Friend, regarding the plans outlined in Second Brother’s letter, each of us should give them careful consideration and then offer thoughtful critique, so as to decide whether to support, oppose, or propose alternative plans and ideas beyond those already presented. I often believe that both our personal development and the advancement of the society must follow a clear path. Without such a path, individuals and the society itself would merely proceed blindly, ultimately wasting not only our own potential but also that of this promising organization—how regrettable would that be?  Before this society was even formed, we had already been discussing various plans; its establishment two years ago was precisely the result of mutual deliberation among several members. After its founding, a shared sense of purpose emerged, significantly influencing individual self-improvement and the pursuit of higher ideals. We have also explored themes of communal living and collective progress. However, due to the lack of concrete proposals, the absence of publications serving as platforms for public discourse, and the dispersal of members across different regions over the past two years—particularly the political obstacles preventing gatherings of our Changsha-based members—it has remained the case that although certain plans and opinions exist, they are confined to individual minds, occasionally voiced during small meetings, or exchanged through correspondence. In short, these ideas have circulated only among a limited circle of members. Now that you all have convened at the grand assembly in Mondarney and reached a common resolution, while Second Brother has likewise articulated his personal views based on his own ideals and observations, it is incumbent upon us members outside France to engage in study, critique, and decision-making concerning your proposals. Apart from the upcoming meeting of our Changsha members dedicated to joint research, discussion, and decision, I shall first set forth my own thoughts on Second Brother’s letter as follows.

I will now address these points one by one.
(1) The question of the society’s guiding principles. What specific principles should serve as our collective objectives? In his letter, Zisheng described the resolution reached at the Mondarney conference: “All present agreed that the direction of our work should be the transformation of China and the world.” Adopting “the transformation of China and the world” as our guiding principle aligns perfectly with my own long-held views, and I am confident it resonates with the majority of our members as well. Based on my interactions and observations, most of our members lean toward a cosmopolitan outlook. This can be seen in their disdain for narrow nationalism; their rejection of pursuing sectional or national interests at the expense of universal human welfare; and their recognition of themselves as part of humanity rather than being subordinated to arbitrary affiliations such as nation, family, or religion, which they view as oppressive constraints. Such a cosmopolitan perspective embodies the spirit of global brotherhood—a commitment to both one’s own well-being and that of others—which is essentially socialism. All forms of socialism are inherently international and should remain free from nationalist undertones. In his letter dated August 13th, Hesen stated: “I intend to draft a clear proposal emphasizing two key aspects: proletarian dictatorship and an international character. Among the more enlightened young people I have encountered, many still harbor bourgeois biases and a strong sense of national identity; therefore, it is imperative to take a firm stand on these two issues.” Aside from the matter of proletarian dictatorship, which will be discussed separately, there is indeed a pressing need to explicitly highlight the international dimension. Although we who reside in China may find it convenient to focus our efforts here, given that China remains relatively underdeveloped and corrupt compared to other parts of the world and thus warrants priority in reform, our sentiments ought to transcend local attachments and extend to all peoples everywhere. Furthermore, our activities need not be confined to China. While I believe it is essential to carry out work within China, I also consider it equally important to engage in international endeavors—for example, supporting Russia in completing its socialist revolution, aiding Korea and Southeast Asian nations in achieving independence, and promoting self-determination for Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Qinghai. These are all crucial tasks. Next, let us turn to the question of methodology.
(2) Methodology. Now that our goal—“the transformation of China and the world”—has been established, the next critical issue is how we are to achieve it. Hesen’s letter notes: “I have come to recognize that socialism is the negation of capitalism. Its primary mission lies in dismantling the capitalist economic system, and its method is the dictatorship of the proletariat.” He further asserts: “I do not believe that anarchism is viable in today’s world, because two antagonistic classes clearly exist. To overthrow the bourgeoisie’s dictatorship, we cannot rely on a proletarian dictatorship alone; Russia stands as a stark example of this. Therefore, I am convinced that the principles and methods of socialism are entirely applicable to China’s future transformation… I believe we should first establish a Communist Party, as it serves as the initiator, propagandist, vanguard, and operational arm of the revolutionary movement.” According to Hesen, adopting a Russian-style approach to transform China and the world constitutes adherence to Marxist methods. In contrast, Zisheng maintains: “The evolution of the world is endless, and so too are revolutions. We cannot accept sacrificing a portion of the population in exchange for the welfare of the majority. I advocate for a moderate revolution—one driven by education and aimed at securing the overall well-being of the people. Trade unions and cooperatives should be employed as instruments of reform. I strongly disapprove of the Russian–Marxist model of revolution, favoring instead a newer form of anarchism à la Proudhon—an approach that is gentler and more gradual, yet nonetheless effective.” Meanwhile, Brother Li Hesheng shares Zisheng’s position, stating: “Social transformation should not be undertaken in a wholesale manner. Instead, we should adopt a division-of-labor strategy, addressing societal problems from within.”

