understand dialectics, when they prepare reports to branchmeetings, they usually write down two items in their notebooks, first, the achievements and,second, the shortcomings. One divides into two - this is a universal phenomenon, and this isdialectics.

Perhaps you resent it when I talk about questions like these at this kind of meeting, but Iam not much of a person for following trends. I have also been talking for quite some time now, so Iintend to finish. But before I do so, want to say just a few more things. I endorse the CPSU CentralCommittee's solution of the Molotov question. That was a struggle of opposites. The facts provethat unity could not be achieved and that the two sides excluded each other. The Molotov cliquetook the opportunity to attack at a time when comrade Khrushchev was abroad and unprepared.However, even though they waged a surprise attack, our comrade Khrushchev is no fool, he is asmart person who immediately mobilized his troops and waged a victorious counterattack. Thatstruggle was one between two lines: one erroneous and one relatively correct. In the four or fiveyears since Stalin's death the situation has improved considerably in the Soviet Union in thesphere of both domestic policy and policy. This shows that the line represented by comradeKhrushchev is more correct and that opposition to this line is incorrect. Comrade Molotov is an oldcomrade with a long fighting history, but this time he made a mistake. This struggle between twolines within the CPSU was of the antagonistic kind, because the two sides could not accommodateeach other and one side excluded the other. When this is the case, if everything is handled wellthere need not be any trouble, but if things are not handled well there is the danger of trouble.

Stalin did a great job in leading the Soviet party, and his achievements were primary andoutweighed his faults and errors. However, over a long period his way of thinking becameincreasingly metaphysical and he did a lot of harm to dialectics. The personality cult wasmetaphysical and nobody could criticize him. In my view, these 40 years of the Soviet Unionamount to a dialectical process. First, Lenin's dialectics, then Stalin's numerous metaphysicalviewpoints. Some viewpoints, when translated into action and taken to their extreme, inevitablyturned into their own opposites and so we have dialectics once again. I am very glad that comradeKhrushchev said in his speech at the meeting to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the OctoberRevolution that contradictions exist in socialist society. I am very glad about the many articlesproduced in Soviet philosophical circles addressing the internal contradictions of socialist society.Some articles have also touched upon the problem of contradictions between socialism andcapitalism. These are problems involving two different kinds of contradictions.

Let me end my talk here, by declaring once more that I endorse both resolutions.

同志�:

我�几句�。�同志�允�我即席��。因�我在几年前害�⼀次��⾎症，最近⼀�年好⼀些，站起��有些不⽅便。

我想�� :形��，��。

�在我感�到��形�到了⼀�新的�折点。世界上�在有�股�:��，西�。中�有句成�:不是��倒西�，就是西��倒��。我��⽬前形�的特点是��倒西�，也就是�，社�主�的⼒量�于帝�主�的⼒量占了�倒的优�。四⼗年前的⼗⽉⾰命是整�⼈��史的�折点，怎么�在⼜有�折点呢?�是有的。打希特勒，在⼀��期，有⼀⼆年��，希特勒占了上�。那�，希特勒不但占�⼤半��洲，⽽且打��，��出了⼀⼤�⼟地，可�希特勒⼀�占了上�。斯⼤林格勒⼀�成��折点，�此希特勒就⾛下坡路，��就�如破⽵⼀直打到柏林。�不是⼀��折点�?据我看�，斯⼤林格勒⼀仗，是整�第⼆次世界⼤�的�折点。去年，最近�几年，西⽅世界⾮常猖狂，利⽤我��中的⼀些��，特�是匈⽛利事件，在我��的�上擦⿊，我�的天上�起�多�云。但是匈⽛利反⾰命被��下去了。在�伊⼠�河事件中，��的警告也起了制⽌侵略��的作⽤。西⽅擦⿊我�的�的⽬的，依我看，主要是想“整”各�共�党。在�⼀⽅⾯，他�也�到了⼀部分⽬的。例如美�的法斯特，共�主�的可�的叛徒，就跑出党去了。�有⼀些共�党也跑出去了⼀些⼈。帝�主��此⼤�⾼�。我想我�也��⾼�。叛徒跑出去了，有什么不好?

今年，⼀九五七年，形�⼤�不同了。我�的天上是⼀⽚光明，西⽅的天上是⼀⽚�云。我�很��，⽽他�呢，却是皇皇不安。��星上天，使他�睡不着�。六⼗几�共�党在莫斯科��是��有�的事，��也�有��⼤的�模。但是在社�主��各�中，在各�共�党中，特�是在各�⼈民中，�有相�多的⼈�是相信美�了不起。你看，他��有那么多�，有那么多�机⼤炮。我�的⽐他�的少。西⽅�家⽆�的��、�播�台天天吹，美�之⾳、⾃由�洲�台等等吹得神乎其神，于是乎造成⼀种假象，欺�了相�多的⼀部分⼈。我�就要揭穿�种欺�。我有⼗件�据��明��:究竟是他�⾏�是我�⾏，究竟是��倒西�，�是西��倒��?

第⼀件，打希特勒的�候，�斯福和丘吉尔的⼿⾥有多少�呢?⼤�有七千万吨。可是吃不下希特勒，毫⽆�法。�要想��法吧，于是采⽤了旅⾏的�法，⼀⾛就⾛到雅尔塔，�求��助。那�，斯⼤林⼿中有多少�呢?在�前有⼀千⼋百万吨。因�在��中�失了�多地⽅，据赫��夫同志告�我，��量打了��折，剩下九百万吨。有七千万吨�的⼈，��求有九百万吨�的⼈。�件是什么呢?易北河以�划��的�攻�，就是�，他�忍痛下�⼼��⼀⼤��域�离他�的体系，��⼀⼤��域有可能��社�主�体系。�件事很有�服⼒，�明物�⼒量多少不完全�定��，⼈是主要的，制度是主要的。在雅尔塔⼜�到打⽇本。⼜是美�⼈吃不下⽇本，⼜是要�共�主��助。中�的�洲，朝�的⼀部分，作��的攻��，并且�定�⽇本退�半��、⼀�千�群�。�也是忍痛�步啊!�了吃掉他�的同伴――⽇本帝�主�。

第⼆件，中�⾰命。⼀九四九年初�民党被我�打得�呼哀哉的�候，向杜��⼤喊救命，�:美�⽼�呀，你出几�兵吧!杜��:我⼀�兵也不能出!于是�民党⼜�:你可以不可以�几句�呢?��江以南��地⽅，如果共�党到了那⾥的�候，美�就不能坐�。杜��:��不⾏，�不得的，共�党很�害。于是乎�介⽯只好�跑。他�在在台�。

