育英同志: 接到你的来信,介绍你们那里热烈地评论《水浒》的情况,很受鼓舞和启发。来信谈到有这样一种观点:《水浒》中的李逵反皇帝固然很坚决,可是照他那条道路走下去,不是晁盖当皇帝,就是宋江当皇帝,最终还是脱不出封建制度的束缚,跟不反皇帝的结局不是一样的吗?那么,这与宋江主张受招安,在本质上到底有什么不同呢?还有一种观点:金圣叹否定宋江,我们也否定宋江;金圣叹反对招安,我们也批判招安。这个问题如何理解? 我想,这两个问题不是今天才产生的。根本是由于在修正主义文艺路线统治下,长期宣传的一些不正确的观点的影响。今天,应该通过学习马列著作和毛主席著作予以澄清。先谈谈你提的第一个问题。毛主席教导说,我们看问题必须首先划清“革命和反革命的界限”,“否则就会把问题的性质弄混淆了”。划清革命与反革命的界限,对《水浒》来说,就是要划清坚持农民起义的革命路线同推行叛卖革命的投降主义路线的界限,就是要划清奴隶与奴才的界限。李逵是 Yuying Comrade: I am very encouraged and inspired by your letter to introduce you to the warmly commentary on Water Margin. From the letter, I came to the point where the emperor Li Kui in “Water Margin” was very firm, but proceeded on his own road. It was not Chao Gaigang, the emperor, that is, Song Jiang, the emperor, who eventually could not get away with the feudal system. Is not it the same as that of the non-emperor? Well, what is the difference between this and Song Jiang’s claim that Zhao is safe in nature? There is another view: Jin Shengsan denied Song Jiang and we also dismissed Song Jiang; Criticize Amnesty. How to understand this issue? I think these two issues did not arise today. It was attributed to some incorrect opinions of long-term propaganda under the rule of the revisionist literary line. Today, it should be clarified by studying Marxism-Leninism and Chairman Mao’s writings. First talk about your first question. Chairman Mao teaches us that we must first draw a clear line between “the boundary of revolution and counter-revolution,” or “we will confuse the nature of the issue with other questions.” To draw a clear line between revolution and counter-revolution, “Water Margin” is to draw a clear line between the revolutionary line of upholding the peasant uprising and the capitulationist line of carrying on the treachery revolution. It is to draw a line between the slaves and the minions. Li 逵 is