Letter to Xiao Xudong, Cai Linbin, and
the Other Members in France

(December 1, 1920)

Dear Hesen and Zisheng, as well as all the other members in France,

I was extremely glad to receive the letters from you two brothers. The Montargis
Conference and the several letters from the two of you mark the beginning of
concrete plans for the Study Society. I have very great hopes for the future of
the Society and, in consequence, I also have a few plans. I have long thought
about drafting a proposal and presenting it to the members for consultation. Now
that I have received your letters, I do not think it necessary for me to write up my
own proposal any more. I only hope that each of us seventy-odd members will
seriously consider the plans outlined in your letters and then give a thorough
evaluation, taking a stand either for or against, or adding any other plans and
ideas to yours. I often feel that the development of each of us individuals, or that
of the Society, requires a clear approach. Without such an approach, the individual or the Society can only advance blindly, ruining in the end not only each
individual but also this Society, which is full of promise. Would that not be a
shame? Before the Society was founded, we already had some plans. Indeed, this
Society was founded as the result of mutual discussions and study that took place
among a few people two years ago. Once the Society was founded, it immediately formulated a common ideology, which has had considerable influence
in transforming the thinking and improving the lives of individuals. At the same
time, there has been some study of our collective existence and of our common
progress. The fact is, however, that no concrete programs were put forward, and
there were no publications that could serve as organs for public discussion.
Furthermore, for the last two years members have been scattered to different
locations, and those in Changsha have been unable to meet for discussions because of political obstacles. As a result, even though there were plans and ideas,
they have been kept inside each individual's heart, have been mentioned when a
few people got together, or appear in the correspondence among individuals. In
sum, these plans and ideas have been known only to some members. You have
now had a big gathering in Montargis and have decided on a common program.
In addition, you two brothers have expressed your own ideas, based on your own
ideals and observations. We members who are not in France must naturally study
and evaluate the views that all of you have put forward and then come to some
decisions about them. But before the members in Changsha meet for joint study,
criticism, and decisions, let me first give you my own personal ideas about your
letters.

I proceed to discuss them point by point.

I. The question of the guiding principle of our Society. In the last analysis,
what guiding principle should we adopt to serve as the common objective of our
Society? Zisheng says in his letter that the Montargis Conference adopted the
following position regarding the orientation which the Society should pursue:
"The conference resolves that our Society's guiding principle is to reform China
and the world." To adopt "reforming China and the world" as the guiding principle of our Society is entirely in harmony with what I have been advocating, and I
expect the majority of the members will agree with this. According to my contacts and observations, most members of the Society incline toward cosmopolitanism. As evidence, consider the fact that a majority reject patriotism; they
reject the pursuit of the interests of one group or nation while disregarding the happiness of all mankind. The majority feel that each of us is a member of the
human race, and do not want to complicate the matter by belonging to some
meaningless country, family, or religion and becoming slaves to these. This type
of cosmopolitanism is a doctrine of universal brotherhood, it is an ism that seeks
to benefit not only oneself but also others. This is precisely what is called
socialism. All socialisms are international in nature and should not have any
patriotic coloration. Hesen said in his August 13 letter, "I will draw up a clear
and definite proposal, stressing two points the dictatorship of the proletariat
and internationalism. Since most of the clear-thinking young people I have seen
have some middle-class values mixed in with an internationalist coloration, we
must not fail to take a clear stand on these two points." Apart from proletarian
dictatorship, which I will discuss under the following heading, the point about
internationalism really needs to be solemnly emphasized now. True, we who are
born in this place, China, should naturally work in this locality, both because it is
more convenient to act here, and because China is more immature and more
corrupt than any other place in the world, and reform should therefore start here.
But our feelings should be universal; we must not love only this place and not
other places. This is one level. At the same time, our activities should in no way
be limited to China. In my opinion, even though there must be people working in
China, it is even more important to have people working throughout the world.
For example, there should be people helping Russia complete her social revolution, helping Korea gain independence, helping the countries of Southeast Asia
become independent, and helping Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Qinghai to
become autonomous and enjoy self-determination. All these causes are very
important. Next I shall discuss the question of methods.