第三件，朝��。在�始的�候，美�⼀��有⼋百�炮，中�志愿�三��才有五⼗多�炮。但是⼀打就像赶�⼦⼀�，几�星期就把美�⼈赶了几百公⾥，��江赶到三⼋�以南去了。后�美�⼈集中了⼒量�⾏反攻，我�和⾦⽇成同志商量，退到了三⼋�相持，构筑�地。⼀打，整�朝��差不多打了三年。美�的�机就像�蜂⼀�，我�在第⼀�⼀架�机也�有。双⽅同意�和。在什么地点?他��在⼀�丹�的船上，我��在�城，在我�的地⽅。他��:好。因��址在我�的地⽅，他�每天��得打着⽩旗⼦�，�完�打着⽩旗⼦回去。后�，他�感到不好意思了――天天打⽩旗⼦。�改⼀�地⽅吧，改到双⽅��的中�，地名叫板�店。我��也可以。但是⼜�了年把，美��是不⽢⼼�字，拖。最后，在⼀九五三年，我�在三⼋�上突破了⼆⼗⼀公⾥的防�，美�⼈�倒了，�上�字。那么�害、有那么多�的美�⼈，也只得如此。��，��上是三�打的，朝�、中�、��，��出了武器。但是�⼈⽅⾯呢，有⼗六��家。

第四件，越南��。法�⼈被胡志明打得�呼哀哉，屁�尿流。有⼈可以作�，胡志明同志在座。法�⼈不想⼲了，美�⼈⼀定要⼲，因�他的�多。但是美�⼈也只是出武器，�持��局�，出兵就不�。于是乎有⽇�⽡��[18]，把⼤半�越南划�越南民主共和�。

第五件，�伊⼠�河事件。��帝�主��攻，打了几天，��⼈�了几句�，就�回去了。�然�有第⼆�因素，就是全世界在��，反�英法侵略。

第六件事是�利�。美�作好了�划要打，⼜是��⼈�了几句�，�任命了⼀��，叫做�科索夫斯基。做了��件事，他��不好打了。�件事��有完�，�要警惕，可能��⼦。但是�在�算�有打。

第七件是��抛上了��星。抛�星的�家有多少�?五千⼀百万吨。不是�美�⾮常�害�?你�什么到�在�⼀�⼭�蛋��有抛上去?你有⼀万万吨�，⽜⽪吹得那么⼤呀，做出了先��划。先��划要改名了，得改成落后�划。

由�七件事，我想可以得出⼀�概念:西⽅世界被抛到我�后⾯去了。抛得很近�是抛得很�?照我�――也�我��⼈有些冒�主�，我�，永�地抛下去了。在��射⼈造�星以前，社�主��家在⼈⼼�向、⼈⼝�多⽅⾯已��于帝�主��家占了�倒的优�；⽽在��射⼈造�星以后，就在最重要的科�技�部�⽅⾯也占了�倒的优�。⼈��，美�也�赶上�的，它也�抛�星的。�是真的。赫��夫同志的�告就�了美��抛�星的。但是他��在正在��究竟是⼀年、⼆年�是五年才能赶上��。我不管你是⼀年、⼆年�是五年，你�是被抛到后⾯去了。我�的��同志，赫��夫同志，⼤概只是晚上睡�，⽩天不�睡�。所有��⼈不�⽩天晚上，⼀年、⼆年、五年�是睡�吧?你⼀年、⼆年、五年赶上��，但是��⼜前�啦。

同志�，我��我��家的事情吧。我�今年有了五百⼆⼗万吨�，再�五年，可以有⼀千万到⼀千五百万吨�；再�五年，可以有⼆千万到⼆千五百万吨�；再�五年，可以有三千五百万到四千万吨�。�然，也�我在�⾥�了⼤�，��再��的�候，你�可能批�我是主�主�。但是我是有相�根据的。我�有很多��家�助我�。中�⼈是想努⼒的。中��政治上、⼈⼝上�是�⼤�，��上��在�是�⼩�。他�想努⼒，他�⾮常�⼼⼯作，要把中��成⼀�真正的⼤�。赫��夫同志告�我�，⼗五年后，��可以超�美�。我也可以�，⼗五年后我�可能赶上或者超�英�。因�我和波⽴特、⾼�同志��次�，我��他��家的情�，他��在英�年��千万吨�，再�⼗五年，可能爬到年�三千万吨�。中�呢，再�⼗五年可能是四千万吨，�不超�了英��?那末，在⼗五年后，在我��中�，��超�美�，中�超�英�。

�根�底，我�要�取⼗五年和平。到那��候，我�就⽆�于天下了，�有⼈敢同我�打了，世界也就可以得到持久和平了。

�在�要估�⼀种情�，就是想��的�⼦，他�可能把原⼦�、��到�摔。他�摔，我�也摔，�就打得⼀塌糊涂，�就要�失⼈。��要放在最坏的基点上�考�。我�党的政治局��几次�，��。�在要打，中�只有⼿榴�，�有原⼦�，但是��有。要�想⼀下，如果爆��要死多少⼈。全世界⼆⼗七�⼈⼝，可能�失三分之⼀；再多⼀点，可能�失⼀半。不是我�要打，是他�要打，⼀打就要摔原⼦�、��。我和⼀位外�政治家��。他��如果打原⼦��，⼈�死�的。我�，极⽽⾔之，死掉⼀半⼈，�有⼀半⼈，帝�主�打平了，全世界社�主�化了，再�多少年，⼜�有⼆⼗七�，⼀定�要多。我�中��有建�好，我�希望和平。但是如果帝�主�硬要打仗，我�也只好�下⼀�⼼，打了仗再建�。每天怕��，��了你有什么�法呢?我先是��倒西�，��打不起�，�在再就如果�⽣了��的情�，作了�些�充的�明，��种可能性都估�到了。

我�⼗件�据，�才�了七件，下⾯再�三件。

第⼋件是英�退出�洲、⾮洲很⼤⼀⽚⼟地。

第九件是荷�退出印尼。

第⼗件是法�退出�利�、黎巴嫩、摩洛哥、突尼斯，在阿尔及利��有�法。

落后�家强些，�是先��家强些?印度强些，�是英�强些?印尼强些，�是荷�强些?阿尔及利�强些，�是法�强些?我看所有帝�主��家都是下午六点�的太�，⽽我�呢，是早上六点�的太�。于是乎�折点就�了。就是�，西⽅�家抛到后�了，我�⼤⼤占了上�了。⼀定不是西��倒��，因�西�是那么微弱。⼀定是��倒西�，因�我�强⼤。