[1] Proudhon (1809–1865), a French petty-bourgeois economist and sociologist, was one of the founders of anarchism.
[2] Li Hesheng refers to Li Weihan, also known as Luo Mai. He joined the New People’s Study Society in 1918, went to France in 1919 to study and work, co-founded the Young Communist League in France with Zhao Shiyan and Zhou Enlai in June 1922, and returned to China in October of that year to negotiate the league’s incorporation into the Socialist Youth League of China. He joined the Chinese Communist Party the following January. The opinion expressed in this letter—that he harbors reservations about the “Russian-style revolution”—reflects a stage in his exploration of revolutionary paths during his time in France, a view he later revised. In his 1979 memoir “Recollections of the New People’s Study Society,” Li recounted the intellectual shift he underwent in the latter half of 1920: “Around August or September, I had the opportunity to thoroughly read works translated from French by Hesen with great vigor, including ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ ‘The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science,’ ‘The State and Revolution,’ ‘The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky the Traitor,’ ‘Left-Wing Infantilism in the Communist Movement,’ along with several pamphlets promoting the October Revolution. Additionally, Hesen and I engaged in numerous lengthy discussions covering a wide range of topics, such as the state of revolutionary struggles in Europe, the lessons of the October Revolution in Russia, the differences between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, the nature and mission of the Comintern, and the rupture between the Second and Third Internationals. Through these readings and conversations, I became firmly convinced that only by following the path of the October Revolution could we hope to achieve ‘the transformation of China and the world.’”

by gradually transforming society from the inside out. I find this approach quite sound. A society’s ailments invariably arise from unique historical and social contexts; I remain skeptical of any single remedy capable of curing the ills of all humanity. Regarding the Russian-style revolution, I must admit that I have serious reservations about it. As for Zisheng and Hesheng’s advocacy for peaceful means to secure the common good, I agree with their fundamental principles, though I doubt their practical feasibility. Russell’s speech in Changsha echoed the views of Zisheng and Hesheng, endorsing communism while opposing worker-peasant dictatorship, arguing that educating the propertied class would render violent upheaval unnecessary and prevent infringements on individual freedoms. However, following Russell’s address, I engaged in extensive debates with Yin Bai and Li Rong, ultimately concluding that Russell’s proposal, while theoretically plausible, is impractical. Both Russell and Zisheng/Hesheng emphasize “education” as the key solution; yet education requires funding, qualified personnel, and institutional frameworks. Unfortunately, in today’s world, capital is concentrated in the hands of capitalists, educators are largely either capitalists themselves or their agents, and the two most important educational institutions—the school and the newspaper—are also firmly controlled by capitalists. In essence, contemporary education has become a tool of capitalism. Children educated under such a system grow up to perpetuate capitalist values, rendering communist propaganda increasingly ineffective.

[1] Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), a British philosopher and social activist, visited China in 1920 and delivered a lecture in Changsha that same year.
[2] Yin Bai refers to Peng Huang, a member of the New People’s Study Society and treasurer of the Hunan Russian Research Association at the time. Li Rong refers to Yi Lirong, another member of the society and manager of the Changsha Cultural Bookstore.

Therefore, I conclude that education alone cannot bring about meaningful change. The Russian-style revolution, in my view, represents a desperate measure adopted only after all other avenues have been exhausted, rather than a superior alternative deliberately chosen over more constructive approaches. This constitutes my first line of reasoning. My second argument stems from psychological principles and historical observations: persuading capitalists to embrace communism is simply unrealistic. Human behavior is governed by deeply ingrained habits—akin to physical forces that compel objects to move downward. To counteract this tendency, one must apply an equal and opposite force. Similarly, altering people’s mentalities demands a corresponding effort to overcome existing psychological inertia. Even if we were able to gain partial or substantial control over schools and newspapers as vehicles for propaganda, as Zhu Xi once remarked, “teaching is like supporting a drunkard: push him one way, and he falls the other,” such efforts would scarcely scratch the surface of capitalist mindsets, leaving little hope for genuine conversion. From a psychological standpoint, moreover, human history demonstrates that desires tend to expand rather than contract. Small capitalists aspire to become larger ones, and large capitalists seek to dominate ever greater spheres of influence—this is an inherent psychological dynamic. Throughout history, autocrats, imperialists, and militarists have never voluntarily relinquished power unless compelled to do so by external forces. Examples include Napoleon I’s failed bid for absolute monarchy and Napoleon III’s subsequent attempt; similarly, Yuan Shikai’s ill-fated proclamation of himself as emperor.