II. The question of methods. Our goal-to reform China and the world having
been determined, the next question which arises is that of methods. When it
comes right down to it, what methods should we use to reach our goal "to reform
China and the world"? Hesen says in his letter, "I now see clearly that socialism
is a reaction to capitalism. Its main mission is to destroy the capitalist economic
system, and its method lies in the dictatorship of the proletariat." He also says, "I
don't think anarchism will work in the world today, because obviously there
exist two antagonistic classes in this world. In overthrowing the dictatorship of
the bourgeoisie, there is no way the reactionary forces can be suppressed save
by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Russia is a clear illustration. Therefore I
think that in the future reform of China, the principles and methods of socialism
will be entirely appropriate. . . . I think we must first organize a Communist
Party, because it is the initiator, propagandist, vanguard, and operational headquarters of the revolutionary movement." Hesen's view is that we should apply

Russian methods to reform China and the world. He is in favor of Marxist
methods. But Zisheng says, "The evolution of the world has no time limit, nor
does revolution. We do not regard it as permissible to sacrifice part of the people
in exchange for the welfare of the majority. I advocate a moderate revolution, a
revolution with education as its instrument, which seeks to promote the general
welfare of the people and carries out reforms through the medium of trade unions
and cooperatives. I do not think the Russian-style Marxist revolution is justified,
but am inclined to favor the new-style revolution of anarchism, or antiauthoritarianism, in the manner of Proudhon. It is milder and more gradual; although
gradual, it is mild." Meanwhile Li Hesheng, in a letter to me, has expressed
ideas similar to Zisheng's. He says, "To reform society, I do not approve of
sweeping reform. I feel it would be an excellent thing to transform society from
within by means of the division of labor and mutual aid. The diseases of each
society have their own particular background. I doubt very much that one prescription can cure all the world's ills. I have some fundamental reservations
about Russian-style revolution." In principle, I agree with Zisheng and
Hesheng's ideas (to seek the welfare of all by peaceful means), but I do not
believe they will work in reality. Russell, speaking in Changsha, advocated
ideas similar to those of Zisheng and Hesheng. He took a position in favor of
communism, but against the dictatorship of the workers and peasants. He said
that one should employ the method of education to make the propertied classes
conscious [of their failings], and that in this way it would not be necessary to
limit freedom or to have recourse to war and bloody revolution. After Russell's
speech, I argued in depth with Yinbo,¹⁰ Lirong,¹¹ and others. My assessment of
Russell's position can be summed up in two sentences: "This is all very well
in theory; in reality it can't be done." The crux of Russell's, Zisheng's and
Hesheng's arguments is "use the method of education." But education requires: (1) money, (2) people, and (3) institutions. In today's world, money is
entirely in the hands of the capitalists; those in charge of education are all either capitalists or slaves of capitalists. The schools and the press, the two most
important instruments of education, are also under the exclusive control of
the capitalists. In short, education in today's world is capitalist education. If
you teach capitalism to children, these children, when they grow up, will in
turn teach capitalism to a second generation of children. If education has thus
fallen into the hands of the capitalists, it is because they have "parliaments"
to pass laws protecting the capitalists and handicapping the proletariat. They
have "governments" to execute these laws and to enforce actively the advantages and prohibitions they contain. They have "armies" and "police" to provide passive guarantees for the safety and happiness of the capitalists and to
repress the demands of the proletariat. They have "banks" as their treasury to
ensure the circulation of their wealth. They have factories, which are the
instruments by which they monopolize the commodities produced. Consequently, unless the Communists seize political power, they will not be able to
find refuge in a place under their own control; how, then, could they take
charge of education? Thus the capitalists have long been in control of education and go on praising their capitalism to the skies, so that the number of
converts to the Communist propaganda of the Communist Party diminishes
day by day. That is why I believe that the method of education is not feasible.
A Russian-style revolution, it seems to me, is a last resort when all other
means have been exhausted. It is not that some other better means are rejected and we only want to use this terrorist tactic. This constitutes the first
argument. The second argument is that, on the basis of the principle of mental habits, and of observations on the course of human history, I feel it is