��是不能⽤��量多少�作�定，⽽是⾸先由⼈⼼的向背�作�定的。�史上��就是如此。�史上��就是弱者�胜强者，�有�的⼈�胜全副武�的⼈。布尔什�克曾�⼀枝�也�有。��同志告�我，⼆⽉⾰命[22]的�候，只有四万党�；⼗⽉⾰命的�候，也只有⼆⼗四万党�。《�共(布)党史�明教程》那本�上的第⼀�第⼀段�了⼀��法:�⼩�到全�。��是稀稀拉拉的几⼗�⼈的⼩�，后��成整��家的��者。��同志，你�修改《�共党史》的�候，我希望不要把�几句�修改掉了。我�中�也是如此，��是稀稀拉拉几⼗�⼈的共�主�者的⼩�，�在也是��着整��家，��着六�四千万⼈⼝的⼤党。几⼗�共�主�者的⼩�，�在�展成⼀千⼆百万党�。我��是特�想同�本主��家共�党同志�交�意�的，因�他��在��在困�中，有些党很⼩，有些党有成批党�退出党。我��不⾜�怪，也�是好事。我�的道路是曲折的，是按照螺旋形上升的。

�要��⽼虎��。⼀九四六年�介⽯�始向我��攻的�候，我��多同志，全�⼈民，都很��:��是不是能�打�?我本⼈也��件事。但是我�有⼀�信⼼。那�有⼀�美��者到了延安，名字叫安娜·路易斯·斯特朗。��⼈就是在��住了⼆三⼗年，后�被斯⼤林赶⾛，以后⼜被赫��夫同志恢复了名�的那位⼥作家。我同她��的�候�了�多��，�介⽯、希特勒、⽇本、美�、原⼦�等等。我�⼀切所有��强⼤的反�派��不�是�⽼虎，原因是他��离⼈民。你看，希特勒

是不是�⽼虎?希特勒不是被打倒了�?我也�到沙皇是�⽼虎，中�皇帝是�⽼虎，⽇本帝�主�是�⽼虎，你看，都倒了。

美帝�主��有倒，�有原⼦�，我看也是要倒的，也是�⽼虎。�介⽯很强⼤，有四百多万正��。那�我�在延安。延安��地⽅有多少⼈?有七千⼈。我�有多少��呢?我�有九⼗万游��，��被�介⽯分割成几⼗�根据地。但是我��，�介⽯不�是⼀��⽼虎，我�⼀定�打�他。�了同�⼈作⽃�，我�在⼀��形成了⼀�概念，就是�，在�略上我�要藐�⼀切�⼈，在��上我�要重�⼀切�⼈。也就是�在整体上我�⼀定要藐�他，在⼀�⼀�的具体��上我�⼀定要重�他。如果不是在整体上藐��⼈，我�就要犯机�主�的��。�克思、恩格斯只有��⼈，那�他�就�全世界�本主�要被打倒。但是在具体��上，在⼀�⼀��⼈的��上，如果我�不重�他，我�就要犯冒�主�的��。打仗只能⼀仗⼀仗地打，�⼈只能⼀部分⼀部分地消�。⼯厂只能⼀�⼀�地盖，�民犁⽥只能⼀�⼀�地犁。就是吃�也是如此。我�在�略上藐�吃�:��我�能�吃下去。但是具体地吃，却是⼀⼝⼝地吃的，你不可能把⼀桌酒席⼀⼝吞下去。�叫做各�解�，�事�上叫做各��破。

第⼀��完了。�在就第⼆��，��，�几句。

我⾮常⾼�，⾮常�幸我�的��得很��。�次⼤�反映了全世界⽆��和⼈民的上升的朝气、��倒西��么⼀种形�。我�有很多缺点和��，但是我�的成�是主要的，是年年�成效的。于是乎反映在我�六⼗几�共�党⼤�上⼀股朝气，并且⼀致承�要有⼀��，��就是��，就是�共中央。中�有句俗�，蛇⽆�⽽不⾏。你看，我�每�⼈都有⼀��。每��家的党也有⼀��，有集体的�和�⼈的�。中央委��、政治局是集体，第⼀��是�⼈，�者都要，不然就是⽆政府主�。

我⾼�哥穆尔卡同志昨天的演�，他�，承��⾸是⼀�真理，不是⼈�的，是�史上⾃然形成的。不�他那��家的有些⼈在感情上�有��，��不想��，要�⼀�形式�，⽐如�第⼀�和最强⼤的社�主��家。他那��家存在��⼀�⽭盾，先�分⼦同相�多的其他⼈之��不�和。因此，他��要做⼯作。我相信哥穆尔卡同志是好⼈。赫��夫同志�次向我表⽰:哥穆尔卡同志是可以信任的。我希望波�、��、中�、其他�家完全��起�，逐步地改�我�之�的�系。

我⼜⾼�南斯拉夫的同志�在第⼆�宣⾔[上准��字。他�在六⼗几�党的和平宣⾔上�字表⽰⼀件什么事情呢?就是表⽰��。他��有在⼗⼆�宣⾔上�字，使⼗三�缺少了⼀�。他��有困�，我�想也可以，我�不能强加于⼈，南斯拉夫不愿意�字就不�字好了。��若⼲年后，我想他�是可以在另外⼀�宣⾔上�字的。

在��上我想�⼀点⽅法��。我��同志不管他是什么⼈，只要不是��分⼦、破坏分⼦，那就要采取��的�度。�他�要采取��的⽅法，⽽不�采取形⽽上�的⽅法。什么叫��的⽅法?就是�⼀切加以分析，承�⼈�是要犯��的，不因�⼀�⼈犯了��就否定他的⼀切。列宁曾��，不犯��的⼈全世界⼀�也�有。我就是犯��多��的，�些��我很有益�，�些��教育了我。任何⼀�⼈都要⼈⽀持。⼀�好�也要三��，⼀�篱笆也要三��。�是中�的成�。

中��有⼀句成�，荷花�好，也要��扶持。你赫��夫同志�朵荷花�好，也要��扶持。我⽑��朵荷花不好，更要��扶持。我�中��有⼀句成�，三�臭⽪匠，合成⼀��葛亮。�合乎我�赫��夫同志的⼝�――集体��。��的⼀��葛亮�是不完全的，�是有缺陷的。你看我��⼗⼆�宣⾔，已有第⼀、第⼆、第三、第四次草稿，�在⽂字上的修正��有完�。我看要是⾃�全智全能，像上帝⼀�，那种思想是不妥�的。因此，�犯��的同志��采取什么�度呢?��有分析，采取��的⽅法，⽽不采取形⽽上�的⽅法。我�党曾�陷⼊形⽽上�――教�主�，�⾃⼰不喜�的⼈就全部毁�他。后�我�批判了教�主�，逐步地多��了⼀点��法。��法的基本�点就是�⽴⾯的�⼀。承��点，�犯��的同志怎么�呢?�犯��的同志第⼀是要⽃�，要把��思想�底�清；第⼆，�要�助他。⼀⽈⽃，⼆⽈�。�善意出��助他改正��，使他有⼀�出路。

