November 1920. January 1921

[Extracted from. two letters to Ts’ai Ho-sen, in November 1920 and
January 1921.]


In his lecture at Changsha, Russell .... took a position in favour of communism
but against the dictatorship of the workers and peasants. He said that one
should employ the method of education to change the consciousness of the
propertied classes, and that in this way it would not be necessary to limit
freedom or to have recourse to war and bloody revolution.... My objections
to Russell's view point can be stated in a few words: 'This is all very well
as a theory, but it is unfeasible in practice' .... Education requires money,
people and instruments. In today's world money is entirely in the hands of
the capitalists. Those who have charge of education are all either capitalists
or wives of capitalists. In today's world the schools and the press, the
two most important instruments of education are entirely under capitalist
control. In short, education in today's world is capitalist education. If
we teach capitalism to children, these children, when they grow up will in
turn teach capitalism to a second generation of children. Education thus
remains in the hands of the capitalists. Then the capitalists have 'parliaments'
to pass laws protecting the capitalists and handicapping the proletariat;
they have 'governments' to apply these laws and to enforce the advantages
and the prohibitions that they contain; they have 'armies' and 'police' to
defend the well-being of the capitalists and to repress the demands of the
proletariat; they have 'banks' to serve as repositories in the circulation
of their wealth ; they have ' factories', which are the instruments by which
they monopolize the production of goods. Thus, if the communists do not seize
political power, they will not be able to find any refuge in this world;
how, under such circumstances, could they take charge of education? Thus,
the capitalists will continue to control education and to praise their capitalism
to the skies, so that the number of converts to the proletariat's communist
propaganda will diminish from day to day. Consequently, I believe that the
method of education is unfeasible.... What I have just said constitutes the
first argument. The second argument is that, based on the principle of mental
habits and on my observation of human history, I am of the opinion that one
absolutely cannot expect the capitalists to become converted to communism....
If one wishes to use the power of education to transform them, then since
one cannot obtain control of the whole or even an important part of the two
instruments of education — schools and the press — even if one
has a mouth and a tongue and one or two schools and newspapers as means of
propaganda.... this is really not enough to change the mentality of the adherents
of capitalism even slightly; how then can one hope that the latter will repent
and turn toward the good? So much from a psychological standpoint. From a
historical standpoint.... one observes that no despot imperialist and militarist
throughout history has ever been known to leave the stage of history of his
own free will without being overthrown by the people. Napoleon I proclaimed
himself emperor and failed; then there was Napoleon III. Yuan Shih-K'ai failed;
then, also there was Tuan Ch'i-jui.... From what I have just said based on
both psychological and a historical standpoint, it can be seen that capitalism
cannot be overthrown by the force of a few feeble efforts in the domain of
education. This is the second argument. There is yet a third argument, most
assuredly a very important argument, even more important in reality. If we
use peaceful means to attain the goal of communism, when will we finally
achieve it? Let us assume that a century will be required, a century marked
by the unceasing groans of the proletariat. What position shall we adopt
in the face of this situation? The proletariat is many times more numerous
than the bourgeoisie; if we assume that the proletariat constitutes two-thirds
of humanity, then one billion of the earth's one billion five hundred million
inhabitants are proletarians (I fear that the figure is even higher), who
during this century will be cruelly exploited by the remaining third of
capitalists. How can we bear this? Furthermore, since the proletariat has
already become conscious of the fact that it too should possess wealth, and
of the fact that its sufferings are unnecessary, the proletarians are
discontented, and a demand for communism has arisen and has already become
a fact. This fact confronts us, we cannot make it disappear; when we become
conscious of it we wish to act. This is why, in my opinion, the Russian
revolution, as well as the radical communists in every country, will daily
grow more powerful and numerous and more tightly organized. This is the natural
result. This is the third argument.....

There is a further point pertaining to my doubts about anarchism. My argument
pertains not merely to the impossibility of a society without power or
organization. I should like to mention only the difficulties in the way of
the establishment of such form of society and of its final attainment....
For all the reasons just stated, my present viewpoint on absolute liberalism,
anarchism, and even democracy is that these things are fine in theory, but
not feasible in practice....

Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.