quite impossible to expect the capitalists to be converted to communism.
Human life is marked by habit, which is a psychological force just like the
force that causes an object to roll down a slope. To prevent the object from
rolling, according to the principles of mechanics, an equally strong force is
needed to counter it. In order to change a person's mind, a force of the same
strength is also needed to counter it. If we try to transform them by the power
of education, we will not be able to take over all or a large part of the two
instruments of education, the schools and the newspapers. Thus, even though
we have mouths and tongues, publications, and one or two schools as propaganda organs, it will be as Master Zhu¹² has said, "Teaching is like helping a
drunkard: when you help him up on one side, he falls down on the other
side." This is really not enough to change the mentality of the adherents of
capitalism even slightly; how, then, can one hope that they will repent and
turn toward the good? So much from a psychological standpoint. If we turn to the historical standpoint, human life is nothing but the expansion of men's real
desires. These real desires only expand, and assuredly never diminish. Small
capitalists necessarily want to be bigger capitalists; big capitalists necessarily
want to be among the biggest. This is a definite psychological pattern. Historically, no despot, imperialist, or militarist has ever stepped down of his own
free will without waiting for people to overthrow him. Napoleon I proclaimed
himself emperor and failed, but Napoleon III once again took the title of emperor. Yuan Shikai failed; then, once again, there was Duan Qirui. 13 Zhang
Taiyan, 14 when lecturing in Changsha, urged everyone to read history. He said
that Yuan, Duan, and the like had all failed because they never read history. I
would argue that to read history is an act of intelligence. To pursue one's desires
is an act of impulse. Intelligence can direct impulse effectively only within
certain boundaries. Once beyond those boundaries, impulse will prevail over the
intellect, advance boldly, and not be stopped until confronted with forces greater
than itself. There are popular sayings that bear this out, such as: "Unless a man
reaches the Yellow River, he will never give up," "The next mountain always
seems higher," and "Man is never satisfied; once he gets Gansu, he wants
Sichuan too." In the light of what I have just said, from both the psychological
and the historical standpoints, we can see that capitalism cannot be overthrown
by the force of a few feeble efforts at education. This is the second argument.
Now I turn to the third argument. Ideals are certainly important, but reality is
even more important. If we use peaceful means to attain the goal of communism,
when will we finally achieve it? Let us assume it will take a hundred years. How,
during these hundred years, are we going to deal with the unceasing groans of
the proletariat (who are in fact ourselves)? The proletariat is actually several times
more numerous than the bourgeoisie. If we assume that the proletariat constitutes
two-thirds of humanity, then 1 billion of the 1.5 billion members of the human race
are proletarians (I fear the figure is even higher), who during this century will be
cruelly exploited by the remaining third of capitalists. How can we bear this? Moreover, the proletariat has already become conscious of the fact that it, too, should
possess property, and that its present sufferings, caused by the absence of property, are unjustified. Because they are dissatisfied at having no property, 15 they have
put forward a demand for communism, 16 which has already become a fact.
This fact confronts us, we cannot make it disappear. It is a thing that makes you
want to act as soon as you become aware of it. Therefore, in my opinion, the
Russian Revolution, and the fact that radical Communists in various countries are daily growing more numerous and more tightly organized, represent
simply the natural course of events. This is the third argument. There is yet a
further reason, namely that I am skeptical about anarchism. My reasons for
this do not lie simply in the impossibility of a society without power or
organization, but in the difficulties that would result from creating such a
society. For such a social state will certainly decrease the death rate and
increase the birth rate, thus necessarily leading to overpopulation. Unless it is
possible to create a situation in which there is (1) no need to eat, (2) no need
for clothing, (3) no need for housing, and (4) climates and soil conditions all
over the world are the same, or (5) new lands are constantly being discovered
to accomodate people, in the end the predicament of overpopulation cannot
be avoided. For all the reasons just stated, my present view of absolute
liberalism, anarchism, and even democracy, 17 is that these things sound very
good in theory, but are not feasible in reality. Therefore, I do not agree with
the views of Zisheng and Hesheng, but express my profound approbation for
Hesen's views.