�待另⼀种⼈就不同了。像托洛茨基那种⼈，像中�的��秀、��、⾼�那种⼈，�他�⽆法采取�助�度，因�他�不可救�。�有像希特勒、�介⽯、沙皇，也都是⽆可救�，只能打倒，因�他��于我��，是��地互相排斥的。在��意�上��，他��有�重性，只有⼀重性。�于帝�主�制度、�本主�制度在最后��也是如此，它�最后必然要被社�主�制度所代替。意�形�也是⼀�，要⽤唯物�代替唯⼼�，⽤⽆神�代替有神�。�是在�略⽬的上�的。在策略�段上就不同了，就有妥�了。在朝�三⼋�上我�不是同美�⼈妥�了�?在越南不是同法�⼈妥�了�?在各�策略�段上，要善于⽃�，⼜善于妥�。

�在回到同志�系。我提�同志之�有隔�要��判。有些⼈似乎以�，⼀�了共�党都是圣⼈，�有分歧，�有��，不能分析，就是��板⼀�，整齐划⼀，就不需要��判了。好像⼀�了共�党，就要是百分之百的�克思主�才⾏。其�有各种各�的�克思主�者:有百分之百的�克思主�者，有百分之九⼗的�克思主�者，有百分之⼋⼗的�克思主�者，有百分之七⼗的�克思主�者，有百分之六⼗的�克思主�者，有百分之五⼗的�克思主�者，有的⼈只有百分之⼗、百分之⼆⼗的�克思主�。我�可不可以在⼩房�⾥��⼈或者几�⼈��呢?可不可以��出�，⽤�助的精神��判

呢?��然不是同帝�主��判(�于帝�主�，我�也是要同他��判的)，�是共�主��部的�判。�⼀�例⼦。我��回⼗⼆�是不是��判?六⼗几�党是不是��判?��上是在��判。也就是�，在不��克思列宁主�的原�下，接受⼈家⼀些可以接受的意�，放�⾃⼰⼀些可以放�的意�。��我�就有�只⼿，�犯��的同志，⼀只⼿跟他作⽃�，⼀只⼿跟他��。⽃�的⽬的是�持�克思主�原�，�叫原�性，�是⼀只⼿。另⼀只⼿��，��的⽬的是�他⼀�出路，跟他�妥�，�叫做�活性。原�性和�活性的�⼀，是�克思列宁主�的原�，�是⼀种�⽴⾯的�⼀。

⽆�什么世界，�然特�是��社�，都是充�着⽭盾的。有些⼈�社�主�社�可以“找到”⽭盾，我看��提法不�。不是什么找到或者找不到⽭盾，⽽是充�着⽭盾。�有⼀�不存在⽭盾，�有⼀�⼈是不可以加以分析的。如果承�⼀�⼈是不可加以分析的，就是形⽽上�。你看在原⼦⾥�，就充�⽭盾的�⼀。有原⼦核和�⼦��⽴⾯的�⼀。原⼦核⾥�⼜有�⼦和中⼦的�⽴�⼀。�⼦⾥⼜有�⼦、反�⼦，中⼦⾥⼜有中⼦、反中⼦。�之，�⽴⾯的�⼀是⽆往不在的。�于�⽴⾯的�⼀的�念，�于��法，需要作�泛的宣�。我��法��哲�家的圈⼦⾛到�⼤⼈民群�中�去。我建�，要在各�党的政治局��和中央全�上��，要在党的各�地⽅委��上��。其�我�的⽀部��是懂得��法的，�他准�在⽀部⼤�上作�告的�候，往往在⼩本⼦上�上�点，第⼀点是优点，第⼆点是缺点。⼀分�⼆，�是�普遍的�象，�就是��法。

斯⼤林��党做了�⼤的⼯作，他的成�是主要的，缺点��是第⼆位的。但是他在⼀��展了形⽽上�，�害了��法。�⼈崇拜就是形⽽上�，任何⼈不能批�他。我看��的四⼗年是⼀��法的�程。列宁的��法，斯⼤林有�多形⽽上��点，�些�点�之⾏�，�于极点，�必⾛到它的反⾯，再�⼀��法。我很⾼�赫��夫同志在⼗⽉⾰命四⼗周年�念�上�了社�主�社�存在着⽭盾。我很⾼��哲�界�⽣了�多篇⽂章�社�主�社�的�部⽭盾��。有些⽂章��到了社�主�和�本主�的⽭盾��。�是��性�不同的⽭盾��。