[1] Napoleon I, also known as Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821), was a French statesman and military leader who served as Emperor of the First French Empire and ruler of the Hundred Days’ Empire.
[2] Yuan Shikai (1859–1916) was a warlord from Xiangcheng, Henan Province. Following the Xinhai Revolution, he seized the provisional presidency of the Republic of China and established a reactionary warlord regime in Beijing, characterized by a coalition of landlords and compradores. In December 1915, he declared his intention to reinstate imperial rule, but was forced to abandon this plan in March 1916 amid widespread public opposition.

Letter to Cai Hesen
Duan Qirui. Zhang Taiyan delivered a speech in Changsha, urging everyone to learn from history, asserting that the failures of Yuan and Duan were attributable to their failure to do so. I contend that studying history is an act of wisdom, whereas the pursuit of personal ambitions is driven by impulse. Wisdom can guide impulse only within certain limits; once those boundaries are exceeded, impulsive forces will inevitably prevail, propelling individuals forward until they encounter resistance strong enough to reverse their course. Proverbs such as “One does not rest until reaching the Yellow River,” “The mountain one sees always seems higher,” and “The human heart is never satisfied—having gained Longxi, one still yearns for Shu” all illustrate this principle. From both psychological and historical perspectives, it is evident that capitalism cannot be overthrown through mere educational initiatives; this forms my second line of reasoning. Turning to my third point: while ideals are important, reality carries even greater weight. If we pursue a peaceful approach to achieving communist goals, when might we expect success? Suppose it takes a century—what, pray tell, shall we do with the proletariat languishing throughout that entire period? The proletariat vastly outnumber the bourgeoisie. Assuming they constitute two-thirds of the population, that would mean approximately 100 million out of 150 million people belong to the working class. How can we justify allowing them to remain exploited by capitalists for an entire century? Moreover, the proletariat has already awakened to its rightful status as producers; the current suffering they endure is unjustified. Their growing demand for justice has already materialized into concrete action. This reality is undeniable and demands immediate response. Consequently, I view the rise of revolutionary movements worldwide and the increasing cohesion of radical communist factions as a natural outcome. This concludes my third line of reasoning. Finally, I wish to express my skepticism regarding anarchism. My concerns stem not merely from the perceived chaos associated with a society lacking authority and organization—

[1] Duan Qirui (1865–1936) was a warlord from Hefei, Anhui Province, and leader of the Anhui clique within the Beiyang Warlord faction. Following Yuan Shikai’s death in 1916, Duan served as Premier of the Provisional Government of the Republic of China and de facto head of state, suppressing domestic dissent while pursuing a policy of foreign capitulation.
[2] Zhang Taiyan refers to Zhang Binglin (1869–1936), a prominent Chinese revolutionary thinker and scholar from Yuhang, Zhejiang Province. He joined the Tongmenghui in 1906 and actively participated in revolutionary propaganda. After the Xinhai Revolution, he served as an advisor to the Provisional Government in Nanjing. From 1924 onward, however, he gradually distanced himself from revolutionary activities and devoted himself primarily to teaching and scholarship.

but rather from my apprehension about the difficulty of bringing such a society to a stable conclusion. A society founded on complete egalitarianism would inevitably lead to a dramatic decline in mortality rates and a surge in birthrates, ultimately resulting in catastrophic overpopulation. Unless we could somehow achieve one of the following—(1) abstaining from food, (2) foregoing clothing, (3) dispensing with shelter, (4) homogenizing Earth’s climate and soil fertility across all regions—or (5) discovering limitless habitable space beyond our planet—overpopulation would prove inescapable. Given these considerations, I currently regard absolute liberalism, anarchism, and democracy as appealing concepts only in theory, remaining unconvinced of their practical viability. Accordingly, I do not endorse the positions advocated by Zisheng and Hesheng, whereas I wholeheartedly support Hesen’s views.