III. The question of attitude. There are two kinds of attitudes: that of the
Society, and that of the individual members. In my opinion, the attitude of
the Society should first of all be "low-key."18 This was discussed at Bansong
Park, in Shanghai, 19 and has now been approved as well by the members in
France, so it should be regarded as settled. It is important that we should "not
rely on old authorities." Our society is new and creative, and absolutely
should not allow old authorities to sneak in. We should ask everyone to pay
attention to this point. As for the attitudes of members toward each other, and
of members individually, I think they should comprise: (1) "mutual aid and
exhortation" (mutual help such as help in emergencies, studies, and careers;
mutual exhortation such as encouraging each other positively to do good and passively to avoid evil), (2) sincerity (not craftiness), (3) openheartedness (in
character), and (4) seeking improvement (having the ability to transform
one's nature and the will to improve oneself). The first point applies to
mutual relationships, the last three to individuals. The above two attitudes of
the Society, and four attitudes of the members, are relevant to the spirit of the
Society and its members and are exceedingly important.

IV. The question of studies. I strongly agree with your two approaches of joint
studies and specialized studies. You all feel that living in scattered quarters is not
convenient, and want to live together so that you can both work and have opportunities to meet for frequent discussions. This is excellent. The Changsha comrades are already in one location, and your example should definitely be copied
here. As for specializing in different subjects, there is no better way than to take
ideology as the key link and books and periodicals as the net; 20 to read first
individually and then exchange ideas. I suggest that wherever there are two
members, things should be organized in this way. Zisheng pointed out that we
must study hard and remarked that our general knowledge is still insufficient,
that none of us comrades have specialized learning, and that China has an insignificant number of scholars at present. This is indeed the truth! Progress in
thought is the foundation for progress in life and career. The only way to advance one's thinking is through study and research. I am very unhappy about my
neglect of my own studies. I must follow your example from now on, and strive
harder in my studies.

V. Questions relating to the operations of the Society. It is on this issue that
Zisheng and Hesen have most to say. I agree with all of Zisheng's eighteen items
in "My Views of the Society." Under the heading of "The Basic Plans," the three
paragraphs "determining the goals of the operation of the Society,” “preparing
talent," and "preparing funds" are particularly outstanding. As to designating the
period before 1936 as the purely preparatory stage, I suggest that it be extended
five more years so the preparatory stage will last until 1941. Among the items
listed by Zisheng concerning Changsha, three of them "building a firm foundation based on the main guidelines of the Society," "setting up primary schools,"
and "recruiting rank-and-file members" are most important. But a fourth one
should be added: "setting up various kinds of new and valuable enterprises." The
most important overseas headquarters as listed by Zisheng are France, Russia,
and Southeast Asia. I think the movements of the Society can be roughly
summed up, for the time being, under four headings: (1) the Hunan movement,
(2) the South East Asian movement, (3) the movement of going to France to
study, and (4) the movement of going to Russia to study. We do not now need to seek further expansion; if we can develop these four existing movements and
make it our goal to see them achieve results, this will be more practical. What do
you gentlemen think? As for the "primary school education," "labor education,"
"cooperative movement,” “pamphlets," "gathering relatives to live together,"
and "helping various bodies" that Hesen wants me to undertake, I am willing to
do all these things. The only point I do not understand is "sticking stamps."21
Please instruct me further. Now that the Cultural Book Society has been
established, its foundation can be consolidated, and the business end can also
move ahead. It appears that the present plan to establish a branch society in
every xian can be carried out within two years. If so, the effect will be
considerable.