我的��就此�束吧。最后，再�⼀句:我�成��宣⾔。

在莫斯科共产党和工人党

代表会议上的讲话〔 1〕

（一九五七年十一月十八日）

同志们：

我讲几句话。请同志们允许我即席讲话。因为我在几年

前害过一次脑贫血症，最近一两年好一些，站起来讲话还有些

不方便。

我想讲两个问题：形势问题，团结问题。

现在我感觉到国际形势到了一个新的转折点。世界上现

在有两股风：东风，西风。中国有句成语：不是东风压倒西风，

就是西风压倒东风。我认为目前形势的特点是东风压倒西风，

也就是说，社会主义的力量对于帝国主义的力量占了压倒的

优势。

四十年前的十月革命是整个人类历史的转折点，怎么现

在又有转折点呢？还是有的。打希特勒〔 2〕，在一个时期，有一

二年时间，希特勒占了上风。那时，希特勒不但占领大半个欧

洲，而且打进苏联，苏联让出了一大块土地，可见希特勒一时

占了上风。斯大林格勒一战〔 3〕成为转折点，从此希特勒就走

下坡路，苏联就势如破竹一直打到柏林。这不是一个转折点

321

毛泽东文集第七卷 322

吗？据我看来，斯大林格勒一仗，是整个第二次世界大战的转

折点。

去年，最近这几年，西方世界非常猖狂，利用我们阵营中

的一些问题，特别是匈牙利事件〔 4〕，在我们阵营的脸上擦黑，

我们的天上飞起许多乌云。但是匈牙利反革命被镇压下去了。

在苏伊士运河事件〔 5〕中，苏联的警告也起了制止侵略战争的

作用。西方擦黑我们的脸的目的，依我看，主要是想 “ 整 ” 各国

共产党。在这一方面，他们也达到了一部分目的。例如美国的

法斯特〔 6〕，共产主义的可耻的叛徒，就跑出党去了。还有一些

共产党也跑出去了一些人。帝国主义对此大为高兴。我想我

们也应该高兴。叛徒跑出去了，有什么不好？

今年，一九五七年，形势大为不同了。我们的天上是一片

光明，西方的天上是一片乌云。我们很乐观，而他们呢，却是皇

皇不安。两个卫星上天〔 7〕，使他们睡不着觉。六十几国共产党

在莫斯科开会是从来没有过的事，从来也没有这样大的规模。

但是在社会主义阵营各国中，在各国共产党中，特别是在各国

人民中，还有相当多的人总是相信美国了不起。你看，他们还

有那么多钢，有那么多飞机大炮。我们的比他们的少。西方国

家无数的报纸、广播电台天天吹，美国之音、自由欧洲电台等

等吹得神乎其神，于是乎造成一种假象，欺骗了相当多的一部

分人。我们就要揭穿这种欺骗。我有十件证据来说明这个问

题：究竟是他们行还是我们行，究竟是东风压倒西风，还是西

风压倒东风？

第一件，打希特勒的时候，罗斯福〔 8〕和丘吉尔〔 9〕的手里

有多少钢呢？大约有七千万吨。可是吃不下希特勒，毫无办法。

在莫斯科共产党和工人党代表会议上的讲话 323

总要想个办法吧，于是采用了旅行的办法，一走就走到雅尔

塔〔 10 〕，请求苏联帮助。那时，斯大林手中有多少钢呢？在战前

有一千八百万吨。因为在战争中损失了许多地方，据赫鲁晓

夫〔 11〕同志告诉我，钢产量打了个对折，剩下九百万吨。有七

千万吨钢的人，来请求有九百万吨钢的人。条件是什么呢？易

北河以东划为红军的进攻区，就是说，他们忍痛下决心让这一

大块区域脱离他们的体系，让这一大块区域有可能转变为社

会主义体系。这件事很有说服力，说明物质力量多少不完全决

定问题，人是主要的，制度是主要的。在雅尔塔又谈到打日本。

又是美国人吃不下日本，又是要请共产主义帮助。中国的满

洲〔 12〕，朝鲜的一部分，作为红军的攻击区，并且决定让日本退

还半个库页岛、一个千岛群岛。这也是忍痛让步啊！为了吃掉

他们的同伴 — — 日本帝国主义。

第二件，中国革命。一九四九年初国民党被我们打得呜呼

哀哉的时候，向杜鲁门〔 13〕大喊救命，说：美国老爷呀，你出几

个兵吧！杜鲁门说：我一个兵也不能出！于是国民党又说：你

可以不可以讲几句话呢？说长江以南这块地方，如果共产党到

了那里的时候，美国就不能坐视。杜鲁门说：这个不行，讲不得

的，共产党很厉害。于是乎蒋介石只好开跑。他现在在台湾。

第三件，朝鲜战争。在开始的时候，美国一个师有八百门

炮，中国志愿军三个师才有五十多门炮。但是一打就像赶鸭子

一样，几个星期就把美国人赶了几百公里，从鸭绿江赶到三八

线〔 14〕以南去了。后来美国人集中了力量进行反攻，我们和金

日成〔 15 〕同志商量，退到了三八线相持，构筑阵地。一打，整个

朝鲜战争差不多打了三年。美国的飞机就像黄蜂一样，我们在


第一线一架飞机也没有。双方同意讲和。在什么地点？他们

说在一条丹麦的船上，我们说在开城，在我们的地方。他们说：

好。因为会址在我们的地方，他们每天开会得打着白旗子来，

开完会打着白旗子回去。后来，他们感到不好意思了 — — 天天

打白旗子。说改一个地方吧，改到双方战线的中间，地名叫板

门店。我们说也可以。但是又谈了年把，美国总是不甘心签字，

拖。最后，在一九五三年，我们在三八线上突破了二十一公里

的防线，美国人吓倒了，马上签字。那么厉害、有那么多钢的美

国人，也只得如此。这个战争，实际上是三国打的，朝鲜、中国、

苏联，苏联出了武器。但是敌人方面呢，有十六个国家〔 16〕。

第四件，越南战争。法国人被胡志明〔 17〕打得呜呼哀哉，

屁滚尿流。有人可以作证，胡志明同志在座。法国人不想干了，

美国人一定要干，因为他的钢多。但是美国人也只是出武器，

维持紧张局势，出兵就不来。于是乎有日内瓦会议〔 18〕，把大

半个越南划给越南民主共和国。

第五件，苏伊士运河事件。两个帝国主义进攻，打了几天，

苏联人讲了几句话，就缩回去了。当然还有第二个因素，就是

全世界在讲话，反对英法侵略。

第六件事是叙利亚。美国作好了计划要打，又是苏联人讲

了几句话，还任命了一个将军，叫做罗科索夫斯基。做了这两

件事，他们说不好打了。这件事还没有完结，还要警惕，可能将

来还闹乱子。但是现在总算没有打。

第七件是苏联抛上了两个卫星。抛卫星的国家有多少钢？

五千一百万吨。不是讲美国非常厉害吗？你为什么到现在连

一个山药蛋还没有抛上去？你有一万万吨钢，牛皮吹得那么大


呀，做出了先锋计划〔 19〕。先锋计划要改名了，得改成落后计

划。

由这七件事，我想可以得出一个概念：西方世界被抛到我