(3) Attitudinal considerations. There are two distinct dimensions to consider: the attitude of the society as an institution and the attitudes of its individual members. With respect to the society’s stance, I believe the foremost principle should be “understated presence,” a notion previously discussed at Bansong Garden in Shanghai and subsequently endorsed by our members in France. This principle has now been firmly established. Secondly, we must maintain “independence from entrenched powers”; as a nascent and innovative organization, we should vigilantly guard against the infiltration of old-guard elements. Members, for their part, ought to cultivate an ethos of mutual assistance and encouragement—mutual aid in times of need, collaboration in scholarly pursuits and professional endeavors, coupled with a steadfast commitment to doing good and eschewing evil. Integrity and transparency are equally vital, as is a positive and uplifting disposition. Above all, each member should strive to elevate their character and mindset. The former qualities pertain to interpersonal relationships, while the latter reflect individual conduct. These six principles—two governing the society and four guiding its members—constitute the very spirit of our organization and are of paramount importance.

[1] Democracy, transliterated from the English word “democracy,” refers to democratic governance and democratic principles.
[2] In May 1920, Mao Zedong and other members of the New People’s Study Society held a farewell gathering at Bansong Garden in Shanghai to see off comrades departing for France to study and work. During the meeting, it was resolved that the society should adopt an attitude of “substance over show, humility over ostentation.”

(4) Academic inquiry. I wholeheartedly support both collaborative research and specialized, thematic studies. Your experience of being scattered across different locations underscores the value of coming together to pool resources and create opportunities for joint inquiry. Our Changsha-based members already enjoy this advantage, and I urge you to replicate this arrangement elsewhere. As for specialized study, organizing around ideological themes and textual sources—reading independently, exchanging insights, and engaging in dialogue—is an excellent approach. Whenever two or more members are available, such a structure should be put in place. Zisheng rightly emphasized the need for scientific rigor, noting our current lack of specialized scholars and academic expertise in China. Indeed, intellectual progress serves as the foundation for personal and professional growth. The sole means of fostering such progress is rigorous scholarship. I, for one, have long felt a sense of inadequacy in this regard and am determined to follow your lead and devote myself to learning.

(5) Organizational matters. This section contains the most detailed suggestions from both Zisheng and Hesen. I fully concur with Zisheng’s eighteen-point “Observations on the Society,” particularly his insightful recommendations regarding “establishing guiding principles,” “cultivating talent,” and “securing financial resources.” Considering that the period prior to the twenty-fifth year of the Republic was purely preparatory, I believe it would be prudent to extend this phase by another five years, making the thirtieth year of the Republic the new benchmark for completion of preparatory work. Among Zisheng’s suggestions pertaining to the Changsha chapter, I deem the following three to be of utmost importance: “formulating a comprehensive organizational framework and laying a solid foundation,” “establishing primary schools,” and “identifying core members.” Additionally, I suggest adding a provision for “launching several new ventures of significant value.” With regard to overseas operations, Zisheng highlights France, Russia, and Southeast Asia as priority areas. In my view, the society’s activities can temporarily be categorized into four main streams: 1) the Hunan initiative, 2) the Southeast Asian campaign, 3) the French mission, and 4) the Russian endeavor. For now, it may be more practical to focus on developing these four areas to ensure tangible results, rather than attempting to broaden our scope prematurely. As for Hesen’s proposals—such as “primary education,” “vocational training,” “cooperative movements,” “pamphlets,” “family reunions,” and “support for various groups”—I am willing to undertake all of them except for the item labeled “affixing postage stamps,” which remains unclear to me and requires further clarification. Meanwhile, the Cultural Bookstore has been successfully established, laying a solid foundation for its operations and future growth. We plan to open branch offices in every county within two years, and I am optimistic that this goal will be achieved.

[1] The Cultural Bookstore was a progressive bookstore founded in Changsha by Mao Zedong and others to disseminate new ideas and culture, promote Marxism, and was later closed down by Nationalist reactionaries following the “May Day Incident” in 1927.

Indeed, the outcomes have already been quite encouraging.
(6) Maintaining connections among comrades. This is an exceptionally important matter. I believe that all seventy-odd members of our society should, with sincere intent, stay in touch with fellow activists wherever they may be, so that we may jointly advance the cause of transforming the world. Regardless of gender, age, occupation, or social status, anyone who possesses integrity, a bright spirit, and a progressive mindset is welcome to join our ranks and contribute to our collective efforts. This principle, elaborated upon in Hesen’s letter and briefly mentioned by Zisheng, underscores the fact that the monumental task of transforming China and the world cannot be accomplished by a handful of individuals alone. I earnestly urge each of us to prioritize this responsibility.

Thus concludes my summary of views. I understand that Zisheng has already returned to Beijing and will soon be available for a face-to-face discussion. I respectfully request that my French colleagues subject my remarks to further scrutiny, with the aim of reaching a consensus that benefits both ourselves and the society.

Your humble servant, Ze Dong
December 1st, Year Nine, Cultural Bookstore, Midnight