VI. The question of maintaining liaison among comrades. This is extremely
important. I think all of us seventy-odd members should, with sincerest hearts, be
in touch individually with comrades near us all the time about everything, and
embark hand-in-hand on the road to world reform. Man or woman, old or young,
intellectual, peasant, worker, or merchant, whoever is sincere of heart, open and
frank in character, with thoughts turned toward self-improvement, and able to
benefit from mutual help and mutual encouragement, can be brought in and
become one of us.

This was discussed in detail in Hesen's letter, and was also mentioned by
Zisheng. I think the great enterprise of creating a special environment and
reforming China and the world can definitely not be carried out by a mere
handful. I hope each of our seventy-odd people will take this to heart.

I have more or less explained my ideas. I hear that Zisheng has already
returned to China and reached Beijing. 22 Soon we can talk face-to-face. I

---

Notes

This letter was first published in January 1921 in Vol. 3 of the Xinmin xuehui huiyuan
tongxinji (Collected Correspondence of Members of the New People's Study Society).
The source for our translation is the Chinese text in the documentary collection Xinmin
xuehui ziliao (Materials on the New People's Study Society), pp. 144-52, reproduced in
Mao Zedong ji. Bujuan, Vol. 1, pp. 289-96. (For further details regarding these and other
sources see the Note on Sources and Conventions at the beginning of this volume, and the
Bibliography at the end.)
1. Xiao Zisheng (1894-1976), also known as Xiao Xudong, was one of Mao's closest
friends during the years 1915-1920, as evidenced by the numerous letters and references
to him contained in Volume I of this edition. Xiao's book, published under the name of
Siao-yu, Mao Tse-tung and I Were Beggars (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1959),
reflects this intimacy as well as the hostility generated by their subsequent political differences. Xiao Zisheng went to France in 1919 on the work-study program, but returned to
China in the winter of 1920 and met with Mao in March 1921 in Changsha.
2. Cai Hesen (1895-1931), alternative name Cai Linbin, was a native of Xiangxiang
xian, Hunan. With Xiao Zisheng, he was one of Mao's two best friends during the years at
First Normal School in Changsha. The New People's Study Society was founded at a
meeting in his house, and unlike Xiao, he later followed the same political course as Mao.
Indeed, as indicated by Mao's letter to him of January 21, 1921, translated below, he
played an important role in convincing Mao Zedong that China should follow a Marxist
and a Leninist path.
3. I.e., the New People's Study Society.
4. This meeting was held in July 1920 at Montargis, a town some sixty miles south of
Paris where Cai, Xiao, Xiang Jingyu, and many members of the New People's Study
Society had gone with other work-study students to improve their French in the hope of
subsequently entering universities.
5. Shijiezhuyi, literally "world-ism."
6. Cai's term here is youchan jieji (literally "propertied class"), but the renderings of
Marxist terms were not yet clearly established in 1920, and plainly it is the bourgeoisie
(zichan jieji) he has in mind.
7. Xiao Zisheng, as quoted here, treats anarchist (wuzhengfu) and antiauthoritarian
(wuqiangquan, literally "no oppressive power") as synonyms that characterize the new
type of revolution advocated by Proudhon.
8. Li Hesheng (1897-), also known as Li Weihan, Luo Mai, and Luo Man, was a
native of Liling xian, Hunan. He was a student of the First Normal School, who joined the
New People's Study Society shortly after its founding in 1918. In mid-1919 he went to
France on the work-study program and while there was an active sponsor and organizer of
the Socialist Youth League. Upon his return to China he became a teacher in the Preparatory Class of the Self-Study University set up in September 1922.
9. Bertrand Russell attended a conference on the subject of constitutions sponsored by
official organizations in Changsha on November 1, 1920, and lectured on self-government.