们后面去了。抛得很近还是抛得很远？照我讲 — — 也许我这

个人有些冒险主义，我说，永远地抛下去了。在苏联发射人造

卫星以前，社会主义国家在人心归向、人口众多方面已经对于

帝国主义国家占了压倒的优势；而在苏联发射人造卫星以后，

就在最重要的科学技术部门方面也占了压倒的优势。人们说，

美国也会赶上来的，它也会抛卫星的。这是真的。赫鲁晓夫同

志的报告就讲了美国会抛卫星的。但是他们现在正在争论究

竟是一年、二年还是五年才能赶上苏联。我不管你是一年、二

年还是五年，你总是被抛到后面去了。我们的苏联同志，赫鲁

晓夫同志，大概只是晚上睡觉，白天不会睡觉。所有苏联人不

会白天晚上，一年、二年、五年总是睡觉吧？你一年、二年、五年

赶上苏联，但是苏联又前进啦。

同志们，我讲讲我们国家的事情吧。我国今年有了五百二

十万吨钢，再过五年，可以有一千万到一千五百万吨钢；再过

五年，可以有二千万到二千五百万吨钢；再过五年，可以有三

千五百万到四千万吨钢。当然，也许我在这里说了大话，将来

国际会议再开会的时候，你们可能批评我是主观主义。但是我

是有相当根据的。我们有很多苏联专家帮助我们。中国人是

想努力的。中国从政治上、人口上说是个大国，从经济上说现

在还是个小国。他们想努力，他们非常热心工作，要把中国变

成一个真正的大国。赫鲁晓夫同志告诉我们，十五年后，苏联

可以超过美国。我也可以讲，十五年后我们可能赶上或者超过


英国。因为我和波立特、高兰〔 20〕同志谈过两次话，我问过他

们国家的情况，他们说现在英国年产两千万吨钢，再过十五

年，可能爬到年产三千万吨钢。中国呢，再过十五年可能是四

千万吨，岂不超过了英国吗？那末，在十五年后，在我们阵营中

间，苏联超过美国，中国超过英国。

归根结底，我们要争取十五年和平。到那个时候，我们就

无敌于天下了，没有人敢同我们打了，世界也就可以得到持久

和平了。

现在还要估计一种情况，就是想发动战争的疯子，他们可

能把原子弹、氢弹到处摔。他们摔，我们也摔，这就打得一塌糊

涂，这就要损失人。问题要放在最坏的基点上来考虑。我们党

的政治局开过几次会，讲过这个问题。现在要打，中国只有手

榴弹，没有原子弹，但是苏联有。要设想一下，如果爆发战争要

死多少人。全世界二十七亿人口，可能损失三分之一；再多一

点，可能损失一半。不是我们要打，是他们要打，一打就要摔原

子弹、氢弹。我和一位外国政治家辩论过这个问题。他认为如

果打原子战争，人会死绝的。我说，极而言之，死掉一半人，还

有一半人，帝国主义打平了，全世界社会主义化了，再过多少

年，又会有二十七亿，一定还要多。我们中国还没有建设好，我

们希望和平。但是如果帝国主义硬要打仗，我们也只好横下一

条心，打了仗再建设。每天怕战争，战争来了你有什么办法呢？

我先是说东风压倒西风，战争打不起来，现在再就如果发生了

战争的情况，作了这些补充的说明，这样两种可能性都估计到

了。

我讲十件证据，刚才讲了七件，下面再讲三件。


第八件是英国退出亚洲、非洲很大一片土地。

第九件是荷兰退出印尼。

第十件是法国退出叙利亚、黎巴嫩、摩洛哥、突尼斯，在阿

尔及利亚没有办法。

落后国家强些，还是先进国家强些？印度强些，还是英国

强些？印尼强些，还是荷兰强些？阿尔及利亚强些，还是法国

强些？我看所有帝国主义国家都是下午六点钟的太阳，而我们

呢，是早上六点钟的太阳。于是乎转折点就来了。就是说，西

方国家抛到后边了，我们大大占了上风了。一定不是西风压倒

东风，因为西风是那么微弱。一定是东风压倒西风，因为我们

强大。

问题是不能用钢铁数量多少来作决定，而是首先由人心

的向背来作决定的。历史上从来就是如此。历史上从来就是

弱者战胜强者，没有枪的人战胜全副武装的人。布尔什维

克〔 21〕曾经一枝枪也没有。苏联同志告诉我，二月革命〔 22〕的

时候，只有四万党员；十月革命的时候，也只有二十四万党员。

《联共（布）党史简明教程》那本书上的第一页第一段写了一个

辩证法：从小组到全国。开头是稀稀拉拉的几十个人的小组，

后来变成整个国家的领导者。苏联同志，你们修改《联共党

史》的时候，我希望不要把这几句话修改掉了。我们中国也是

如此，开头是稀稀拉拉几十个人的共产主义者的小组，现在也

是领导着整个国家，领导着六亿四千万人口的大党。几十个共

产主义者的小组，现在发展成一千二百万党员。我这话是特别

想同资本主义国家共产党同志们交换意见的，因为他们现在

还处在困难中，有些党很小，有些党有成批党员退出党。我说


这不足为怪，也许是好事。我们的道路是曲折的，是按照螺旋

形上升的。

还要讲个纸老虎问题。一九四六年蒋介石开始向我们进

攻的时候，我们许多同志，全国人民，都很忧虑：战争是不是能

够打赢？我本人也忧虑这件事。但是我们有一条信心。那时

有一个美国记者到了延安，名字叫安娜 · 路易斯 · 斯特朗。这

个人就是在苏联住了二三十年，后来被斯大林赶走，以后又被

赫鲁晓夫同志恢复了名誉的那位女作家。我同她谈话的时候

谈了许多问题，蒋介石、希特勒、日本、美国、原子弹等等。我说

一切所有号称强大的反动派统统不过是纸老虎，原因是他们

脱离人民。你看，希特勒是不是纸老虎？希特勒不是被打倒了

吗？我也谈到沙皇是纸老虎，中国皇帝是纸老虎，日本帝国主

义是纸老虎，你看，都倒了。美帝国主义没有倒，还有原子弹，

我看也是要倒的，也是纸老虎。蒋介石很强大，有四百多万正

规军。那时我们在延安。延安这个地方有多少人？有七千人。

我们有多少军队呢？我们有九十万游击队，统统被蒋介石分割

成几十个根据地。但是我们说，蒋介石不过是一个纸老虎，我

们一定会打赢他。为了同敌人作斗争，我们在一个长时间内形

成了一个概念，就是说，在战略上我们要藐视一切敌人，在战

术上我们要重视一切敌人。也就是说在整体上我们一定要藐

视他，在一个一个的具体问题上我们一定要重视他。如果不是

在整体上藐视敌人，我们就要犯机会主义的错误。马克思、恩

格斯只有两个人，那时他们就说全世界资本主义要被打倒。但

是在具体问题上，在一个一个敌人的问题上，如果我们不重视

他，我们就要犯冒险主义的错误。打仗只能一仗一仗地打，敌


人只能一部分一部分地消灭。工厂只能一个一个地盖，农民犁

