We Want to Build a New China
On New Democracy (1940)
Original: (zh-CN) 我们共产党人,多年以来,不但为中国的政治革命和经济革命而奋斗,而且为中国的文化革命而奋斗;一切这些的目的,在于建设一个中华民族的新社会和新国家。在这个新社会和新国家中,不但有新政治、新经济,而且有新文化。这就是说,我们不但要把一个政治上受压迫、经济上受剥削的中国,变为一个政治上自由和经济上繁荣的中国,而且要把一个被旧文化统治因而愚昧落后的中国,变为一个被新文化统治因而文明先进的中国。一句话,我们要建立一个新中国。建立中华民族的新文化,这就是我们在文化领域中的目的。
“Translation:Today China is facing The struggle between two nations, the struggle between new born Chinese Soviet Republic and the rotten Republic of China, the struggle between these two nations, determined the whole of political life of China, this sharp confrontation between these two regimes, is the core of the total of the current Chinese political life.”
“今天中國面臨的是‘兩國之爭’,即新生的'中華蘇維埃共和國'與腐朽的'中華民國'的鬥爭”,“‘兩國’之爭,決定著中國目前的全部政治生活”,“‘兩國’政權的尖銳對立,是目前中國全部政治生活的核心。
見《王明傳》
華夏歷史:命運多舛的時代:中華民國(大陸時期) (九) http://www.minghui-school.org/school/article/2005/12/29/51030.html
Original
“今天中國面臨的是‘兩國之爭’,即新生的'中華蘇維埃共和國'與腐朽的'中華民國'的鬥爭”,“‘兩國’之爭,決定著中國目前的全部政治生活”,“‘兩國’政權的尖銳對立,是目前中國全部政治生活的核心。(見《王明傳》)
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Wang Ming 3
Chinese politician 1904–1974Related quotes
Hung Hsiu-chu (2014) cited in " KMT stalwarts in no rush to fill Ma Ying-jeou's shoes http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1654274/kmt-stalwarts-no-rush-fill-ma-ying-jeous-shoes" on South China Morning Post, 3 December 2014
Ma Ying-jeou (2013) cited in: " Cross-strait political issues not being shied from: Ma http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/10/23/2003575166" in Taipei Times, 23 October 2013.
Statement made during the meeting with Kuomintang delegation at the Presidential Office in Taipei heading to the cross-strait forum with the Communist Party of China in Nanning, Guangxi Province, 22 October 2013.
Other topics
“It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world.”
Seventh and Last Joint Debate with Steven Douglas, at Alton, Illinois (15 October 1858)
1850s, Lincoln–Douglas debates (1858)
Context: Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social and political equality between negroes and white people. Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in discussing this very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his ground that negroes were not included in the Declaration of Independence: I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all, constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere... That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
The Autobiography of a Sexually Emancipated Communist Woman (1926)
“Taiwan is the Republic of China, the Republic of China is Taiwan.”
Source: Taiwan is not Republic of China, Taipei Times, 1, January 26, 2014, 26 March 2014 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2014/01/26/2003582152,
Wu Po-hsiung (2013) quoted in: " Political talks may come up: KMT’s Wu http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/10/27/2003575486/1" in Taipei Times 27 October 2013.
Statements were made during the 9th Cross-Strait Economic, Trade and Culture Forum in Nanning, Guangxi on 26-27 October 2013.
Wu lauds DPP’s China department (2012)
The Conquest of a Continent (1933)
“Even when there is a struggle between nations it cannot be turned into a war of religions.”
In a letter to Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi criticizing the pope Benedict XVI for his remarks on Islam. http://web.archive.org/web/20081201181916/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763616.html (17/09/2006)