10. On Peng Huang, zi Yinbo, see below, the note to Mao's letter to him dated January
28, 1921.
11. Yi Lirong. See below, the relevant note to Mao's letter of January 28, 1921, to
Peng Huang.
12. Zhu Xi, the Song dynasty neo-Confucian philosopher whose works Mao had studied under Yang Changji. In fact, Mao's paraphrase of this saying is closer to the original
statement of the Cheng brothers (see Er Cheng ji. Henan Chengshi yishu, Vol. 18) than to
Zhu Xi's adaptation, in Jinsilu. Weixue.
13. Duan Qirui (1865-1936), zi Zhiquan, was one of Yuan Shikai's chief lieutenants.
As premier for most of the time from April 1916 to October 1918, he did not seek to
restore the monarchy, as Yuan had done in 1915-1916, but he did strive to unify the
country by military means. Many critical references by Mao to his activities are to be
found in Volume I of this edition. A native of Hefei in Anhui Province, he was the leader
of the Anhui clique during the struggles among rival factions of northern militarists. For
an analysis of these events, see below, the text of April 10, 1923, "The Foreign Powers,
the Warlords, and the Revolution."
14. For details regarding Zhang Binglin (1869-1936), zi Meishu, hao Taiyan, see in
Volume I, p. 106, the note to Mao's letter of December 9, 1916, to Li Jinxi. In 1918 Zhang
broke with Sun Yatsen and thereafter evolved in a conservative direction. He had always
been a strong admirer of the Legalists, Han Feizi and Shang Yang, stressing the importance of an effective centralized administration.
15. Wuchan, literally "propertyless."
16. Gongchan, literally "common property."
17. Here Mao writes "democracy-ism" (demokelaxizhuyi), using (as was common at
the time) a phonetic transcription of the English word democracy, and adding zhuyi (ism)
at the end of it.
18. Qianzai. This compound commonly has the meaning of "latent," "hidden," or
"secret." Here the idea is that the members of the Society should not put themselves
forward too much for the time being.
19. Regarding the Bansong Park conference of May 1920, at which a "low-key and
realistic" attitude was decided on, see below, the "Report on the Activities of the New
People's Study Society," winter 1920-1921.
20. Yi zhuyi wei gang, yi shubao wei mu. This metaphor of the "key link" and the net is
one that Mao would employ constantly down to the end of his life, for example in the
slogans "grain as the key link" and "steel as the key link" at the time of the Great Leap
Forward, and "class struggle as the key link" during the Cultural Revolution.
21. "Sticking stamps" (tie youhua) had been advocated by Cai Hesen in his letter of
May 28, 1920, to Mao (Cai Hesen wenji [Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1980], p. 29). The
general idea, which Cai attributed to Li Shizeng, was plain enough: in order to husband its
own scarce resources, the New People's Study Society should find ways to make use of
the channels provided by other organizations in order to propagate its views. Three channels should be used: normal schools, primary schools, and existing periodicals. Cai's
explanation was not, however, altogether lucid, so it was not surprising that Mao did not
understand. In the case of other publications, the "stamps" were apparently small printed
documents to be stuck on, or inserted in, the periodical in question before it was distributed. In the case of schools, however, while such leaflets might have been used, "sticking
stamps" may also have been a metaphor for incorporating the ideas of the Society into oral
or written communications of the "host" organization.

22. The first report of the New People's Study Society, dated winter 1920, confirms
(Section IX) that Xiao Zisheng did indeed return to China in October 1920. Why, if Mao
was aware of this fact, did he include Xiao among the addressees of a letter sent to France?
The most likely explanation is that, since Xiao had chaired the meeting in Montargis at
which the Society's objectives were discussed, Mao used his name and that of Cai Hesen
as representative of the two main tendencies expressed on that occasion.