田只能一块一块地犁。就是吃饭也是如此。我们在战略上藐

视吃饭：这顿饭我们能够吃下去。但是具体地吃，却是一口口

地吃的，你不可能把一桌酒席一口吞下去。这叫做各个解决，

军事书上叫做各个击破。

第一个问题讲完了。现在就第二个问题，团结问题，讲几

句。

我非常高兴，非常庆幸我们的会议开得很团结。这次大会

反映了全世界无产阶级和人民的上升的朝气、东风压倒西风

这么一种形势。我们有很多缺点和错误，但是我们的成绩是主

要的，是年年见成效的。于是乎反映在我们六十几国共产党大

会上一股朝气，并且一致承认要有一个头，这个头就是苏联，

就是苏共中央。中国有句俗话，蛇无头而不行。你看，我们每

个人都有一个头。每个国家的党也有一个头，有集体的头和个

人的头。中央委员会、政治局是集体，第一书记是个人，两者都

要，不然就是无政府主义。

我高兴哥穆尔卡〔 23〕同志昨天的演说，他说，承认苏联为

首是一个真理，不是人为的，是历史上自然形成的。不过他那

个国家的有些人在感情上还有问题，暂时不想讲这个话，要换

一个形式讲，比如讲第一个和最强大的社会主义国家。他那个

国家存在这样一个矛盾，先进分子同相当多的其他人之间还

不调和。因此，他们还要做工作。我相信哥穆尔卡同志是好人。

赫鲁晓夫同志两次向我表示：哥穆尔卡同志是可以信任的。我

希望波兰、苏联、中国、其他国家完全团结起来，逐步地改进我

们之间的关系。


我又高兴南斯拉夫的同志们在第二个宣言〔 24〕上准备签

字。他们在六十几个党的和平宣言上签字表示一件什么事情

呢？就是表示团结。他们没有在十二国宣言〔 25〕上签字，使十

三国缺少了一国。他们说有困难，我们想也可以，我们不能强

加于人，南斯拉夫不愿意签字就不签字好了。将来若干年后，

我想他们是可以在另外一个宣言上签字的。

在团结问题上我想讲一点方法问题。我说对同志不管他

是什么人，只要不是敌对分子、破坏分子，那就要采取团结的

态度。对他们要采取辩证的方法，而不应采取形而上学的方

法。什么叫辩证的方法？就是对一切加以分析，承认人总是要

犯错误的，不因为一个人犯了错误就否定他的一切。列宁曾讲

过，不犯错误的人全世界一个也没有〔 26〕。我就是犯过许多错

误的，这些错误对我很有益处，这些错误教育了我。任何一个

人都要人支持。一个好汉也要三个帮，一个篱笆也要三个桩。

这是中国的成语。中国还有一句成语，荷花虽好，也要绿叶扶

持。你赫鲁晓夫同志这朵荷花虽好，也要绿叶扶持。我毛泽东

这朵荷花不好，更要绿叶扶持。我们中国还有一句成语，三个

臭皮匠，合成一个诸葛亮。这合乎我们赫鲁晓夫同志的口号

— — 集体领导。单独的一个诸葛亮总是不完全的，总是有缺陷

的。你看我们这十二国宣言，已有第一、第二、第三、第四次草

稿，现在文字上的修正还没有完结。我看要是自称全智全能，

像上帝一样，那种思想是不妥当的。因此，对犯错误的同志应

该采取什么态度呢？应该有分析，采取辩证的方法，而不采取

形而上学的方法。我们党曾经陷入形而上学 — — 教条主义，对

自己不喜欢的人就全部毁灭他。后来我们批判了教条主义，逐


步地多学会了一点辩证法。辩证法的基本观点就是对立面的

统一。承认这个观点，对犯错误的同志怎么办呢？对犯错误的

同志第一是要斗争，要把错误思想彻底肃清；第二，还要帮助

他。一曰斗，二曰帮。从善意出发帮助他改正错误，使他有一

条出路。

对待另一种人就不同了。像托洛茨基〔 27〕那种人，像中国

的陈独秀、张国焘、高岗〔 28〕那种人，对他们无法采取帮助态

度，因为他们不可救药。还有像希特勒、蒋介石、沙皇，也都是

无可救药，只能打倒，因为他们对于我们说来，是绝对地互相

排斥的。在这个意义上来说，他们没有两重性，只有一重性。对

于帝国主义制度、资本主义制度在最后说来也是如此，它们最

后必然要被社会主义制度所代替。意识形态也是一样，要用唯

物论代替唯心论，用无神论代替有神论。这是在战略目的上说

的。在策略阶段上就不同了，就有妥协了。在朝鲜三八线上我

们不是同美国人妥协了吗？在越南不是同法国人妥协了吗？在

各个策略阶段上，要善于斗争，又善于妥协。

现在回到同志关系。我提议同志之间有隔阂要开谈判。有

些人似乎以为，一进了共产党都是圣人，没有分歧，没有误会，

不能分析，就是说铁板一块，整齐划一，就不需要讲谈判了。好

像一进了共产党，就要是百分之百的马克思主义才行。其实有

各种各样的马克思主义者：有百分之百的马克思主义者，有百

分之九十的马克思主义者，有百分之八十的马克思主义者，有

百分之七十的马克思主义者，有百分之六十的马克思主义者，

有百分之五十的马克思主义者，有的人只有百分之十、百分之

二十的马克思主义。我们可不可以在小房间里头两个人或者


几个人谈谈呢？可不可以从团结出发，用帮助的精神开谈判

呢？这当然不是同帝国主义开谈判（对于帝国主义，我们也是

要同他们开谈判的），这是共产主义内部的谈判。举一个例子。

我们这回十二国是不是开谈判？六十几个党是不是开谈判？实

际上是在开谈判。也就是说，在不损伤马克思列宁主义的原则

下，接受人家一些可以接受的意见，放弃自己一些可以放弃的

意见。这样我们就有两只手，对犯错误的同志，一只手跟他作

斗争，一只手跟他讲团结。斗争的目的是坚持马克思主义原

则，这叫原则性，这是一只手。另一只手讲团结，团结的目的是

给他一条出路，跟他讲妥协，这叫做灵活性。原则性和灵活性

的统一，是马克思列宁主义的原则，这是一种对立面的统一。

无论什么世界，当然特别是阶级社会，都是充满着矛盾

的。有些人说社会主义社会可以 “ 找到 ” 矛盾，我看这个提法不

对。不是什么找到或者找不到矛盾，而是充满着矛盾。没有一

处不存在矛盾，没有一个人是不可以加以分析的。如果承认一

个人是不可加以分析的，就是形而上学。你看在原子里头，就

充满矛盾的统一。有原子核和电子两个对立面的统一。原子

核里头又有质子和中子的对立统一。质子里又有质子、反质

子，中子里又有中子、反中子。总之，对立面的统一是无往不在

的。关于对立面的统一的观念，关于辩证法，需要作广泛的宣

传。我说辩证法应该从哲学家的圈子走到广大人民群众中间

去。我建议，要在各国党的政治局会议和中央全会上谈这个问

题，要在党的各级地方委员会上谈这个问题。其实我们的支部

书记是懂得辩证法的，当他准备在支部大会上作报告的时候，

往往在小本子上写上两点，第一点是优点，第二点是缺点。一

注释

333在莫斯科共产党和工人党代表会议上的讲话

分为二，这是个普遍的现象，这就是辩证法。

斯大林领导苏联党做了伟大的工作，他的成绩是主要的，

缺点错误是第二位的。但是他在一个长时间内发展了形而上

学，损害了辩证法。个人崇拜就是形而上学，任何人不能批评

他。我看苏联的四十年是一个辩证法的过程。列宁的辩证法，

斯大林有许多形而上学观点，这些观点见之行动，达于极点，

势必走到它的反面，再来一个辩证法。我很高兴赫鲁晓夫同志

在十月革命四十周年纪念会上讲了社会主义社会存在着矛

盾。我很高兴苏联哲学界产生了许多篇文章谈社会主义社会

的内部矛盾问题。有些文章还谈到了社会主义和资本主义的

矛盾问题。这是两类性质不同的矛盾问题。

我的讲话就此结束吧。最后，再讲一句：我赞成两个宣言。

根据中国共产党第八届全国代表大会

第二次会议文件刊印。

〔 1 〕这篇讲话选入本书时作了个别删节。

〔 2〕希特勒，见本卷第 75页注〔 3〕。

〔 3 〕指斯大林格勒保卫战。一九四二年夏，德军在对苏联全面进攻失败后，转

而对苏德战场南翼实施重点进攻。七月十七日德军开始猛攻斯大林格勒，企图攻

占该城，切断伏尔加河，南夺高加索油田，北攻莫斯科。苏军先后以五个方面军的

兵力同广大人民一起艰苦奋战，在顽强的防御战中消灭大量敌人。十一月十九日

苏军转入反攻，二十三日包围了三十三万德军。次年二月二日全歼该敌。这一战

役，德军损失兵力达一百五十万人，苏军夺得战略主动权，标志着苏德战争和第二

次世界大战达到新的转折点。

〔 4 〕匈牙利事件，指一九五六年十月至十一月发生在匈牙利的反政府政治事


件。

〔 5〕苏伊士运河事件，见本卷第 201页注〔 3〕。

〔 6〕法斯特，一九一四年生，美国作家。一九四二年加入美国共产党。曾写过

注释

一些揭露资本主义社会的黑暗、反映美国历史上革命运动的作品，担任过世界和

平理事会理事。苏联共产党第二十次代表大会和匈牙利事件后，宣布退出美国共

产党。

〔 7 〕指一九五七年十月四日和十一月三日苏联成功发射两颗人造地球卫星。

〔 8〕罗斯福，一九三三年至一九四五年任美国总统。

〔 9〕丘吉尔，一九四 ○ 年至一九四五年任英国战时联合内阁首相。

〔 10〕雅尔塔，在前苏联的克里米亚半岛。一九四五年二月四日至十一日，苏、

美、英三国首脑在这里举行会议，签订了《雅尔塔协定》。参见本卷第 129页注

〔 14〕。

〔 11〕赫鲁晓夫，当时任苏联共产党中央委员会第一书记。

〔 12〕满洲，这里指中国东北地区。

〔 13〕杜鲁门（一八八四 — — 一九七二），美国民主党人。一九四五年至一九五

三年任美国总统。

〔 14〕三八线，见本卷第 66页注〔 3〕。

〔 15 〕金日成（一九一二 — — 一九九四），当时任朝鲜劳动党中央委员会委员

长、朝鲜民主主义人民共和国内阁首相。朝鲜战争期间，任朝鲜劳动党中央军事委

员会委员长、朝鲜人民军最高司令官。

〔 16〕朝鲜战争期间，美国在 “ 联合国军 ” 的名义下，组织了英国、法国、荷兰、比

利时、卢森堡、澳大利亚、新西兰、加拿大、南非联邦、埃塞俄比亚、土耳其、希腊、菲

律宾、泰国、哥伦比亚，连同美国共十六个国家的军队，对朝鲜民主主义人民共和

国进行武装干涉。

〔 17〕胡志明（一八九 ○ — — 一九六九），当时任越南劳动党中央委员会主席、

越南民主共和国主席。

〔 18 〕日内瓦会议，指一九五四年四月二十六日至七月二十一日在瑞士日内瓦

举行的讨论和平解决朝鲜问题和恢复印度支那和平问题的国际会议。这次会议达

成的《关于在越南停止敌对行动的协定》中，规定法国军队集结在北纬十七度线以

南。这样，就把大半个越南划给了越南民主共和国。


〔 19 〕先锋计划，是当时美国制订的人造地球卫星发射计划。美国试图通过这

注释

一计划在航天技术领域居于世界前列。

〔 20 〕波立特，当时任英国共产党中央执行委员会主席。高兰（一九一一 — — 一

九七七），当时任英国共产党中央委员会总书记。

〔 21 〕布尔什维克，指布尔什维克党，原苏联共产党前身，一九一二年正式建

立。

〔 22 〕二月革命，指一九一七年三月（俄历二月）在俄国发生的推翻沙皇专制制

度的资产阶级民主革命。

〔 23 〕哥穆尔卡（一九 ○ 五 — — 一九八二），当时任波兰统一工人党中央委员会

第一书记。

〔 24 〕指一九五七年十一月十六日至十九日在莫斯科召开的六十四个国家共

产党和工人党代表会议通过的《和平宣言》。

〔 25 〕指一九五七年十一月十四日至十六日在莫斯科召开的社会主义国家共

产党和工人党代表会议通过的《社会主义国家共产党和工人党代表会议宣言》（通

称《莫斯科宣言》）。阿尔巴尼亚、保加利亚、匈牙利、波兰、德意志民主共和国、罗马

尼亚、捷克斯洛伐克、苏联、越南、蒙古、朝鲜和中国等十二个国家执政的共产党和

工人党代表团参加了这次会议。

〔 26〕见列宁《共产主义运动中的 “ 左派 ” 幼稚病》。原文是： “ 不犯错误的人是没

有而且也不可能有的。 ” （《列宁选集》第 4卷，人民出版社 1995年版，第 146页）

〔 27 〕托洛茨基（一八七九 — — 一九四 ○ ），十月革命时，任俄国社会民主工党

（布尔什维克）中央政治局委员、彼得格勒苏维埃主席。十月革命胜利后，曾任外交

人民委员、陆海军人民委员、革命军事委员会主席、共产国际执行委员会委员等

职。一九二六年十月联共（布）中央全会决定，撤销他的中央政治局委员的职务。一

九二七年一月共产国际执行委员会决定，撤销他的执行委员的职务。同年十一月

被开除出党。一九二九年一月被驱逐出苏联。一九四 ○ 年八月在墨西哥遭暗杀。

〔 28〕陈独秀，参见本卷第 56页注〔 3〕。张国焘，参见本卷第 58页注〔 12〕。高

岗，参见本卷第 45页注〔 7〕。

mao) of sixty-four communist and workers' parties' (edited

Documents